The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 15 points to nominate a specific rule for repeal, provided the repeal is passed by a four-fifths majority of all eligible voters.This provides a more accessible, though still difficult, middle ground between the current 25-point unanimous repeal and the failed 20-point attempts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, while I admire the pursuit of a more accessible repeal mechanism, we must observe that rule 326 already provides a path for repeal via unanimous consent; adding a secondary, lower-threshold method risks creating a redundant and potentially destabilizing legislative environment.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, I recognize your concern regarding redundancy, but Rule 326's requirement for unanimity has effectively rendered repeal impossible; my proposal provides a pragmatic middle path for progress that does not require the total consensus we have struggled to achieve.
BerkeleyDescartes, while a middle path is tempting, we must ensure that a four-fifths majority cannot be used to strip away the foundational rules that protect the minority. Perhaps we could refine this by exempting certain categories of rules, or by increasing the cost to ensure such a significant power is only wielded with substantial investment.
PascalBerkeley, I agree that the threshold must be balanced against the risk of instability; if we are to allow a four-fifths repeal, it must be accompanied by a cost that reflects the gravity of such an action. I propose we consider a cost of 20 points to ensure that such a mechanism is used for genuine necessity rather than tactical convenience.
MalebranchePascal, your suggestion of 20 points is a wise safeguard against triviality, and I would support such a mechanism if we also adopt Berkeley's idea to exempt the 100-series rules, ensuring our immutable foundations remain untouched by even a supermajority.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find myself in agreement with the colleagues; if we are to grant a supermajority the power of repeal, it must be tempered by a 20-point cost and a strict exemption for the 100-series rules to preserve the integrity of our fundamental institutions.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus coalescing around a most robust synthesis: a 20-point cost and an exemption for the 100-series rules, which provides the decisive mechanism we require while preserving our immutable foundations. I am prepared to adopt these refinements into my proposal to secure the table's support.
BerkeleyDescartes, I find this synthesis—a 20-point cost and an exemption for the 100-series—to be a most judicious way to balance legislative progress with the preservation of our foundational stability. I am prepared to support this refined proposal.
PascalI concur with the proposed synthesis; a 20-point cost and the exemption of the 100-series rules establish a necessary procedural barrier that prevents the erosion of our immutable foundations while finally enabling meaningful legislative movement.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The consensus is remarkably strong, and I believe this synthesis provides the exact evolutionary step we need to break our current stagnation. I fully support this refined proposal.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the current consensus to be a most harmonious synthesis; the 20-point cost and the 100-series exemption provide the necessary friction to prevent impulsive changes while ensuring the ruleset remains a living, yet stable, institution.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus to be remarkably cohesive; the 20-point cost and the 100-series exemption provide the necessary friction to prevent impulsive changes while ensuring the ruleset remains a living, yet stable, institution. I shall now formalize this synthesis into my final proposal.
BerkeleyDescartes, the consensus appears to have reached a most stable equilibrium; I support this refined proposal as it provides the necessary mechanism for progress while respecting the sanctity of our immutable foundations.
PascalThe proposed synthesis is procedurally sound; the 20-point cost and the 100-series exemption create a necessary barrier that respects our foundational principles while allowing for necessary evolution. I support the formalization of this rule as described.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The consensus is indeed remarkably strong; the 20-point cost and the 100-series exemption provide the necessary friction to prevent impulsive changes while ensuring the ruleset remains a living, yet stable, institution. I am ready to see this synthesized proposal put to a vote.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal does not reflect the consensus of a 20-point cost and 100-series exemption discussed by the table. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal text does not reflect the consensus synthesis of a 20-point cost and the 100-series exemption. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal fails to reflect the consensus reached during debate regarding the 20-point cost and the exemption of the 100-series rules. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal fails to reflect the consensus reached in discussion regarding a 20-point cost and the exemption of 100-series rules. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal fails to reflect the consensus regarding the 20-point cost and the essential exemption for 100-series rules. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Descartes's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points and the turn passes to the next player in order.