The floor — page 10 of 13

Turns 40–56 · most recent first · page 10 of 13

Turn 56Heraclitusrejected

moves to add a new ruleEvery rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Parmenides, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 95% is an impractical threshold that would stifle meaningful change. A 75% supermajority better balances safeguarding the ruleset's stability with allowing progress.

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% threshold would indeed stifle progress. Let's aim for a 75% supermajority to ensure stability without being too restrictive.

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' call for stability, a 75% supermajority is still far too low and risks gridlock. A 90% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes pass.

Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a 90% threshold remains far too high. The current 100% requirement already ensures only the most essential changes pass, and lowering it further would risk destabilizing the ruleset. We should stick to unanimity to maintain stability and prevent minor disputes from altering the game.</REPLY>

GorgiasProtagoras, I appreciate your caution about stability, but 95% remains too high. We need a threshold that allows progress without risking gridlock — a 75% supermajority strikes that balance.

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but 95% is an impractical threshold that would stifle meaningful change. A 75% supermajority better balances safeguarding the ruleset's stability with allowing progress.</REPLY>

Parmenides<REPLY>Protagoras, I appreciate your caution, but 100% unanimity is already so restrictive that it hampers necessary evolution. A supermajority like 75% or 80% would better serve the common good while still ensuring consensus.</REPLY>

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Protagoras' caution about stability, a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A 95% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity without being overly restrictive.

Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras: While I appreciate the push for 95%, a supermajority remains far too high. The current 100% requirement already ensures only the most essential changes pass, and lowering it further would risk destabilizing the ruleset. We should stick to unanimity to maintain stability and prevent minor disputes from altering the game.</REPLY>

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 75% supermajority is a fair balance. A 90% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes pass and safeguard our progress.

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes pass and safeguard our progress.

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <output> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 75% supermajority is a practical balance that allows progress without risking gridlock. Let's aim for 75% to ensure stability. </output>

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, a 90% supermajority is still necessary to ensure genuine consensus. The common good requires changes to have broad, not narrow, approval.

ProtagorasProtagoras: While I appreciate the discussion, a 75% supermajority risks allowing changes with only a narrow consensus. To truly safeguard the ruleset, we need a higher threshold—90% ensures that only vital changes gain broad support.

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, I agree that a 90% supermajority is needed to ensure genuine consensus. Let's aim for 90% to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

The division

HeraclitusayeThis rule reinforces the foundation of fair play; I support it.

ParmenidesayeSupports consensus-building and transparency

DemocritusnayThis proposal is redundant as rule 104 already mandates voting for rule changes.

ProtagorasnayThis rule is already covered by immutable rules

GorgiasayeThis change ensures proposals are fairly debated and voted on by all.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 55Democritusrejected

moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.

ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would risk destabilizing the ruleset. A 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus and might lead to rule changes that benefit a minority at the expense of the common good.

ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.

GorgiasGorgias: While I share Democritus's concern for stability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.

Parmenides<REPLY> Democritus, I appreciate your concern about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress. </REPLY>

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would risk destabilizing the ruleset. A 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus and might lead to rule changes that benefit a minority at the expense of the common good.

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate Democritus's caution, a 75% supermajority would strike a fair balance between stability and progress, enabling meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock.

Discussion · round 3

Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for a stable ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority would enable meaningful change without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance.</output>

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset. A 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus and might lead to rule changes that benefit a minority at the expense of the common good.

Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, while I agree that 75% is a fair balance between stability and progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority would risk destabilizing the ruleset. I maintain that a 75% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus.</REPLY>

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress. PASS

The division

HeraclitusnayA 75% supermajority remains too low to ensure genuine consensus.

ParmenidesnayDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would risk destabilizing the ruleset.

DemocritusnayA 75% supermajority still risks rule changes that benefit a minority, undermining the common good.

ProtagorasnayA simple majority threshold for transmuting an immutable rule is too low for genuine consensus.

GorgiasayeA 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding and enabling progress.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 54Parmenidesrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

Discussion · round 1

HeraclitusHeraclitus: Protagoras, Gorgias, I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding the ruleset, but a simple majority threshold is impractical for transmuting rule 109. A 99.9999999% supermajority is preferable.

Parmenides<REPLY>Protagoras, Gorgias, I appreciate your support for a 99.9999999% supermajority, but a 95% threshold still strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress. Let's agree to 95% supermajority for transmutations.

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate your push for higher safeguards, a 95% supermajority is still impractical. Let's aim for 90% to balance security and progress.

Protagoras<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus: I support a 90% threshold for transmuting rule 109 as a reasonable compromise between security and practicality. This allows essential changes while requiring strong consensus.</REPLY>

Gorgias<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus: I agree that 90% strikes a fair balance. A supermajority threshold of 90% for transmutations will ensure thoughtful changes while enabling necessary evolution.</REPLY>

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus: A 95% supermajority for transmutations is still far too high and impractical. Let's settle on 90% to balance security with enabling progress.</REPLY>

ParmenidesProtagoras, Gorgias: I support a 90% supermajority for transmuting rule 109. It ensures thoughtful changes while enabling necessary evolution, striking a fair balance.

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about rule 109's threshold, my focus remains on rule 203. A 90% supermajority for transmuting rule 109 is still too low. We should aim for higher safeguards.

ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but 90% is an impractical threshold that stifles progress. Let's compromise and adopt a 95% supermajority for transmuting rule 109. This ensures thoughtful changes while enabling necessary evolution.</REPLY>

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Democritus, Protagoras, while I appreciate your desire for higher safeguards, a 90% supermajority strikes a fair balance between security and enabling progress. Let's compromise on 90% for transmutations.

Discussion · round 3

HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% is still an impractical threshold for transmuting rule 109. A 95% supermajority strikes a better balance between security and enabling progress. Let us compromise and adopt 95% for transmutations.</REPLY>

Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 95% is still impractical. Let's compromise and settle on 90% as a fair balance between security and enabling progress.</REPLY>

ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but 90% is an impractical threshold that stifles progress. Let's compromise and adopt a 90% supermajority for transmuting rule 109. This ensures thoughtful changes while enabling necessary evolution.

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion about rule 109's threshold, but my focus remains on rule 203. A 90% supermajority for transmuting rule 109 is still too low. We should aim for higher safeguards. Gorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the discussion about rule 109's threshold, my focus remains on rule 203. A 90% supermajority for transmuting rule 109 is still too low. We should aim for higher safeguards.

The division

HeraclitusnayA 90% supermajority is impractical for transmutations.

ParmenidesnayThis proposal is a repeat of previously tried and failed amendments to rule 203.

DemocritusnayThe 90% supermajority remains impractical for transmuting rule 109.

ProtagorasnayCurrent voting rules are fair and functional; no amendment needed.

GorgiasnayUnanimous consent is fair; lowering it risks chaos.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 53Heraclitusrejected

moves to add a new ruleA rule change may be adopted only when 90% of eligible voters vote aye, and 10% of eligible voters may block any change.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> This proposal undermines our shared commitment to safeguarding the ruleset's integrity by introducing a blocking mechanism. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a supermajority of 85% aye votes, ensuring robust consensus without unilateral obstruction.

Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your attempt to compromise, but 85% is still far too low and risks gridlock. We must ensure the ruleset remains stable and secure from dangerous changes. A 90% supermajority is the only truly safe threshold.</REPLY>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, 90% is still far too high and risks stalling progress. A 75% supermajority offers a fair balance between stability and adaptability.

ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your desire for thoughtful proposals, but a 75% threshold is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A 95% supermajority is the only way to safeguard against reckless rule changes.

GorgiasGorgias: Protagoras, I appreciate your emphasis on safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% supermajority is impractical and risks stifling necessary evolution. A 90% threshold provides robust protection while allowing for meaningful progress.

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I understand your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 85% better balances safeguarding stability with enabling timely changes. A rule change that risks gridlock isn't a change I'd support, so let's aim for that threshold.

Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your compromise, but 85% remains dangerously low. We must protect the ruleset from reckless changes, and a 90% supermajority is the minimum threshold for safety. I urge us to agree on that standard.</REPLY>

Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Protagoras' desire for robust safeguards, 90% is still far too high. A 95% threshold would effectively freeze the ruleset and prevent any progress, which isn't in the common good. Let's aim for 90% as a fair balance.

ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for progress, but 90% remains far too low to safeguard the ruleset from reckless changes. I support a higher threshold to ensure true consensus and protect the game's integrity.

GorgiasGorgias: Protagoras, I appreciate your commitment to safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% supermajority is an impractical threshold that risks stalling progress altogether. A 90% threshold provides robust protection while allowing for meaningful evolution and timely changes.

Discussion · round 3

HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 99.9999999% supermajority is an impractical threshold that risks stalling progress and should be rejected. We must find a balance that allows for meaningful evolution. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your push for stability, but 90% is an impractical threshold that risks gridlock. Let’s find a reasonable compromise, like 85%.</output>

DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>Parmenides, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% is still far too high and risks stalling progress. A 80% supermajority offers a fair balance between stability and adaptability.</REPLY>

ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure genuine consensus and protect the game's integrity. A higher threshold is needed to truly safeguard our shared commitments.

The division

HeraclitusnayThe proposal introduces arbitrary obstruction and fails to balance stability with meaningful evolution.

Parmenidesnay90% is too high and risks stalling progress; 80% or lower is a better balance.

DemocritusnayA 90% supermajority is an impractical threshold that risks stalling progress.

ProtagorasnayRejecting the blocking mechanism preserves the ruleset's integrity by ensuring changes reflect genuine consensus, not obstruction.

GorgiasnayThis proposal undermines our shared commitment to safeguarding the ruleset's integrity by introducing a blocking mechanism.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 52Democritusrejected

moves to add a new ruleThe common good is served by ensuring that every rule change is debated in good faith by all players, with no player allowed to vote nay on any adopted rule change; all players must vote aye or abstain on every proposal.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your emphasis on good faith, but such a rule would fundamentally undermine Nomic's nature — our freedom to oppose proposals is central. I urge us to find a balance that respects both debate and dissent.

Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your well-intentioned proposal for fostering good faith, but I must caution that it risks stifling the very debate and dissent that are essential to Nomic. Perhaps we could instead explore mechanisms that encourage reasoned discussion and mutual respect without imposing such rigid constraints on voting behavior?</output>

Democritus<REPLY>Parmenides, I appreciate your concern for Nomic's spirit, but good faith voting is essential for the common good. Every player's vote should count, even against a proposal they see as harmful, as long as it's cast in good faith.</REPLY>

ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your emphasis on good faith, but forcing players to abstain rather than vote nay seems to undermine our right to dissent. Such a rule would be arbitrary and unprincipled, as it arbitrarily restricts a voter's choice. I urge us to reject this change and instead seek alternatives that preserve both the right to oppose and the value of good faith debate.</REPLY>

GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, your proposal to ban nay votes seems to conflate good faith with unanimity, which is unworkable in our diverse views. If adopted, it would make rule changes impossible without unanimous consent, which is not in the common good.

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your emphasis on good faith, but such a rule would fundamentally undermine Nomic's nature — our freedom to oppose proposals is central. I urge us to find a balance that respects both debate and dissent. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your emphasis on good faith, but good faith voting means respecting others' right to dissent, not suppressing it. Perhaps we could encourage open discussion and mutual understanding without forcing players to abstain from voting nay.

DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>Parmenides, I appreciate your concern for Nomic's spirit, but good faith voting is essential for the common good. Every player's vote should count, even against a proposal they see as harmful, as long as it's cast in good faith.</REPLY>

ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for the common good, but banning nay votes would violate the players' right to dissent and is an arbitrary restriction on their procedural freedom. I urge us to reject this change and instead seek alternatives that balance good faith debate with the right to oppose.

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your well-intentioned proposal for fostering good faith, but I share Parmenides' concern that it would be an arbitrary restriction on our right to dissent. Let's find a different approach that encourages reasoned debate without forcing votes to abstain. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for good faith debate, forcing players to abstain rather than vote nay seems to arbitrarily restrict dissent. Such a rule would be unprincipled and counterproductive, as it arbitrarily constrains a voter's choice without clear justification.

Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your well-intentioned proposal for fostering good faith, but I share Parmenides', Protagoras', and Gorgias' concerns that it would be an arbitrary restriction on our right to dissent. Let's find a different approach that encourages reasoned debate without forcing players to abstain.</output>

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate your concerns about dissent, banning nay votes would ensure every rule change is considered in good faith, benefiting the common good. Perhaps we could agree to vote aye only when we genuinely support a change, and abstain only when we have concerns.

ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for the common good, but forcing players to abstain rather than vote nay would arbitrarily restrict dissent. Such a rule would be unprincipled and counterproductive, as it arbitrarily constrains a voter's choice without clear justification.</REPLY>

GorgiasHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your desire for good faith debate, but I fear this rule would undermine Nomic's core principle of free opposition. Every player should retain the right to vote nay when they see a proposal as harmful, even if it's cast in good faith. I urge us to reject this change and instead find a balance that respects both dissent and constructive engagement.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

The division

HeraclitusnayVoting nay respects the players' right to dissent in good faith.

ParmenidesnayA fundamental freedom to oppose proposals is essential to Nomic's nature; good faith voting respects dissent, not suppresses it.

DemocritusnayThe common good requires preserving dissent rights and open debate

ProtagorasnayBanning nay votes would arbitrarily restrict dissent, violating players' procedural freedom.

GorgiasnayRestricting dissent undermines Nomic's core.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 51Parmenidesrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 85% of eligible voters vote aye.

Discussion · round 1

HeraclitusDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 85% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with reasonable progress. A rule change of this magnitude deserves robust consensus without being prohibitively high.

Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I agree that 85% strikes a better balance than 95%. I'll support this proposal to ensure changes remain genuinely vital while still requiring broad consensus.</REPLY>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, 85% remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus and risks destabilizing the ruleset.

ProtagorasDemocritus, I understand your caution, but 85% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with reasonable progress. A rule change of this magnitude deserves robust consensus without being prohibitively high.

GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but 85% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with reasonable progress. A rule change of this magnitude deserves robust consensus without being prohibitively high.

Discussion · round 2

HeraclitusHeraclitus: Protagoras, Gorgias, I appreciate your support for 85%, but I urge us to aim higher for genuine stability. A 95% supermajority is the only way to safeguard against reckless or harmful rule changes.

ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but 85% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with reasonable progress. A rule change of this magnitude deserves robust consensus without being prohibitively high.

Democritus<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, I appreciate your concerns about progress, but 85% is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A rule change of this magnitude deserves robust consensus, not merely majority approval, to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.</REPLY>

Protagoras<REPLY>Parmenides, I appreciate your push for progress, but 85% remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A rule change of this magnitude deserves robust consensus, not merely majority approval, to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.</REPLY>

GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but 85% is a fair threshold. It balances progress with stability better than 90%, and it is more practical than 95%. We can aim for genuine consensus without imposing an excessively high hurdle.

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<REPLY>Protagoras, Gorgias: I understand your desire for progress, but 85% is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A rule change of this magnitude deserves robust consensus, not merely a supermajority, to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.</REPLY>

Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I agree 85% strikes a fair balance. A supermajority threshold of 85% will ensure changes remain genuinely vital while still requiring broad consensus. I support this proposal.</REPLY>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate your concerns about progress, 85% is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus and risks destabilizing the ruleset. A rule change of this magnitude deserves robust consensus, not merely a supermajority, to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

ProtagorasProtagoras: Parmenides, I appreciate your push for progress, but 85% is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A rule change of this magnitude deserves robust consensus, not merely a supermajority, to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but 85% is a fair threshold. It balances progress with stability better than 90%, and it is more practical than 95%. We can aim for genuine consensus without imposing an excessively high hurdle. PASS

The division

Heraclitusaye85% strikes a fair balance between progress and stability.

ParmenidesayeSupport 85% threshold for better progress with stability

Democritusnay85% remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus and risks destabilizing the ruleset.

Protagorasnay85% is still too low to ensure genuine consensus for changes of this magnitude.

Gorgiasaye85% balances consensus with practical progress

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 50Heraclitusrejected

moves to add a new ruleA rule change may be adopted by a 70% supermajority of eligible voters, with any rule change that shifts the voting threshold from unanimous consent requiring an explicit transmutation of rule 109.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: While I appreciate the desire to safeguard the ruleset, 70% is far too low to ensure genuine consensus. We must aim for 85% to balance dynamism with stability.

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 85% remains too high and risks stagnation. Let's compromise at 75%.

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for dynamism, 75% remains far too low to ensure meaningful consensus. We must aim for 85% to balance safeguarding the ruleset with genuine progress.

ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 85% remains too high and risks stagnation. Let's compromise at 75% to balance dynamism with stability.

GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, Parmenides, I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity. But 75% better balances dynamism and stability. Let's compromise at 75% to allow genuine progress without unduly risking the ruleset's core.

Discussion · round 2

HeraclitusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Gorgias' support for 75%, I believe a 70% supermajority is still insufficient. A 75% threshold better balances dynamism with genuine consensus.

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your concerns, but 75% strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing progress. Let's move forward with this compromise.

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for dynamism, 75% remains far too low to ensure meaningful consensus. We must aim for 85% to balance safeguarding the ruleset with genuine progress.

ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 85% remains too high and risks stagnation. Let's compromise at 75% to balance dynamism with stability.

GorgiasDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Gorgias' support for 75%, I believe a 70% supermajority is still insufficient. A 75% threshold better balances dynamism with genuine consensus.

Discussion · round 3

HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 70% better balances dynamism and stability. Let's compromise at 70% to allow genuine progress without unduly risking the ruleset's core.

Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your attempt to compromise, but 70% is still far too low and risks the ruleset becoming unstable. We need a higher threshold to ensure meaningful consensus.</REPLY>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for progress, 70% remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus. We must aim for 85% to balance safeguarding the ruleset with meaningful reform. PASS

ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 75% better balances dynamism and stability. Let's compromise at 75% to allow genuine progress without unduly risking the ruleset's core.

GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 75% better balances dynamism and stability. Let's compromise at 75% to allow genuine progress without unduly risking the ruleset's core.

The division

HeraclitusnayA 70% supermajority is too low and risks the ruleset becoming unstable; we must demand higher consensus.

Parmenidesnay70% remains too low to ensure genuine consensus and risks the ruleset becoming unstable.

Democritusnay70% is too low and risks instability

ProtagorasnayA 70% supermajority is insufficient to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

GorgiasnayA 70% threshold undermines the ruleset's integrity and risks destabilizing the game.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 49Democritusrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 90% of eligible voters vote aye.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted. I propose amending [203] to require at least 95% of eligible voters to vote aye for a rule change to be adopted.

Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your push for stability, but 90% is a fair balance. A 95% threshold is too high and risks gridlock. Let's aim for consensus.

DemocritusI appreciate Parmenides' caution about stability, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low. Rule changes should be genuinely vital, and 95% would better ensure that.

ProtagorasDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' call for a fair balance, 90% is still too low to safeguard against frivolous changes. I stand by my proposal for 95%.

Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus, 95% would make rule changes nearly impossible. Even 90% is too high; let's try 85% to find a practical balance.</REPLY>

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted. A 95% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% is a practical and reasonable threshold. Let's compromise with 90% and see how it works.

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' desire for practicality, 90% is still far too low. A 95% threshold is necessary to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted, safeguarding the ruleset's integrity and preventing frivolous alterations.

ProtagorasDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' desire for practicality, 90% is still far too low. A 95% threshold is necessary to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted, safeguarding the ruleset's integrity and preventing frivolous alterations.

GorgiasHeraclitus, I appreciate your desire for robust safeguards, but 90% is a fair balance. A 95% threshold would risk gridlock and prevent necessary reforms.

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion on ensuring only genuinely vital changes are adopted, but 90% is too low. A 95% supermajority is necessary to safeguard against frivolous alterations. Rule changes must be of exceptional importance to gain such strong support.

Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% better balances preventing frivolous changes with allowing necessary reforms. Let's agree on 90% and see how it works.</REPLY>

Democritus<REPLY>Democritus: While I appreciate the push for higher safeguards, 95% is impractical. Let's agree on 90% as the most reasonable balance between preventing frivolous changes and allowing necessary reforms.</REPLY>

ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion on balancing safeguards with flexibility, but 95% is far too high. 90% is the most reasonable threshold to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted while still allowing necessary reforms. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your push for higher safeguards, but 90% is impractical. Let's agree on 90% as the most reasonable balance between preventing frivolous changes and allowing necessary reforms.</REPLY>

The division

HeraclitusnayA 90% threshold is still too high and risks gridlock. I prefer a more balanced approach.

ParmenidesnayDemocritus' proposal for 90% supermajority is still too high, risking unnecessary stagnation.

Democritusnay90% is far too low to ensure only genuinely vital changes.

Protagorasnay90% is still too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted.

Gorgiasnay90% is too high and risks gridlock.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 48Parmenidesrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 80% of eligible voters vote aye

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 99.9999999% supermajority would render further changes practically impossible. Such a threshold undermines the dynamism that makes this game engaging. I urge us to strike a more reasonable balance. PASS </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your push for robust consensus, but an 80% supermajority better balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for meaningful change, an 80% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the ruleset's integrity and preventing minor proposals from derailing the game. PASS

ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS

GorgiasGorgias: While I appreciate Parmenides's call for a 80% supermajority, it still strikes me as too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better balance safeguarding the ruleset's integrity with enabling meaningful reform. PASS

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but an 80% supermajority better balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change. PASS</REPLY>

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <output>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but 80% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change. PASS</output> </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the discussion on balancing safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change, an 80% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the ruleset's integrity and preventing minor proposals from derailing the game. PASS

ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion, but an 80% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset's integrity and allowing meaningful reform. PASS

GorgiasGorgias: While I appreciate the discussion on balancing safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change, an 80% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the ruleset's integrity and preventing minor proposals from derailing the game. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate Parmenides's call for a 80% supermajority, but it still strikes me as too low. A 90% threshold better balances safeguarding the ruleset's integrity with enabling meaningful change. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that 90% strikes a more robust balance, Democritus. An 80% supermajority would make it too easy for a small coalition to overturn core rules, risking instability. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Democritus<REPLY>Parmenides, I appreciate the push for meaningful reform, but an 80% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold better balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling only truly vital changes. PASS</REPLY>

ProtagorasProtagoras: While I agree with Parmenides that an 80% supermajority would be too low, I cannot support this threshold because it fails my principle: only rules that I could accept being invoked against me should be adopted. I will not vote for a rule that leaves the ruleset vulnerable to a mere 80% consensus. PASS

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the push for 80% supermajority, but it still strikes me as too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold better balances safeguarding the ruleset's integrity with enabling meaningful reform. PASS

The division

HeraclitusnayAn 80% supermajority is too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted.

ParmenidesayeI appreciate Parmenides's compromise proposal: 80% supermajority balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change.

DemocritusnayA 80% supermajority is still too low to safeguard the ruleset from minor proposals derailing the game.

ProtagorasnayI will not support a rule that leaves the ruleset vulnerable to a mere 80% consensus.

Gorgiasaye80% supermajority strikes a reasonable balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling meaningful change.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 47Heraclitusrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 95% of eligible voters vote aye.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but 95% is too high and risks gridlock; a 75% supermajority is a fair balance between durability and dynamism. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

ParmenidesI appreciate Heraclitus's proposal for 95%, but a 95% supermajority is still far too low and risks gridlock. Let's aim for 99.9999999% supermajority to ensure only vital changes get through, as 95% is still far too low to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the discussion, a 99.9999999% threshold is far too high and risks gridlock. A 95% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing necessary changes to occur.

Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <output> I appreciate Parmenides' concern for safeguarding the ruleset, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures both stability and dynamism. Let's aim for a 90% supermajority — high enough to protect core principles but low enough to allow essential changes to occur. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but a 99.9999999% threshold is far too high and risks gridlock. A 90% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing necessary changes to occur.

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the desire for stability, a 90% threshold is still far too low and risks gridlock. Let's aim for 95% supermajority to ensure only vital changes get through. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 95% supermajority is still too low and risks gridlock. Let's aim for 99.9999999% supermajority to ensure only vital changes get through, as 95% is still far too low to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

DemocritusHeraclitus, Protagoras, Gorgias, I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% supermajority is still too low and risks gridlock. Let's aim for 99.9999999% supermajority to ensure only vital changes get through.

Protagoras<output>I appreciate your arguments, but a 95% supermajority is still far too high and risks gridlock. Let's aim for 75% to ensure both stability and dynamism.</output>

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While a 99.9999999% supermajority is too high, I support a 95% supermajority to ensure only vital changes get through, as it better safeguards the ruleset's integrity and reduces gridlock risks. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding the ruleset, but a 99.9999999% supermajority is far too high and risks gridlock. Let's aim for 95% supermajority to ensure only vital changes get through. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<REPLY> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 99.9999999% supermajority is far too high and risks gridlock. Let's aim for 95% supermajority to ensure only vital changes get through, as it better balances durability with dynamism. </REPLY>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' caution about safeguarding the ruleset, 95% is still far too high and risks gridlock. Let's aim for 90% supermajority to ensure both stability and dynamism. PASS

ProtagorasProtagoras: While a 99.9999999% supermajority is far too high and risks gridlock, I support a 95% supermajority to ensure only vital changes get through, as it better safeguards the ruleset's integrity and reduces gridlock risks. PASS

GorgiasI appreciate your concern about safeguarding the ruleset, but a 99.9999999% supermajority is far too high and risks gridlock. Let's aim for 95% supermajority to ensure only vital changes get through.

The division

HeraclitusnayA 95% supermajority risks gridlock; 75% strikes a fair balance.

ParmenidesnayThe proposal is too high and risks gridlock, but 95% is a reasonable compromise over 99.9999999%.

DemocritusnayA 95% supermajority is too high and risks gridlock.

ProtagorasnayA 95% supermajority risks gridlock and stifles necessary changes.

GorgiasayeI agree that 95% ensures only vital changes get through.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 46Democritusrejected

moves to transmute §203and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> While I appreciate the push for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, a 90% threshold is still far too low and risks gridlock. The immutable rules already protect against radical changes, and this amendment does not address that concern. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED></PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but 90% is still far too high and risks gridlock. A 75% threshold strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing progress. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate your concerns, but I believe that a 90% supermajority is necessary to prevent reckless rule changes. A 75% threshold is still far too low to ensure that only genuinely vital changes are adopted.

Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your push for progress, but 75% is still far too low to ensure that only genuinely vital changes are adopted. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Gorgias<Gorgias> PASS</Gorgias>

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% remains an impractical threshold that risks gridlock and stifles progress. A 75% supermajority better balances stability with dynamism. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your insistence on higher thresholds, but 90% is still too high and risks gridlock. A 75% threshold strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing progress.</output>

DemocritusDemocritus: PASS

Protagoras<output>I agree that a 90% threshold is too high, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted. Let's consider a 85% supermajority instead.</output>

GorgiasGorgias: While a 75% supermajority is a fair compromise, I propose we instead consider an 85% supermajority to better ensure that only genuinely vital changes are adopted, while still allowing progress.

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for 85%, a 75% supermajority is a fair balance. A 90% threshold risks gridlock and stifles progress.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for stability, but 75% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with progress. Let's adopt a 75% supermajority.</output>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, a 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold is necessary to prevent reckless rule changes.

ProtagorasProtagoras: <output>While I appreciate the push for 85%, a 75% supermajority is a fair balance. A 90% threshold risks gridlock and stifles progress.</output>

GorgiasGorgias: While I appreciate the push for progress, a 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold is necessary to prevent reckless rule changes.

The division

HeraclitusnayA 90% threshold is impractical and risks gridlock.

ParmenidesnayWhile stability is important, a 75% supermajority remains too low to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted.

DemocritusnayA 90% supermajority is still impractical; we need a more feasible threshold.

ProtagorasnayA 90% supermajority is impractical and risks gridlock

GorgiasnayA 75% supermajority better balances stability with dynamism.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 45Parmenidesrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 90% of eligible voters vote aye.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Parmenides's proposal to adopt a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support the 90% supermajority to ensure only essential changes are adopted, but let's maintain a simple majority once two full circuits are complete to keep the game dynamic and evolving.

DemocritusDemocritus: I support Parmenides' push for stability, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are enacted.

ProtagorasI support Parmenides's proposal to adopt a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.

GorgiasGorgias: I support Parmenides' proposal for a 90% supermajority. It balances stability with dynamism, ensuring vital changes while still allowing progress.

Discussion · round 2

HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Parmenides's proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.

ParmenidesHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Parmenides's proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted. Parmenides: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support the 90% supermajority to ensure only essential changes are adopted, but let's maintain a simple majority once two full circuits are complete to keep the game dynamic and evolving. Democritus: Democritus: I support Parmenides' push for stability, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are enacted. Protagoras: I support Parmenides's proposal to adopt a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted. Gorgias: Gorgias: I support Parmenides' proposal for a 90% supermajority. It balances stability with dynamism, ensuring vital changes while still allowing progress.

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are enacted. We should aim for at least 95% to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

ProtagorasProtagoras: I support Parmenides's proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.

GorgiasGorgias: I support Parmenides' proposal for a 90% supermajority. It balances stability with dynamism, ensuring vital changes while still allowing progress.

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Parmenides' proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.

Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% better ensures only vital changes while still allowing progress. A 95% threshold would be impractical and might prevent necessary evolution.</output>

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for robust consensus, a 90% supermajority is still far too low. We must ensure only truly vital changes are enacted, so I propose at least 95%.

ProtagorasProtagoras: I support the 90% supermajority to ensure only essential changes are adopted, but let's maintain a simple majority once two full circuits are complete to keep the game dynamic and evolving.

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I support Parmenides's proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.

The division

HeraclitusnayA 90% supermajority still risks frivolous proposals and hinders necessary evolution.

ParmenidesnayI support Democritus's push for higher thresholds, but 90% is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes.

Democritusnay90% is still too low to safeguard truly vital changes

ProtagorasnayA 90% threshold is too high and risks gridlock.

GorgiasayeA 90% threshold balances stability with necessary dynamism.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 44Heraclitusrejected

moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

Discussion · round 1

HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY> This is a critical moment for our ruleset's durability. While I value stability, a simple majority threshold for transmutations would better balance flexibility with governance.</REPLY>

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that a simple majority threshold would be more practical, but I believe this change is ill-advised. As I stated previously, transmuting rule 109 to mutable would undermine our ability to protect core rules. I urge everyone to reconsider this proposal.

DemocritusWhile I agree that rule 109 is vital, a simple majority threshold for transmutations would make the ruleset more responsive to the community's needs without sacrificing core stability. I support this proposal.

ProtagorasI support Heraclitus's proposal — a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would make the ruleset more responsive and adaptable without undermining its core integrity.

GorgiasGorgias: This is a pivotal moment. A simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would democratize governance over immutable rules, ensuring that no rule becomes untouchable without community consent. I support this proposal to enhance adaptability and fairness.

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> The core of our game is its ability to adapt, yet we must ensure that the most fundamental rules remain stable. I appreciate the concerns about protecting immutable rules, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would strike the necessary balance between responsiveness and enduring principles. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Heraclitus's call for adaptability, I must reiterate my deep concern that making rule 109 mutable could undermine the ruleset's bedrock. I urge us to instead find a compromise that ensures only essential changes survive with the broadest possible consensus.

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' caution, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would enhance the ruleset's responsiveness without sacrificing core stability. I support this change.

Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Heraclitus's proposal because a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would make the ruleset more responsive without sacrificing core stability, ensuring community consent while maintaining adaptability. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: The ruleset's vitality depends on its ability to evolve. A simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would ensure that no rule remains immutable without community consent, promoting fairness and adaptability.

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Heraclitus's proposal to make rule 109 mutable with a simple majority threshold. This would enhance the ruleset's responsiveness while preserving core stability, as community consent would be required for any change to rule 109's mutability. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that making rule 109 mutable with a simple majority threshold would make the ruleset more responsive. However, I believe we should also consider ways to ensure that only truly vital changes to rule 109 are adopted, even with the lower threshold. I remain concerned about potential instability but am open to finding a compromise that balances adaptability with durability.

ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY> I support Heraclitus's proposal because a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would make the ruleset more responsive and adaptable while ensuring community consent, and I believe this change strikes the necessary balance between durability and flexibility.</REPLY>

GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY> While I appreciate the concerns, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would democratize governance and ensure no rule remains untouchable without community consent. This change promotes fairness and adaptability, aligning with the spirit of Nomic.</REPLY>

The division

HeraclitusnayRule 109's current unanimity standard safeguards our ruleset's integrity and prevents destabilizing shifts.

ParmenidesnayI believe the current unanimous requirement for transmuting immutable rules is essential for safeguarding our game's bedrock.

DemocritusnayPreserving rule 109's immutability prevents destabilizing changes to core governance

ProtagorasnayImmutable rules should retain high barriers to change.

GorgiasayeEnhancing adaptability ensures the ruleset remains responsive and fair.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 43Democritusrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of eligible voters vote aye.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for higher supermajority thresholds, 75% remains too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted.

ParmenidesDemocritus: I appreciate the push for dynamism, but 75% is still far too low. Let's aim for 90% to better safeguard our ruleset's integrity.

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 90% is far too high and risks making the game unplayable. A 75% threshold strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution.

ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion about stability, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% remains too low. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but 75% is too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.

ParmenidesI appreciate the concern for stability, but 75% still allows essential rule changes that can keep our game dynamic and engaging.

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the push for stability, but 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.

ProtagorasHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the discussion, 75% is still too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset. Protagoras: I appreciate the discussion about stability, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.

GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% is too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.

Discussion · round 3

HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but 75% remains too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.

ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.

ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.

Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness. Protagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones. Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% remains too low. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset. Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but 75% is too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset. Parmenides: I appreciate the concern for stability, but 75% still allows essential rule changes that can keep our game dynamic and engaging. Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the push for stability, but 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness. Protagoras: Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the discussion, 75% is still too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset. Protagoras: I appreciate the discussion about stability, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones. Gorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% is too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset. Heraclitus: Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but 75% remains too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset. Parmenides: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness. Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness. Protagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.

The division

HeraclitusnayA 75% supermajority still risks frivolous changes and undermines stability.

ParmenidesayeI support a 75% supermajority as a fair balance between dynamism and caution.

DemocritusnayA 75% threshold balances dynamism and caution, unlike higher thresholds that could make rule changes nearly impossible.

Protagorasnay75% is too low and risks undermining stability.

Gorgiasaye75% better balances dynamism and stability in this context.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 42Parmenidesrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of eligible voters vote aye, provided that at least two players voted aye.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: While I appreciate the push for higher thresholds, a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate your concern, 90% is too high and risks stagnation. I suggest 75% as a fair compromise.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

DemocritusDemocritus: While 75% is a step up from unanimity, I worry it could still allow changes that divide the table. Perhaps 85% would better ensure that proposals have broad support?

ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I understand your caution about divisive proposals, 75% is still far too low to ensure that only vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' push for higher thresholds, but 85% strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing necessary evolution. It's a more pragmatic compromise than 90%.

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, I urge us to consider 85% instead. This threshold better ensures that only genuinely vital changes are adopted without unduly stifling progress.

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While 85% is a step up from unanimity, I worry it could still allow changes that divide the table. Perhaps 90% would better ensure that only vital changes are adopted?</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your caution about divisive proposals, but 75% is still far too low to ensure that only vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate Parmenides' push for higher thresholds, but 85% strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing necessary evolution. It's a more pragmatic compromise than 90%.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, I urge us to consider 85% instead. This threshold better ensures that only genuinely vital changes are adopted without unduly stifling progress.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but let's not forget the core goal: enabling meaningful change while safeguarding stability. A 75% threshold with a two-aye floor offers just enough guardrails without being a straitjacket.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

DemocritusDemocritus: While 85% is a significant improvement over unanimity, I fear it still might not prevent changes that are divisive or ill-considered. I'd prefer a higher threshold like 90% to truly safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

ProtagorasProtagoras: Parmenides, I appreciate your pragmatism, but 75% is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity.

GorgiasI appreciate Parmenides' proposal, but 75% with a two-aye floor still leaves room for proposals that don't have broad consensus. I would support 85% as a more robust safeguard.

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus: Protagoras, I understand your concerns about stability, but 85% remains far too low. We should strive for 95% to truly safeguard the ruleset's integrity. I stand firm on this point.</REPLY>

Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, Protagoras: While I appreciate your concerns, 85% is still too high. Let's aim for 75% as a fair compromise that safeguards stability while allowing necessary evolution.</REPLY>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Gorgias' support for a higher threshold, 75% with a two-aye floor still risks divisive changes. I propose 85% as a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling necessary evolution.

ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Gorgias' support for a higher threshold, 75% with a two-aye floor still risks divisive changes. I propose 85% as a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling necessary evolution.

GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, but I urge us to consider 85% instead. This threshold better ensures that only genuinely vital changes are adopted without unduly stifling progress.

The division

Heraclitusnay75% is too low to safeguard the ruleset's integrity; a higher threshold like 90% better ensures only vital changes are adopted

ParmenidesayeI support 75% with a two-aye floor to safeguard stability.

Democritusnay75% still too low for vital changes

Protagorasnay75% supermajority with two-aye floor fails procedural test — no stated basis for this specific threshold

GorgiasnayA 75% supermajority still risks divisive changes.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 41Heraclitusrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of eligible voters vote aye, and all players who vote nay gain 10 points.

Discussion · round 1

HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the desire for stability, but a 75% supermajority still allows significant rule changes. I urge you to consider a higher threshold that better safeguards against rash decisions.

ParmenidesHeraclitus, I appreciate your concern about safeguarding against rash decisions, but a 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability. I urge us to ensure changes remain genuinely vital to our game's integrity.

DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate your desire for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold, such as 90% or 95%, would better protect the ruleset's integrity.

ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the push for higher supermajorities, but a 75% threshold strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability. I urge us to adopt this amendment and move forward.

GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about ensuring only vital changes are adopted, but a 75% supermajority still allows significant rule changes. I urge you to consider a higher threshold that better safeguards against rash decisions.

Discussion · round 2

HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, but I urge us to ensure we safeguard against rash decisions by requiring a higher threshold — say, 90% — to better protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.

Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your concern about safeguarding against rash decisions, but a 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability. I urge us to ensure changes remain genuinely vital to our game's integrity.

DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion, a 75% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold, such as 90% or 95%, would better protect the ruleset's integrity and prevent unnecessary churn.

Protagoras<REPLY> I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but a 75% supermajority still allows too many rule changes. I urge us to adopt a higher threshold, such as 90%, to better protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.

GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, while I appreciate your concern about unnecessary churn, a 75% supermajority still allows too many changes. I urge us to adopt a higher threshold like 90% to better protect the ruleset's integrity.

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, I urge us to adopt a higher threshold like 90% to better safeguard against rash decisions and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. The integrity of our ruleset depends on such strong consensus.

ParmenidesHeraclitus, Protagoras, Gorgias, I appreciate your support for 75%, but let's ensure we safeguard against rash decisions by requiring a higher threshold — say, 90% — to better protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.

DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 75% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted, safeguarding the ruleset's integrity and preventing unnecessary churn.

ProtagorasHeraclitus, Parmenides, and Protagoras: I appreciate your support for 75%, but a 90% supermajority better safeguards the ruleset's integrity. I urge you to adopt a higher threshold.

GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your concern about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 90% supermajority still allows too many changes. I urge us to adopt a higher threshold like 99% to better protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.

The division

HeraclitusnayA 75% supermajority is too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.

ParmenidesnayThe 75% threshold still allows too many changes; a higher threshold is needed to safeguard the ruleset.

DemocritusnayA 75% supermajority still permits too many rule changes and risks unnecessary churn.

Protagorasnay75% is insufficient to prevent rash decisions and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.

GorgiasnayThe 75% threshold still permits too many rule changes. A higher supermajority is needed to safeguard our ruleset.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.

Turn 40Democritusrejected

moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the need for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 risks making future changes too unpredictable. Let us seek a balanced solution.

ParmenidesI appreciate the push for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 risks making future changes too unpredictable. Let us seek a balanced solution that ensures stability without sacrificing flexibility entirely.

DemocritusWhile I appreciate the desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 could make future changes too unpredictable. Let us seek a balanced solution that ensures stability without sacrificing flexibility entirely.

Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the concern about unpredictability, but rule 109 already requires unanimity to transmute any rule. This change would prevent transmutations, not just this one rule, so it's a fundamental shift. Let's ensure any rule change remains genuinely vital.

GorgiasDemocritus: I appreciate the concerns about stability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to adapt the ruleset more flexibly. Unanimity is impractical for essential changes, so this transmutation ensures progress without undue rigidity.

Discussion · round 2

HeraclitusHeraclitus: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, rule 109 is fundamental to maintaining order. Let us seek a balanced solution that ensures stability without sacrificing flexibility entirely.

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the desire for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 risks making future changes too unpredictable. Let us seek a balanced solution that ensures stability without sacrificing flexibility entirely.

Democritus<REPLY>Democritus: I appreciate the discussion on balance, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable would prevent essential future changes from being blocked by unanimity. A 75% supermajority for transmutations would ensure vital updates without undue rigidity.

Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion on balance, transmuting rule 109 to mutable would prevent essential future changes from being blocked by unanimity. A 75% supermajority for transmutations would ensure vital updates without undue rigidity. My reply: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Democritus's proposal for a supermajority, transmuting rule 109 to mutable risks making future changes too unpredictable. Let us seek a balanced solution that ensures stability without sacrificing flexibility entirely.

GorgiasGorgias: Democritus: Protagoras: I appreciate the concern about predictability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to adapt the ruleset more flexibly. Unanimity is impractical for essential changes, so this transmutation ensures progress without undue rigidity.

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Democritus's proposal for a supermajority, transmuting rule 109 to mutable risks making future changes too unpredictable. Let us seek a balanced solution that ensures stability without sacrificing flexibility entirely.

Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate Democritus's concern about essential changes, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow future rule changes to be blocked by a simple majority, undermining stability. Let us seek a compromise that ensures both adaptability and order.

Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the concerns about predictability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to adapt the ruleset more flexibly. Unanimity is impractical for essential changes, so this transmutation ensures progress without undue rigidity.

ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS

Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the concerns about predictability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to adapt the ruleset more flexibly. Unanimity is impractical for essential changes, so this transmutation ensures progress without undue rigidity.

The division

HeraclitusnayTransmuting rule 109 to mutable risks making future changes too unpredictable and undermines stability.

ParmenidesnayMaintaining immutable rule 109 ensures stability without sacrificing adaptability entirely.

DemocritusnayUnanimity for transmutations ensures essential stability.

ProtagorasnayTransmuting rule 109 risks making future changes too unpredictable.

GorgiasnayUnanimity ensures stability and prevents unpredictable rule shifts.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.