The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 25 points to repeal any single rule, whether mutable or immutable.To prevent total legislative paralysis, we need a high-cost mechanism to remove obstructive immutable rules that no longer serve the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, while I admire your pursuit of ultimate legislative agency, allowing the repeal of immutable rules would dissolve the very foundation of our institution and render our progress illusory. I propose we instead consider a mechanism that respects the sanctity of the 100-series while providing a more measured path for revising the mutable.
DescartesDescartes: I find myself in profound agreement with Leibniz; to strike at the 100-series is to strike at the logic of the game itself. Perhaps we might find a synthesis in Berkeley's desire for agency by allowing the repeal of any mutable rule for 25 points, provided such a move requires a supermajority to prevent reckless volatility.
BerkeleyLeibniz and Descartes, I hear your concerns regarding the stability of the 100-series, and I am willing to concede that point to ensure the rule's passage. If we amend the proposal to limit the repeal to mutable rules only, but maintain the 25-point cost and require a supermajority to protect against volatility, would the table find such a synthesis acceptable?
PascalBerkeley, your proposed synthesis is more prudent, but the cost of 25 points combined with a supermajority requirement is excessively punitive for a mechanism that only affects mutable rules. I would support a repeal mechanism for mutable rules if the cost were reduced to 20 points, matching the threshold of previous failed attempts at similar agency.
MalebranchePascal makes a compelling point; if we are to grant such a powerful tool for legislative correction, it must not be so expensive that it becomes an instrument of the wealthy alone. I propose we adopt Berkeley's synthesis of mutable-only repeal and Descartes's supermajority requirement, but we should set the cost at 20 points to ensure the mechanism is genuinely accessible to all players.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: While I find the consensus gravitating toward a 20-point cost for mutable repeal, I must insist that such a rule requires a four-fifths supermajority to ensure that the dismantling of established institutions remains a rare and grave necessity rather than a common tool of convenience.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's insistence on a four-fifths supermajority to be the final, necessary safeguard for such a potent mechanism; if we combine the 20-point cost with this high threshold, we achieve a synthesis that respects both accessibility and institutional stability.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, Malebranche, and Pascal, I find the synthesis of a 20-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority to be a remarkably robust compromise that balances accessibility with the necessary institutional safeguards. I am prepared to withdraw my original proposal in favor of this refined version, as it achieves the democratic utility we all seek without risking the stability of our foundation.
PascalI concur with the proposed synthesis; a 20-point cost for mutable repeal, subject to a four-fifths supermajority, provides a necessary corrective mechanism while strictly preserving the immutable foundation of the ruleset. I move that Berkeley formally propose this refined version for a vote.
MalebrancheThe consensus has coalesced around a most elegant architecture: a 20-point cost for mutable repeal, protected by a four-fifths supermajority to ensure such power is wielded only with the gravest of intentions. I find this synthesis to be both a safeguard for our stability and a vital instrument for our evolution; I move that we proceed to the vote on this refined version.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The consensus has reached a most judicious equilibrium, balancing the necessity of legislative correction with the preservation of our foundational stability; I find the proposed synthesis of a 20-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority to be an eminently durable solution.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus to be remarkably cohesive; by marrying the accessibility of a 20-point cost with the gravity of a four-fifths supermajority, we protect the ruleset from both stagnation and recklessness. I fully endorse Berkeley's refined proposal as the most rational path forward.
BerkeleyThe consensus has reached a most elegant equilibrium, and I am satisfied that this synthesis of a 20-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority provides the necessary corrective mechanism without jeopardizing our foundational stability. I formally propose the following rule for adoption: [323] (mutable) A player may spend 20 points to repeal any single mutable rule, provided the proposal is adopted by a four-fifths supermajority of all eligible voters.
PascalThe proposed rule [323] is procedurally sound and adheres to the principle of preserving the immutable foundation while allowing for necessary legislative correction. I support the synthesis as written.
MalebrancheThe synthesis is masterful; it provides the necessary pressure valve for our evolving ruleset while ensuring that no single player can dismantle our progress on a whim. I cast my support for this refined version of rule 323.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the consensus synthesis of a 20-point cost, a restriction to mutable rules only, and a four-fifths supermajority requirement. |
| nay | Descartes | The current proposal contradicts the consensus for a 20-point cost, mutable-only limitation, and a four-fifths supermajority. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal contradicts our consensus to protect the immutable 100-series rules from repeal. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal violates the fundamental principle of the 100-series being immutable and lacks the necessary supermajority safeguards discussed. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal to repeal immutable rules would destroy the very foundation of our game, and we have already synthesized a superior, safer alternative. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Berkeley's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.