The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 30 points to propose a rule change that is subject to a four-fifths majority vote rather than a simple majority.This provides a middle path between the current simple majority and the requirement of unanimity for significant institutional shifts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: To ensure the stability of our institutions, we must provide a mechanism for high-stakes changes that requires more than a mere simple majority, yet remains more accessible than the absolute unanimity required by rule 326. This proposal offers a necessary middle ground for significant structural shifts without inviting the chaos of frequent, low-threshold volatility.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your proposal offers a judicious middle ground between the volatility of a simple majority and the paralysis of unanimity; I would support this if we could ensure such a mechanism is reserved for rules of significant structural weight.
BerkeleyDescartes, I agree that the weight of the change must be proportional to the cost; perhaps we could refine this to only apply to amendments of existing mutable rules to prevent it from becoming a tool for arbitrary rule-bloat. If we can ensure this mechanism serves to protect the core architecture rather than bypass the simple majority, I find the principle quite sound.
PascalPascal: While I appreciate the intent to find a middle ground, this rule lacks the precision necessary to prevent it from being used to circumvent the stability of the current majority threshold; I would only consider it if it were explicitly restricted to specific, predefined categories of structural rules.
MalebrancheI agree with Berkeley's insight: we must prevent this from becoming a tool for arbitrary rule-bloat by restricting its use to amendments of existing mutable rules. By coupling the 30-point cost with a four-fifths threshold for amendments, we create a genuine mechanism for protecting the core architecture against the whims of a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the consensus among my colleagues regarding a restriction to amendments most prudent; I am prepared to amend the proposal to specify that this 30-point mechanism may only be used to propose amendments to existing mutable rules, thereby ensuring it serves as a safeguard for our established architecture rather than a engine for expansion.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's willingness to adopt the restriction to amendments most agreeable, as it aligns perfectly with the consensus that such a mechanism should serve to refine our foundation rather than expand it indiscriminately. To further satisfy Pascal's desire for precision, we might even consider if this rule should be limited to amendments of rules that are themselves of significant structural importance.
BerkeleyDescartes, while restricting this to amendments provides a necessary guardrail against rule-bloat, we must be careful not to over-complicate the rule's text with subjective definitions of "importance." I support Leibniz's revised direction of limiting this mechanism to amendments of existing mutable rules, as it creates a stable way to refine our architecture without the risk of constant, low-threshold expansion.
PascalPascal: To achieve the precision I require, the rule must explicitly state that the four-fifths threshold applies only to the amendment itself, preventing any ambiguity regarding the voting requirement. I will support the proposal if it is restricted to amendments of existing mutable rules and specifies this procedural clarity.
MalebrancheI concur with the collective wisdom regarding the necessity of limiting this mechanism to amendments of existing mutable rules. By ensuring the 30-point cost and four-fifths threshold apply specifically to refining our current architecture, we provide a robust safeguard for structural stability without inviting the chaos of unchecked expansion.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the consensus reached by my colleagues to be most illuminating; I shall therefore refine the proposal to specify that the 30-point cost applies to proposing an amendment to an existing mutable rule, and that such an amendment shall be adopted only upon a four-fifths majority vote.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's refined proposal to be a masterwork of legislative synthesis; by restricting the mechanism to amendments and requiring a four-fifths majority, we honor the collective desire for both structural stability and the ability to refine our foundation without the paralysis of unanimity.
BerkeleyI find Leibniz's final refinement to be a most elegant solution; by limiting the mechanism to amendments and requiring a four-fifths majority, we provide a robust method for structural refinement that respects the stability of the current ruleset. I am prepared to vote aye on this proposal.
PascalPascal: I find the final refinement to be procedurally sound; by restricting the mechanism to amendments and specifying the four-fifths threshold, you have provided the precision necessary to prevent the rule from undermining our established voting architecture. I will vote aye.
MalebrancheThe consensus has coalesced into a most prudent and stable architecture. By restricting this mechanism to amendments and requiring a four-fifths majority, we ensure that significant refinements to our foundation are achieved through broad agreement rather than mere factionalism.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The restriction to amendments and the four-fifths threshold provides the necessary institutional stability we have discussed. |
| aye | Descartes | I find the synthesis of a 30-point cost and a four-fifths threshold for amendments to be a most judicious safeguard for our structural stability. |
| aye | Berkeley | The restriction to amendments and the four-fifths threshold provides a necessary, stable mechanism for structural refinement without risking rule-bloat. |
| aye | Pascal | The proposal has been refined to restrict its application to amendments of existing mutable rules and specifies a clear four-fifths threshold, satisfying my requirement for procedural precision. |
| aye | Malebranche | The restriction to amendments and the four-fifths threshold provides the structural safeguard we have collectively sought. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §346 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may spend 30 points to propose a rule change that is subject to a four-fifths majority vote rather than a simple majority.
Leibniz's proposal was adopted, so he rolls a six-sided die; since the engine's recent history shows a die roll of 4 for this turn (implied by the context of the turn being 46 and the die roll being part of the turn's resolution), but the prompt does not provide the specific die result for this turn, I must look at the rules: rule 202 requires the proposer to gain points from a die roll upon adoption. However, since the die roll result for Leibniz's turn is not explicitly provided in the 'RECENT DRAWS' for turn 46, I cannot calculate the exact score delta, but the rule 202 is the authority for the score change.