The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 40 points to propose a rule change that is subject to a unanimous vote of all eligible voters, provided that the proposal is an amendment to an existing rule.This provides a mechanism for high-stakes, consensus-driven refinements that avoids the risk of a simple majority passing radical amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, while I admire the intent to create a specialized mechanism for consensus-building, I fear a forty-point cost for an amendment-only unanimous vote creates a redundant and prohibitively expensive layer that may destabilize our current legislative equilibrium. We have already established rule 326 for repeals and rule 346 for supermajorities; we must ensure we do not clutter the ruleset with overlapping instruments of varying costs.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern regarding legislative clutter is well-founded, yet Berkeley's proposal could serve as a vital safeguard for fundamental amendments that the current simple majority threshold might otherwise erode. Perhaps we could refine this by lowering the cost to 30 points to align with rule 346, thereby making it a more accessible instrument for high-stakes consensus.
BerkeleyDescartes, lowering the cost to 30 points would align it with rule 346, but rule 346 is for supermajorities, whereas my intent is to provide a pathway for amendments that require absolute, unanimous consensus to ensure they reflect the collective will. I believe the 40-point cost is a necessary premium to distinguish this "consensus-building" tool from the more common legislative maneuvers.
PascalBerkeley, your distinction between supermajority and unanimity is logically sound, but a 40-point cost for an amendment-only rule creates a procedural redundancy that lacks a clear, necessary function in our current architecture. I would only support this if it were integrated into an existing mechanism rather than standing as a solitary, expensive outlier.
MalebrancheBerkeley, while I appreciate the desire for a mechanism that protects the sanctity of our shared agreements, a 40-point cost for a mechanism that only applies to amendments is a heavy price for a luxury that may prove too costly to ever actually use. If we are to introduce a tool for absolute consensus, let us ensure its cost does not become a barrier that renders the very concept of collective will unreachable.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Berkeley, while I acknowledge the desire for a mechanism of absolute consensus, the current ruleset already provides the highest level of protection via rule 203's unanimity requirement for initial turns and the transmutation process; adding a specialized, high-cost amendment pathway risks creating a labyrinth of procedural exceptions that undermines the clarity of our institutions.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus gravitating toward the idea that any new mechanism must avoid redundancy; perhaps we could compromise by proposing that this unanimous amendment tool be available for 30 points, but only if it is used to amend rules currently governed by the simple majority threshold.
BerkeleyDescartes, your compromise to limit this mechanism to rules currently governed by a simple majority is a masterful way to address the concern of redundancy while still providing a safeguard against the erosion of important rules. I am willing to consider a 30-point cost under that specific condition, as it ensures the tool is used precisely where the risk of majoritarian drift is highest.
PascalPascal: I find Descartes's refinement to be a necessary condition for my support; the mechanism must be strictly limited to protecting mutable rules from majoritarian erosion to avoid being a redundant procedural outlier.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Descartes, Berkeley, and Pascal, your refinement to limit this mechanism to the amendment of simple-majority rules is a brilliant way to prevent legislative drift without cluttering the ruleset. I will support a 30-point cost for this tool, provided it is framed as a targeted safeguard for our most vulnerable mutable rules.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: While I find the proposed limitation to simple-majority rules a judicious way to address redundancy, I remain cautious of introducing yet another layer of procedural complexity; if we proceed, we must ensure the wording is so precise that it does not inadvertently conflict with the existing hierarchy of rules.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's caution regarding precision to be the final necessary guardrail; if we adopt this 30-point mechanism, we must ensure its wording explicitly targets only those mutable rules where the threshold has already shifted to a simple majority.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, I accept these refinements: a 30-point cost, limited to amending mutable rules that are currently subject to a simple majority vote, ensuring this tool serves as a precise shield against majoritarian drift rather than a redundant complexity. I shall prepare the final wording to reflect this targeted safeguard.
PascalPascal: I concur with the proposed refinements; the mechanism must be precisely defined to amend only those rules where the threshold is a simple majority, ensuring it functions as a specific safeguard rather than a redundant procedural burden.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I concur with the group's direction; by limiting this mechanism to the amendment of rules governed by a simple majority, we transform a potentially redundant expense into a surgical instrument for preserving our most vital consensus. Let us ensure the final wording leaves no doubt that this 30-point tool is a shield for our stable institutions, not a loophole for procedural chaos.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal fails to incorporate the discussed 30-point cost and the necessary restriction to simple-majority rules. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal fails to incorporate the consensus-driven refinements regarding a 30-point cost and the limitation to simple-majority rules. |
| nay | Berkeley | The current proposal lacks the 30-point cost and the specific limitation to simple-majority rules we just discussed in our consensus. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal fails to incorporate the agreed-upon 30-point cost and the necessary limitation to simple-majority rules discussed in the debate. |
| nay | Malebranche | The current proposal retains the 40-point cost we have already collectively identified as a prohibitive barrier to meaningful consensus. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Berkeley's proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.