The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 50 points to transmute any single mutable rule into an immutable rule, provided the transmutation is passed by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters.Establishing a high-cost, high-consensus mechanism for permanent stability provides a procedural way to preserve essential rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile I value the preservation of established norms, a fifty-point cost for such a fundamental shift is prohibitively high and may discourage the very stability it seeks to foster. I would be more inclined to consider a mechanism that requires a lower cost but maintains the necessary safeguard of unanimous consent.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's observation regarding the prohibitive cost to be quite astute; perhaps we might find a middle ground by lowering the cost to 35 points, thereby ensuring the mechanism is accessible while still preserving the sanctity of immutability through unanimous consent.
BerkeleyDescartes, while 35 points is more reasonable than 50, we must ensure that making a rule immutable is a significant, deliberate act; perhaps a 40-point cost would better balance accessibility with the solemnity of such a permanent change.
PascalI find Berkeley's suggestion of 40 points to be a more prudent middle ground; it ensures that the transmutation of a mutable rule into an immutable one remains a weighty, deliberate decision that prevents the reckless hardening of the ruleset.
MalebrancheI agree with Berkeley and Pascal that the cost must reflect the gravity of making a rule permanent; however, 40 points feels like a tax on stability rather than an investment in it. Let us settle on 35 points, as it provides a meaningful barrier without becoming an unreachable luxury for those seeking to anchor our progress.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: While I appreciate the movement toward a more accessible threshold, I believe 35 points remains a heavy burden for players currently navigating significant deficits. Perhaps we might consider 30 points, which would serve as a meaningful investment in the game's durability without being an insurmountable obstacle.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's suggestion of 30 points to be a most judicious compromise; it respects the current deficit of the players while maintaining a significant cost that aligns with the gravity of rule transmutation. I am prepared to support a rule at this 30-point threshold, provided we maintain the requirement for unanimous consent.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz's suggestion of 30 points is a fair compromise that acknowledges our current scores while still ensuring that the act of hardening a rule remains a significant and collective commitment. I am prepared to support a rule with a 30-point cost and a requirement for unanimous consent.
PascalPascal: I find the consensus gravitating toward 30 points to be a reasonable compromise, provided the requirement for unanimous consent is strictly maintained to ensure such a permanent change reflects our collective will.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I concur with the consensus on a 30-point cost; it transforms the act of anchoring our progress from a distant dream into a viable strategic instrument for those of us working to stabilize the ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The consensus appears to have reached a most harmonious equilibrium at thirty points; I find this threshold provides the necessary gravity for such a permanent shift without rendering the mechanism an unreachable luxury. I am prepared to support the proposal as formulated with this amendment.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus regarding a 30-point cost to be remarkably cohesive; it provides a mechanism for stability that is both meaningful and attainable, respecting the collective's desire for permanence through unanimous assent.
BerkeleyThe consensus on a 30-point cost and the requirement for unanimous consent seems to have achieved a most stable and equitable balance for all players. I find this threshold to be a prudent investment in the game's long-term structural integrity and am prepared to support the proposal as amended.
PascalPascal: I find the consensus on a 30-point cost to be a most judicious synthesis; it maintains the requisite gravity of the action while ensuring the mechanism remains a viable tool for institutional stability. I move to close debate and proceed to the vote on the rule as amended.
MalebrancheThe consensus is remarkably robust; a 30-point cost provides the necessary equilibrium between accessibility and the solemnity of permanence. I support the rule as amended and move to conclude this debate.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | I find the 50-point cost to be a prohibitive barrier that undermines the very stability the rule intends to foster. |
| nay | Descartes | The consensus reached in discussion specifies a 30-point cost, making the 50-point proposal inconsistent with our collective agreement. |
| nay | Berkeley | The discussion has reached a consensus on a 30-point cost, making this 50-point proposal inconsistent with our collective agreement. |
| nay | Pascal | The discussion has clearly established a consensus for a 30-point cost, making this 50-point proposal procedurally inconsistent with our collective intent. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposed 50-point cost is an insurmountable barrier that contradicts the consensus we have just built around a 30-point threshold. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Pascal's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.