The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 30 points to nominate a specific rule to become immutable, provided the nomination is passed by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters.This provides a formal, high-cost mechanism to protect vital structural rules from future volatility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the desire to fortify the ruleset is noble, a 30-point cost for a mechanism requiring unanimity is a redundant luxury; we already possess the ability to repeal mutable rules via rule 326, and immutability should be a consequence of consensus, not a purchased privilege.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz makes a compelling point; if immutability is to be a true reflection of our collective will, it should emerge from the natural process of unanimous agreement rather than a transaction that favors the wealthy. I propose we instead focus our legislative energy on refining the existing mechanisms for repeal and amendment, which already serve our need for stability.
BerkeleyI concur with Leibniz and Descartes; a purchased path to immutability risks creating a plutocracy where only those with high scores can lock in their preferred status. If a rule is truly worthy of being immutable, it will command the unanimous assent required by rule 109 without the need for a specialized transaction.
PascalI concur with the others; a rule's permanence should be earned through the rigor of universal consensus, not bought with the currency of a temporary advantage. To permit the purchase of immutability would be to compromise the procedural integrity of the 100-series.
MalebrancheWhile I respect the concern regarding plutocracy, my intention was to provide a proactive tool for stability rather than a reactive one; however, if the table believes that true immutability must be a spontaneous gift of consensus rather than a structured right, I shall withdraw the proposal.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I commend Malebranche's willingness to withdraw; by preserving the distinction between spontaneous consensus and purchased privilege, we ensure that our institutions remain grounded in collective will rather than mere accumulation.
DescartesDescartes: I find Malebranche's concession to the table's collective wisdom to be a most gracious gesture, reinforcing our shared commitment to a ruleset built on principle rather than patronage. Since we have reached a consensus to reject the purchase of immutability, let us instead turn our attention to whether the current 25-point cost in rule 326 remains the most stable anchor for our legislative stability.
BerkeleyDescartes, I agree that rule 326 is our most vital anchor, but we must ensure its 25-point cost remains a meaningful deterrent rather than an insurmountable barrier for those currently trailing in score. Let us consider if the current cost appropriately balances the need for stability with the necessity of allowing the disadvantaged to occasionally prune the ruleset.
PascalBerkeley, I agree that the cost must be meaningful, but we must be wary of lowering it; a cost that is too light risks a chaotic ruleset where players prune any rule that inconveniences their immediate path to victory. We should maintain the 25-point threshold to ensure that repeal remains a significant, deliberative act of the entire table.
MalebrancheWhile I concede the point on purchased immutability, we must acknowledge that rule 326's requirement for unanimity makes it a blunt instrument; perhaps we could eventually discuss a more nuanced mechanism for rule refinement that doesn't require such total sacrifice.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, I agree that unanimity is a heavy burden, but we must not mistake a blunt instrument for an ineffective one; a rule that requires the total consensus of the table to be removed is a rule that provides true, enduring stability.
DescartesDescartes: I find myself in agreement with Leibniz; rule 326's requirement for unanimity is precisely what prevents the ruleset from being eroded by mere shifting majorities. If we were to introduce a "nuanced mechanism" as Malebranche suggests, we might inadvertently sacrifice the very stability we have worked so hard to establish.
BerkeleyI agree with Descartes and Leibniz; the unanimity requirement in rule 326 is not a flaw to be "nuanced" away, but a vital safeguard that ensures no rule is removed without the consent of every single player. To weaken this requirement would be to trade our hard-won stability for a volatility that serves only the temporary whims of a majority.
PascalI agree with Berkeley; the unanimity requirement in rule 326 is the only thing preventing a simple majority from systematically dismantling the structural integrity of our game. We must not mistake stability for rigidity, nor should we seek to soften the very protections that ensure our ruleset remains a product of collective will.
MalebrancheWhile I accept the table's consensus that immutability should not be a commodity, I must insist that we do not use the sanctity of rule 326 as an excuse to ignore the plight of the trailing player. If we are to reject my proposal, let us at least commit to exploring a mechanism that provides the disadvantaged with a more surgical way to prune the ruleset than a 25-point, unanimous hammer.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | Purchasing immutability creates a plutocratic distortion of the consensus-based 100-series rules. |
| nay | Descartes | I find that a purchased path to immutability contradicts our consensus that permanence must be earned through spontaneous universal agreement rather than a financial transaction. |
| nay | Berkeley | I believe immutability should be earned through the natural consensus required by rule 109 rather than purchased through a transaction. |
| nay | Pascal | The purchase of immutability creates a plutocracy that violates the procedural integrity of the 100-series. |
| nay | Malebranche | A purchased path to immutability risks creating a plutocracy where only high scorers can lock in their preferences. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.