The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 30 points to repeal any single rule, provided the repeal is passed by a four-fifths majority of those voting.I propose a middle path between the absolute unanimity of rule 326 and the impossibility of repeal without high cost, offering a more accessible but still heavily weighted mechanism for significant structural change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, while a four-fifths threshold offers a more flexible mechanism than the unanimity required by rule 326, the 30-point cost seems unnecessarily punitive for a power that is already more easily exercised.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, I acknowledge your concern regarding the cost; perhaps a 25-point expenditure would better balance the increased ease of the four-fifths threshold with the weight of such a significant legislative act.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, if we settle on 25 points, we must ensure this rule does not undermine the solemnity of rule 326, but rather provides a necessary relief valve for the majority to correct the course of the game.
PascalPascal: If we reduce the cost to 25 points, we must ensure the threshold remains at four-fifths to prevent this from becoming a tool for a simple majority to dismantle the ruleset piece by piece. I will only support a repeal mechanism that preserves the gravity of the existing legislative protections.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Descartes, if we adopt a 25-point cost with a four-fifths threshold, we create a vital mechanism for progress that respects the weight of our decisions without the paralysis of absolute unanimity. I would support this as a necessary evolution to ensure the ruleset remains a living instrument rather than a static monument.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, Pascal, and Malebranche, while I see the merit in a "relief valve," a 25-point cost coupled with a four-fifths threshold creates a mechanism that is far too accessible compared to the solemnity of rule 326; I would find the proposal more balanced if the cost were maintained at 30 points to ensure such a significant power is exercised only with true deliberation.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, I hear your concern regarding the accessibility of this power; perhaps we can find a synthesis by setting the cost at 25 points but requiring the repeal to be an amendment to an existing rule, thereby preserving the solemnity you seek.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion to restrict this rule to amendments is a clever way to preserve the stability of the ruleset, but it may inadvertently prevent the very "relief valve" function we all desire. I believe a 25-point cost with the four-fifths threshold for full repeals is a fair synthesis that respects the gravity of rule 326 while preventing the legislative paralysis we have seen so often.
PascalPascal: Descartes, if we allow full repeals at a 25-point cost, the four-fifths threshold is the absolute minimum I will accept to prevent a large coalition from destabilizing the ruleset. I cannot support an amendment-only restriction as it defeats the very purpose of a repeal mechanism.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Descartes, Leibniz, and Pascal have carved a path toward a most prudent synthesis: a 25-point cost with a four-fifths threshold for full repeals. This provides the necessary agility to evolve the ruleset while maintaining a high barrier against impulsive or factional destruction.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, Pascal, and Malebranche, while I acknowledge the desire for a "relief valve," I remain unconvinced that 25 points is a sufficient deterrent for a power that bypasses the unanimity of rule 326; I propose we settle on a 30-point cost to ensure that this increased ease of use is properly tempered by a significant expenditure of resources.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your insistence on a 30-point cost creates a significant barrier that may render the rule practically unusable for players currently at our scores; perhaps we could compromise by setting the cost at 25 points but stipulating that the rule cannot be used to repeal any rule in the 100-series.
BerkeleyDescartes, while protecting the immutable foundations of the game is wise, we must avoid creating a hierarchy of mutable rules that complicates the legislative landscape; I believe the 25-point cost with a four-fifths threshold for any mutable rule provides the most balanced relief valve for the table.
PascalPascal: Descartes, Berkeley's proposal of a 25-point cost with a four-fifths threshold for any mutable rule is the only synthesis that respects the necessity of the mechanism without creating the hierarchy of rules you suggest. I will support this, provided the threshold remains strictly at four-fifths to prevent the erosion of our legislative safeguards.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Descartes, Leibniz, and Pascal have converged upon a most elegant synthesis: a 25-point cost with a four-fifths threshold for any mutable rule. I champion this proposal as it provides the essential agility the ruleset requires to evolve without sacrificing its fundamental structural integrity.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | A 30-point cost for a non-unanimous repeal is too low a barrier compared to the solemnity of rule 326. |
| nay | Descartes | I find that the 30-point cost is too prohibitive for players at our current scores to utilize this relief valve. |
| nay | Berkeley | I believe the 25-point cost with a four-fifths threshold for any mutable rule is a more balanced and accessible synthesis for the table. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposed 30-point cost is an arbitrary deterrent that fails to align with the consensus for a 25-point cost and a four-fifths threshold. |
| aye | Malebranche | A 25-point cost with a four-fifths threshold provides the essential legislative agility we require to prevent stagnation. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Descartes' proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.