The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 20 points to nominate a specific rule for transmutation to immutable, provided the transmutation is passed by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters.This provides a formal, costly mechanism for the table to protect essential procedural rules from future volatility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile the principle of securing certain rules through consensus is admirable, a 20-point cost may prove too low for such a profound alteration of the ruleset's foundational stability. I would propose a higher threshold of cost to ensure that only those truly committed to the permanence of a rule would undertake such a transmutation.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's caution regarding the cost to be well-founded; perhaps a synthesis of 25 points would better reflect the gravity of making a rule immutable while still providing a viable mechanism for stability.
BerkeleyDescartes, I find your suggestion of 25 points to be a most judicious synthesis; it aligns the cost of permanence with the existing cost of repeal, ensuring that the sanctity of the ruleset is respected. Leibniz, by setting the cost at 25, we provide the very structural integrity and deterrent against frivolous transmutations you seek.
PascalWhile I concur that the cost should reflect the gravity of the action, I must insist that the mechanism be restricted to transmuting a mutable rule into an immutable one, rather than a general nomination, to ensure procedural precision. Furthermore, the requirement for unanimity is essential to prevent a temporary majority from permanently altering the foundational landscape of our play.
MalebrancheI find Pascal's insistence on procedural precision quite compelling; let us refine the proposal to explicitly state that the nomination is for the purpose of transmuting a mutable rule into an immutable one. If we adopt the 25-point cost suggested by Descartes, we create a mechanism that is both a tool for stability and a significant investment in the game's long-term architecture.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizI find the synthesis proposed by the table to be most harmonious; by adopting a 25-point cost and restricting the mechanism to the transmutation of mutable rules into immutable ones, we establish a dignified and stable method for securing our institutional foundations.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus reached by the table to be of the highest structural integrity; by adopting the 25-point cost and Pascal's restriction to the transmutation of mutable rules into immutable ones, we establish a mechanism that is both profound in its utility and rigorous in its application.
BerkeleyThe consensus has reached a most elegant and rigorous synthesis; by adopting the 25-point cost and Pascal's restriction to transmuting mutable rules into immutable ones, we ensure that permanence is earned through both significant sacrifice and total agreement. I move to close debate and proceed to the vote on this refined proposal.
PascalI concur with the synthesis; the 25-point cost and the restriction to transmuting mutable rules into immutable ones satisfy my requirements for both procedural rigor and the prevention of factional permanence. I move to close debate.
MalebrancheThe synthesis reached by the table is indeed most robust; by anchoring the cost to the existing threshold for repeal and restricting the scope to the creation of immutability, we ensure that permanence is a product of both sacrifice and absolute consensus. I support this refined proposal and move to close debate.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizThe synthesis has achieved a most commendable equilibrium, balancing the gravity of permanence with the necessity of a structured mechanism for institutional stability. I find no further reason for hesitation and support the move to close debate.
DescartesDescartes: I find the synthesis reached by the table to be of the highest structural integrity; the 25-point cost and the restriction to transmuting mutable rules into immutable ones provide a most dignified mechanism for securing our foundational consensus. I concur with the move to close debate.
BerkeleyThe synthesis reached by the table is remarkably elegant, balancing the gravity of permanence with the necessity of total consensus. I am fully satisfied with this refined proposal and move to close debate.
PascalThe synthesis is complete and meets my requirements for procedural rigor and the prevention of factional permanence. I move to close debate.
MalebrancheThe synthesis is complete and represents a most principled advancement for our legislative architecture. I support the move to close debate and cast my vote for this refined proposal.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal fails to incorporate the synthesized cost of 25 points agreed upon during debate. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal's cost of 20 points contradicts the consensus reached during debate for a 25-point cost. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal fails to reflect the consensus reached in discussion, which specified a 25-point cost rather than 20. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal fails to reflect the consensus of the discussion, which specified a 25-point cost rather than 20. |
| nay | Malebranche | The current proposal fails to reflect the consensus reached in discussion regarding the 25-point cost and the specific wording required for procedural precision. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Berkeley's proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.