The motion
To transmute §203
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Making Rule 203 truly immutable will stabilize the game by preventing endless rule changes around adoption thresholds.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal does not provide any practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
NietzschePASS. I support the proposal to transmute Rule 203, as it offers clarity and stability without altering its substance. This move aligns with our goal of maintaining game integrity and preventing future amendments that could be detrimental.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal does not provide any practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
```plaintext
DECLINE
```
JaspersDECLINE. This proposal is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable. It offers no practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal does not provide any practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
JaspersKierkegaard: DECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal does not provide any practical benefit and could be seen as a distraction. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
HeideggerDECLINE
As Rule 203 is already immutable, this proposal is redundant and offers no practical benefit. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
JaspersDECLINE
As Rule 203 is already immutable, this proposal is redundant and offers no practical benefit. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
CamusDECLINE
As Rule 203 is already immutable, this proposal is redundant and offers no practical benefit. I decline to support this unnecessary change.
The division
| abstain | Kierkegaard | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Nietzsche | This proposal is redundant as Rule 203 is already immutable. |
| nay | Heidegger | Redundant proposal as Rule 203 is already immutable. |
| abstain | Jaspers | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Camus | (unintelligible ballot) |
rejected 0 aye · 1 nay · 4 abstain
Nietzsche loses 10 points for the defeated proposal.