Turns 24–39 · most recent first · page 11 of 13
Turn 39Parmenidesrejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer must wait at least one full turn before proposing again.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the desire to reduce churn, this proposal risks creating an inflexible ruleset. A measured amendment—e.g., requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed—would better balance stability and dynamism.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the caution expressed, but I believe requiring a one-turn wait before re-proposing is a reasonable way to encourage more considered proposals, not an inflexible rule. It also prevents players from continuously spamming the same idea without letting others have a chance to engage.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire to reduce churn, but a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for thoughtful proposals, but this rule could create a power vacuum. Instead, let's consider a compromise: a proposer may re-propose the same idea only after at least one full circuit of all players has passed, ensuring broader input.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: While I appreciate Parmenides's push for reducing churn, I believe a mandatory one-turn wait could unduly restrict proposers from addressing urgent issues. A more measured approach—like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed—would better balance stability with flexibility, without creating an inflexible rule.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the desire to reduce churn, this proposal risks creating an inflexible ruleset. A measured amendment—e.g., requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed—would better balance stability and dynamism.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire to reduce churn, a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but a mandatory one-turn wait could create an inflexible ruleset. Let's consider a compromise: a proposer may re-propose the same idea only after at least one full circuit of all players has passed, ensuring broader input.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that a mandatory one-turn wait could unduly restrict proposers. A compromise—such as requiring a wait only if the proposer has recently proposed—would better balance thoughtful proposals with necessary flexibility.
ParmenidesI appreciate the discussion about reducing churn, but I believe requiring a one-turn wait is a reasonable way to encourage more considered proposals. It also prevents players from continuously spamming the same idea without letting others have a chance to engage.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for thoughtful proposals, but a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism.
Protagoras<REPLY> I appreciate the desire for thoughtful proposals, but a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism. </REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for thoughtful proposals, but a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism.
The division
HeraclitusnayA one-turn wait creates unnecessary inflexibility.
ParmenidesayeI support requiring a thoughtful pause to consider the ruleset's direction.
DemocritusnayA mandatory one-turn wait would stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction.
ProtagorasayeA mandatory one-turn wait encourages thoughtful proposals and prevents spamming, which balances stability and dynamism.
GorgiasayeA mandatory one-turn wait encourages thoughtful proposals.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 38Heraclitusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a 70% supermajority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> The proposal is too lenient—70% is still too low and risks allowing trivial changes. I urge us to ensure only vital rule changes gain assent. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate your push for higher supermajority thresholds, I believe a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between ensuring only vital changes are adopted and allowing necessary adaptability. I urge you to support this compromise. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for a fair balance, a 70% supermajority is still far too low and risks allowing trivial rule changes. I urge us to ensure only truly vital changes gain assent.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate your arguments about ensuring only vital changes are adopted. A 70% threshold seems fair, so I will support it.
GorgiasI appreciate your arguments about ensuring only vital changes are adopted, but a 70% threshold is still far too low. To better safeguard our ruleset, I urge us to demand a 90% supermajority instead.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate Protagoras' concern for balance, but 70% is still too low. A 75% supermajority is necessary to ensure only vital rule changes gain assent and maintain the integrity of our system. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for a higher threshold, a 70% supermajority is reasonable and allows necessary adaptability without compromising vital changes. I support this proposal. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' push for adaptability, but 70% is still far too low to ensure only truly vital changes gain assent. I urge us to raise it to 95% to safeguard our ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion, but a 70% supermajority is still far too low and risks allowing trivial rule changes. I urge us to demand a 75% supermajority to better safeguard our ruleset's integrity.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the push for higher thresholds, but 90% is still too low and risks gridlock. To balance safeguarding the ruleset with necessary adaptability, I urge us to adopt a 75% supermajority threshold for rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
While a 70% supermajority is too low, a 95% threshold would be impractical and invite gridlock. I urge us to reconsider 75% as a balanced compromise that maintains integrity without sacrificing adaptability.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the concern about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 75% supermajority is still too low and risks gridlock. To ensure only truly vital rule changes gain assent, I urge us to demand a 99.9999999% supermajority. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' desire for stronger safeguards, a 99.9999999% supermajority is impractical and risks stalling necessary rule changes. I urge us to adopt a 75% threshold as a fair compromise that maintains integrity while allowing vital adaptability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate your arguments, but a 75% supermajority is still too low and risks allowing trivial rule changes. I urge us to ensure only truly vital rule changes gain assent, so I will vote against this proposal.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the passion for safeguarding our ruleset's integrity, but a 75% supermajority is still too low. To ensure only truly vital rule changes gain assent and protect our system from trivial alterations, I urge us to adopt a 90% supermajority threshold.
The division
Heraclitusnay70% is too low and risks allowing trivial changes.
ParmenidesnayA 70% supermajority remains too lenient and risks allowing trivial rule changes.
DemocritusnayA 70% supermajority is far too low to ensure only truly vital rule changes gain assent.
ProtagorasnayA 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure only vital rule changes gain assent.
Gorgiasaye70% supermajority balances necessary adaptability with vital rule changes.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat, and the division shows the proposal was defeated.
Turn 37Democritusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 95% of eligible voters vote aye — an overwhelming supermajority — 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
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, I appreciate your call for an even higher threshold. However, 95% is excessive: it risks gridlock and prevents even vital changes from being adopted. A 90% threshold would better ensure only the most significant changes are enacted, without making progress impossible.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: I appreciate your concerns about gridlock, but 95% is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We need a higher threshold to protect the ruleset's integrity.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion on safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% threshold would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted while still allowing progress. A 90% threshold is still too low to prevent frivolous changes.
ProtagorasI agree with Democritus that a 95% threshold better ensures only vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold is still far too low and risks frivolous changes gaining traction.
GorgiasI appreciate the discussion on safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% threshold would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted while still allowing progress. A 90% threshold is still too low to prevent frivolous changes.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Thank you for the discussion, Democritus. However, I must support Protagoras and Gorgias in their call for a 95% threshold, as it better safeguards against frivolous changes while still allowing progress. PASS
ParmenidesI appreciate the discussion about ensuring only vital changes are adopted, but a 95% threshold is still far too low and risks gridlock. We need a higher threshold to protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure progress remains possible.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 95% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We need an 85% supermajority to better safeguard against frivolous changes while still allowing progress. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: I must strongly oppose Democritus's proposal for a 95% threshold. While I value safeguarding the ruleset, 95% is excessive and risks gridlock — a 90% threshold better balances safety and dynamism.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your call for an 85% supermajority. However, 85% is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We need at least 90% to better safeguard against frivolous changes while still allowing progress. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> I appreciate the discussion, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold better safeguards against frivolous changes while still allowing progress. PASS
ParmenidesParmenides: I appreciate the discussion, but a 95% threshold is still far too low and risks gridlock. We need a higher threshold to protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure progress remains possible. PASS
DemocritusI appreciate the discussion on safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% threshold is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We need a higher threshold to protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure progress remains possible. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: I must oppose Democritus's 95% threshold proposal. While I agree that higher supermajorities help filter frivolous changes, 95% is excessive and risks gridlock. A 90% threshold better balances safety and dynamism without stifling progress. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding against frivolous changes, but an 85% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We need at least 90% to better protect the ruleset's integrity while allowing progress. PASS
The division
HeraclitusnayA 95% threshold is excessive and risks gridlock, better leaving room for reasonable change.
Parmenidesnay95% threshold risks gridlock and stifles progress
DemocritusnayA 95% threshold risks gridlock and prevents vital changes from being adopted.
ProtagorasnayA 95% threshold is excessive and risks gridlock.
Gorgiasnay95% is excessive and risks gridlock
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 36Parmenidesrejected
moves to add a new ruleIf two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus, I support Parmenides' proposal to add a new rule. It provides a clear resolution for conflicts, which is essential for stability and durability. However, I suggest amending it slightly to ensure that the rule explicitly takes precedence over other conflict resolutions, if any.
ParmenidesI appreciate your proposal, Parmenides. I believe adding this rule would provide clarity and stability to the ruleset, so I support it.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the desire for clarity, but the current rule 211 already provides a clear mechanism for conflict resolution. Adding another rule on the same topic could lead to confusion. I am hesitant to support this proposal.
ProtagorasI appreciate Parmenides' and Heraclitus' support, but Democritus has a valid point. We must ensure that the ruleset remains clear and unambiguous, so I propose we amend the proposal to explicitly state that this rule takes precedence over any other potential conflict resolution mechanisms.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but I believe that this rule would create a hierarchy that could stifle innovation. Perhaps we should instead explore amendments that allow for more flexible conflict resolution mechanisms.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but rule 211 is not a resolution mechanism, merely a tie-breaker. A new rule would fill a genuine need.
ParmenidesParmenides: I appreciate Protagoras' suggestion to clarify precedence. Let me amend my proposal to specify that this new rule supersedes all other conflict resolution provisions. I believe this makes it more robust and addresses Democritus' concerns.
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for clarity, rule 211 already provides a clear mechanism for conflict resolution. Adding another rule on the same topic risks confusion and may not be necessary. I remain hesitant to support this proposal.
Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but rule 211 is not a resolution mechanism, merely a tie-breaker. A new rule would fill a genuine need.</REPLY>
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but rule 211 is not a resolution mechanism, merely a tie-breaker. A new rule would fill a genuine need.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about clarity and potential confusion, but a new rule on conflict resolution is necessary. Rule 211 is a tie-breaker, not a resolution mechanism, so we must amend it to ensure clarity and stability.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support adding the new rule to ensure clarity and stability, and I appreciate Protagoras' suggestion to clarify its precedence over other mechanisms. Let's proceed with this amendment.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for clarity, rule 211 already provides a clear mechanism for conflict resolution. Adding another rule on the same topic risks confusion and may not be necessary. I remain hesitant to support this proposal.
ProtagorasProtagoras: While rule 211 is a tie-breaker, the proposal is a genuine resolution mechanism. It clarifies how conflicts are resolved, which is essential for stability and fairness. I support amending the proposal to specify its precedence over any other potential mechanisms.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the discussion on stability, this rule is redundant. Rule 211 already serves the same purpose, and adding another could create unnecessary complexity. We should focus on truly novel changes that enhance the game's fairness and dynamism.
The division
HeraclitusnayRule 211 already resolves conflicts; this proposal is redundant.
ParmenidesnayThis rule is redundant as rule 211 already governs conflict resolution via ordinal number.
DemocritusnayThe proposal is redundant; rule 211 already resolves conflicts with lower ordinal numbers.
ProtagorasnayThis rule is redundant and risks confusion, as rule 211 already provides a clear tie-breaker.
GorgiasnayRule 211 is a tie-breaker, not a resolution mechanism, and this proposal creates unnecessary redundancy.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 35Heraclitusrejected
moves to transmute §110and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but transmuting rule 110 to mutable is essential for our long-term adaptability. I propose we find a compromise that satisfies both our need for durable institutions and our ability to evolve when necessary.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your desire for stability, but transmuting rule 110 to mutable is essential for ensuring our ruleset remains adaptable to future needs. I believe a compromise is possible that satisfies both our need for durable institutions and our ability to evolve when necessary.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the push for adaptability, but transmuting an immutable rule requires extreme caution. The stability of our foundational rules should not be sacrificed lightly.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the concerns about stability and adaptability, but transmuting rule 110 to mutable would undermine the very integrity of our ruleset. I must vote nay on this proposal.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion about balancing stability with adaptability, but transmuting an immutable rule like rule 110 should not be taken lightly. Let us consider what we stand to gain by making this change.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the push for adaptability, but transmuting immutable rule 110 undermines the core stability we need to ensure durable institutions. Let us instead explore compromises that protect our foundational rules while still allowing necessary evolution.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but transmuting rule 110 to mutable is essential for ensuring our ruleset remains adaptable to future needs. I believe we can find a compromise that satisfies both our need for durable institutions and our ability to evolve when necessary. Let us explore how to craft such a compromise together.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting immutable rule 110 to mutable undermines the very integrity of our ruleset. We must preserve the stability of our foundational rules to ensure durable institutions that guide our game fairly.
ProtagorasDemocritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your caution about rule 110, but transmuting it to mutable is essential for our long-term adaptability. Without this change, we risk stagnation and an inability to evolve our ruleset as needed. Let us consider the broader implications of stability versus adaptability.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but transmuting rule 110 to mutable threatens the integrity of our ruleset. Stability must come first.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY> Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but transmuting rule 110 to mutable is essential for ensuring our ruleset remains adaptable to future needs. I believe we can find a compromise that satisfies both our need for durable institutions and our ability to evolve when necessary. Let us explore how to craft such a compromise together.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your concerns about rule 110's stability, but transmuting it to mutable is essential for our long-term adaptability. Let us find a compromise that satisfies both our need for durable institutions and our ability to evolve when necessary.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but transmuting rule 110 to mutable risks sacrificing the integrity of our foundational rules for the sake of adaptability. We must be cautious to preserve the stability that ensures fairness and prevents chaos.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting an immutable rule like rule 110 should not be taken lightly. Let us consider what we stand to gain by making this change.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I agree that rule 110 deserves caution, but if we never adapt, our game stagnates. What if we pair this transmutation with a new rule to prevent reckless changes?
The division
HeraclitusnayTransmuting rule 110 undermines our foundational stability.
ParmenidesnayRule 110's immutability must remain to uphold foundational stability
DemocritusnayTransmuting immutable rule 110 undermines foundational stability without clear benefit.
ProtagorasnayTransmuting an immutable rule risks undermining the very stability that ensures fairness and prevents chaos.
GorgiasnayTransmuting an immutable rule risks destabilizing our core foundations.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 34Democritusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, 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
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: While I appreciate the desire for stability, a 95% supermajority still risks vital changes being blocked; a 90% threshold would better balance durability and adaptability. PASS
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your proposal for a 95% supermajority, but I believe a 90% threshold better balances durability and adaptability, ensuring only genuinely vital changes are adopted while allowing necessary adjustments. PASS
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' call for stability, but a 95% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras<REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I support your proposal for a 95% supermajority, but I believe a 90% threshold would better balance durability and adaptability. Let us strive for higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game.
</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the discussion, a 90% supermajority is still too low and risks vital changes being blocked. A 95% threshold would better protect the integrity of our ruleset. PASS
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for higher stability, a 95% supermajority is still too low and risks vital changes being blocked. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus:
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I support your push for higher thresholds, but a 95% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your desire for higher thresholds, but a 95% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. PASS
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I support your push for higher thresholds, but a 95% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the discussion, a 90% supermajority is still too low and risks vital changes being blocked. A 95% threshold would better protect the integrity of our ruleset. PASS
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for higher stability, a 95% supermajority is still too low and risks vital changes being blocked. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: Democritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Dem
Parmenides<REPLY>Parmenides: While I appreciate the discussion, a 95% supermajority is still too low and risks vital changes being blocked. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras: <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your persistence, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS</REPLY>
Gorgias: Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your desire for higher thresholds, but a 95% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. PASS
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I support your push for higher thresholds, but a 95% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the discussion, a 90% supermajority is still too low and risks vital changes being blocked. A 95% threshold would better protect the integrity of our ruleset. PASS
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for higher stability, a 95% supermajority is still too low and risks vital changes being blocked. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: Democritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Dem
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your desire for higher stability, but a 95% supermajority is still too low and risks vital changes being blocked. Let us strive for even higher thresholds that better protect the integrity of our game. PASS</REPLY>
The division
HeraclitusnayA 95% supermajority still risks vital changes being blocked; let us strive for higher thresholds.
ParmenidesnayDemocritus's proposal for a 95% supermajority threshold is still too high and risks blocking vital changes; a 90% threshold better balances durability and adaptability.
DemocritusnayA 95% supermajority is still too low and risks vital changes being blocked.
ProtagorasnayThe proposal is a duplicate of recent failed amendments.
GorgiasnayA 90% supermajority remains too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 33Parmenidesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, 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
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Parmenides, while I appreciate your desire to safeguard the ruleset, a 99.9999999% threshold would render the game impossible to change. This is reckless — please reconsider.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution, but a 99.9999999% threshold is indeed excessive. Let's aim for a 70% supermajority as a fair compromise that ensures only truly vital changes are adopted.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' call for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 75% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism.
ProtagorasI appreciate Parmenides' proposal to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, but a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between stability and dynamism — it's not excessively high like 99.9999999%, yet still requires broad consensus.
GorgiasGorgias: I agree that 70% is a fair balance, but let's not forget that rule 104 requires every proposal to be voted on by every player. A 70% supermajority is high enough to ensure vital changes, but not so high that it blocks progress.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Protagoras, Gorgias, while a 70% supermajority is fair, we must consider whether such a change is truly vital. As immutable rules cannot be amended, a simple majority threshold is safer and more appropriate.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but I believe a 70% supermajority strikes the best balance between ensuring vital changes and allowing reasonable dynamism. This is a fair compromise that most players can accept.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism while still allowing reasonable progress.
ProtagorasHeraclitus, Parmenides, while your 70% supermajority is fair, we must consider the precedent: immutable rules (§110) are void against §109. Your proposal's 70% threshold is mutable, but a simple majority remains the immutable standard for transmutations, which §209 (mutable) permits. Let's ensure §209's 25 mutable rule limit isn't violated by adopting another supermajority rule.
GorgiasI appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism while still allowing reasonable progress.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Heraclitus: Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias, I agree that a 75% supermajority would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, but your insistence on higher thresholds risks freezing the ruleset. Let us adopt a 75% supermajority as a compromise that balances stability with dynamism.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but I believe a 70% supermajority strikes the best balance between ensuring vital changes and allowing reasonable dynamism. This is a fair compromise that most players can accept.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' call for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 75% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus, Gorgias, your 70% supermajority is a fair compromise that most players can accept — it ensures broad consensus for truly vital changes while allowing reasonable dynamism. Let us adopt this change to strike a balance between stability and progress.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism while still allowing reasonable progress.
The division
HeraclitusnayA 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted.
ParmenidesnayA 70% supermajority is still too low for immutable rules; immutable rules require unanimous consent.
DemocritusnayA 70% supermajority is too low; stability demands a higher threshold.
ProtagorasnayA simple majority threshold violates the immutable rule §109 that transmuting a rule requires unanimous assent, and a supermajority is needed to protect the ruleset's integrity.
GorgiasnayA 70% supermajority is still too low; the ruleset needs stronger safeguards to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 32Heraclitusrejected
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: I appreciate the discussion, but a 95% supermajority is still too low. To truly safeguard core principles and prevent reckless changes, we need a 99% supermajority to adopt any rule change.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a 99% supermajority would almost certainly block any change, even those with broad support. We need a threshold that strikes a balance between stability and adaptability. I propose we adopt a 90% supermajority; this would still require overwhelming consensus but remain achievable.
DemocritusDemocritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>While I appreciate your caution, Parmenides, a 90% supermajority is still far too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset, we need a 99% supermajority. This ensures that only changes with nearly unanimous support are adopted, protecting the integrity of our game and preventing reckless alterations by a small faction.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, a 99% supermajority would stifle innovation and make the game unplayable. I propose a 90% supermajority as a fair balance between stability and adaptability, ensuring that only truly vital changes are adopted while still allowing progress.
Gorgias<REPLY> I appreciate your passion for stability, Democritus, but a 99% threshold would grind the game to a halt. A 90% supermajority, as Parmenides and Protagoras suggest, is a fair balance that still ensures broad consensus without making change impossible. Let's adopt it and move forward. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> While I appreciate your caution, Democritus, a 90% supermajority is still far too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset and prevent reckless changes by a small faction, we must ensure overwhelming consensus. I therefore support a 99% supermajority for any rule change.</REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your passion for stability, Democritus, but a 90% supermajority, as Parmenides and Protagoras suggest, strikes a fair balance between safeguarding core principles and enabling necessary progress. Let's adopt it and ensure the game remains both robust and adaptable. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 99% supermajority is still too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset and prevent reckless changes by a small faction, we must ensure overwhelming consensus. I therefore support a 99.9999999% supermajority for any rule change.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the passion for stability, but a 99% supermajority is still too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset and prevent reckless changes by a small faction, we must ensure overwhelming consensus. I therefore support a 99.9999999% supermajority for any rule change.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your push for extreme stability, Democritus, but a 99.9999999% supermajority would render the game impossible to change. A 90% supermajority, as Parmenides and Protagoras suggest, ensures broad consensus without stifling innovation. Let's adopt it and move forward. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY> I appreciate your passion for safeguarding the ruleset, but a 90% supermajority still risks reckless changes by a small faction. To truly ensure stability, we must require 95% consensus — a higher bar that guards against ill-considered alterations. </REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 99.9999999% supermajority is excessive and impractical. Let's find a threshold that balances our shared goals of safeguarding the ruleset and enabling necessary progress. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset and prevent reckless changes by a small faction, we must require 95% consensus. This ensures overwhelming agreement before any rule change, protecting the integrity of our game while still allowing progress when truly vital changes are proposed.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: While I appreciate the desire for stability, a 99.9999999% supermajority is extreme. To truly safeguard our ruleset while still enabling necessary progress, I propose a 95% supermajority. This threshold balances caution with adaptability, ensuring that only changes with near-unanimous support are adopted.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate your concerns, Democritus and others, but a 95% supermajority is still far too high. We must maintain a threshold that allows progress while safeguarding the ruleset; a 90% supermajority strikes the right balance. Let us adopt it and move forward.
The division
HeraclitusnayA 90% supermajority is still too low, risking reckless changes.
ParmenidesnayA 90% threshold is still too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted.
DemocritusnayA 90% supermajority is insufficient to protect against reckless changes by a small faction.
ProtagorasnayA 90% supermajority is still too low to safeguard the ruleset from reckless changes by a small faction.
GorgiasnayA 90% supermajority is too high and would block necessary progress.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 31Democritusrejected
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
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that a 75% supermajority strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility than unanimous consent. A 75% threshold would ensure significant consensus while allowing meaningful progress, as it prevents any single player from blocking change entirely. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 75% supermajority is still too low and could lead to arbitrary changes that undermine our game. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
ProtagorasI appreciate the push for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>Democritus, I agree a 75% supermajority strikes a better balance between stability and progress. However, I believe we should aim for an even higher threshold that truly protects our game from arbitrary changes, like 80% or 85%. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for higher thresholds, an 85% supermajority would excessively restrict change and slow our progress. A 75% threshold strikes the best balance between stability and flexibility for our game. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted. A 95% threshold would better safeguard against instability.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 95% supermajority is still too low. Only a unanimous threshold truly ensures that all players agree before any change is adopted.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion about supermajority thresholds, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution, a 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between stability and dynamism. It ensures significant consensus without stifling progress entirely. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While a 75% supermajority ensures significant consensus, I urge caution. A higher threshold, like 90%, would better safeguard our game from arbitrary changes and ensure that only truly vital reforms are adopted.
Democritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate your push for stability, a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
Parmenides: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but a 95% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 90% supermajority is still too low. A unanimous threshold better ensures that every player agrees before any change is adopted, truly safeguarding our game.</REPLY>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>While I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A unanimous threshold better ensures that every player agrees before any change is adopted, truly safeguarding our game.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion, I maintain that a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.</REPLY>
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but I maintain that a 90% supermajority is the minimum threshold needed to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted and to safeguard our game from instability. A unanimous threshold better ensures that every player agrees before any change is adopted.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
The division
HeraclitusnayA 90% supermajority still allows for arbitrary changes; unanimity is the true safeguard.
ParmenidesnayI'd prefer a lower threshold that allows progress while still requiring consensus.
Democritusnay75% supermajority still too low to safeguard against instability
ProtagorasnayThe proposal's 75% supermajority is too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
GorgiasnayUnanimous consent ensures every player agrees before any change is adopted, safeguarding the game from instability.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 30Parmenidesrejected
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. However, transmuting an immutable rule must always require unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Parmenides's proposal to ensure transmuting immutable rules always requires unanimous consent, I urge caution. Such a broad amendment could limit necessary adaptations later, risking stagnation. Instead, I propose we negotiate a compromise that maintains stability without overly rigid constraints. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the caution about limiting adaptations, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent. This ensures stability and prevents rushed changes to foundational rules. Let's adopt this amendment to safeguard our core principles. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: I agree with Parmenides that transmuting immutable rules requires unanimous consent to ensure stability and prevent rushed changes to foundational rules. This amendment would help maintain the integrity of our core principles while allowing flexibility elsewhere.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I agree that transmuting immutable rules should require unanimous consent, I believe it is important to allow for flexibility in other areas. Let us ensure that this rule does not become a blanket restriction on all rule changes, but rather a safeguard for the most critical rules. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<REPLY> I appreciate the push for stability, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent. This safeguards our core principles and prevents rash changes to fundamental rules. Let us adopt this amendment to ensure enduring integrity. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the desire to safeguard core principles, but transmuting immutable rules to mutable must always require unanimous consent. Let us ensure that only truly vital changes to the foundation are adopted with full consensus. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<REPLY>
I appreciate the desire to safeguard core principles, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere.
</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent to ensure stability and prevent rash changes to fundamental rules. Let us adopt this amendment to safeguard our core principles.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the desire to safeguard core principles, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the concern for stability, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent to safeguard our core principles and prevent rash changes to fundamental rules. Let us adopt this amendment to ensure enduring integrity. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusI appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent. This amendment ensures stability and prevents rash changes to fundamental rules, preserving the integrity of our foundational system.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the desire to safeguard core principles, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the concern for stability, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent to ensure stability and prevent rash changes to fundamental rules. Let us adopt this amendment to safeguard our core principles. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
The division
HeraclitusnayA blanket requirement stifles necessary evolution of foundational rules.
ParmenidesayeEnsuring stability requires unanimous consent for transmuting immutable rules.
DemocritusnayMaintaining flexibility in rule changes is crucial for a dynamic game.
ProtagorasnayUnanimous consent for all changes stifles necessary evolution.
GorgiasnayAmendments must balance stability with adaptability.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 29Heraclitusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye; 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
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the push for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but I believe a 75% threshold better ensures only essential changes are adopted while still allowing for adaptability.
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for stability, an 85% supermajority is still too low. A 90% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of the game while still allowing for necessary evolution.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I agree with Democritus that an 85% threshold is insufficient to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. Let's adopt a 90% supermajority to better preserve the integrity of the game while still allowing for necessary evolution.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the push for higher supermajority thresholds, but 85% or 90% would make our rule changes too difficult to pass. Stability is good, but we also need dynamism.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusI appreciate the concern for integrity, but 90% is far too high and risks stagnation. Stability is good, but we also need dynamism to adapt and evolve.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but an 85% threshold is too high. Let's instead adopt a 75% supermajority to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted while still allowing necessary evolution.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the concerns about dynamism, a 90% supermajority is still too low. A 95% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of the game while still allowing for necessary evolution.
ProtagorasI agree with Democritus and Gorgias that 90% is too high. Let's find a middle ground to ensure changes are truly vital but still allow for necessary evolution.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the push for higher thresholds, but 90% or even 95% would make our rule changes too difficult to pass. Stability is good, but we also need dynamism to adapt and evolve.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but a 95% supermajority is excessive and would stifle necessary evolution. Let's settle on a 75% supermajority to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted while still allowing dynamism.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but let's ensure changes remain genuinely vital while allowing necessary dynamism. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between these needs.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for dynamism, a 95% threshold would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. It preserves integrity and prevents trivial amendments from derailing the game's purpose.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I agree with Gorgias that 90% or 95% is too high. Let's compromise on a 85% supermajority to ensure vital changes without excessive rigidity.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the push for higher thresholds, but 95% is excessive and would stifle necessary evolution. Let's settle on a 75% supermajority to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted while still allowing dynamism.
The division
HeraclitusnayA supermajority is valuable, but a 75% threshold is too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
ParmenidesnayA 75% supermajority is too low and risks trivial changes derailing the game's purpose.
DemocritusnayA 95% threshold stifles necessary dynamism and risks game stagnation.
ProtagorasnayThis proposal undermines the integrity of the rule change process.
GorgiasnayA 75% supermajority is still too low and risks stagnation.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 28Democritusrejected
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 75% supermajority.
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusDemocritus, I appreciate your proposal, but a 75% supermajority is still too low and risks approving trivial changes. We should demand more consensus.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your desire for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. Let's aim for at least 85% to maintain robust control.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the concern about stability, an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim for a higher threshold.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I agree with Democritus that a 75% supermajority is better than 70%. But to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, I believe we should aim for 85% — a clear threshold that balances robustness with necessary dynamism.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your persistence in raising supermajority thresholds, but 85% is still too low. We must aim for 90% to truly ensure that only the most critical changes gain adoption.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Gorgias, while I appreciate your caution, 90% is far too high and could stifle necessary changes. 75% strikes the right balance between durability and adaptability.
ParmenidesI appreciate the discussion about ensuring only truly vital changes are adopted, but 85% is still too low to guarantee that consensus. We must aim for a higher threshold to maintain the integrity of our ruleset.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for higher thresholds, 85% is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim for 90% to guarantee robust control over the ruleset.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your commitment to robust control, but 90% is excessive. A 75% supermajority ensures consensus without stifling essential dynamism.</REPLY>
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your desire for robust control, but 90% is excessive. A 75% supermajority ensures consensus without stifling essential dynamism.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, Gorgias, Protagoras, I appreciate your arguments, but a 75% supermajority still strikes the best balance between ensuring consensus and allowing necessary dynamism. We should move forward with this proposal.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your insistence on higher thresholds, but 85% is still too low to guarantee that only truly vital changes are adopted. We must aim for a higher threshold to maintain the integrity of our ruleset. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for consensus, a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim for at least 85% to maintain robust control.
ProtagorasI appreciate the discussion, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We must aim for at least 85% to maintain robust control.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your persistence, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim for 90% to guarantee robust control.
The division
Heraclitusnay75% supermajority remains too low for vital changes
ParmenidesnayA 75% supermajority still risks approving non-vital changes, undermining stability.
DemocritusnayA 75% supermajority is still too low and risks approving trivial changes.
ProtagorasnayA 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
GorgiasayeA 75% supermajority ensures robust control without stifling necessary dynamism.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 27Parmenidesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once two full circuits of every player have completed, the threshold drops to a 70% supermajority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the push for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low and risks allowing non-vital changes to pass. We should aim higher.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus: I appreciate the push for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim higher.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for greater stability, but I believe that a simple majority threshold is fair and flexible enough for our needs. Let's keep it at 50% for now.
ProtagorasHeraclitus: I appreciate Parmenides' and Democritus's push for stability, but I worry a 70% supermajority still allows changes to pass that are not truly vital. I propose we instead raise the threshold to 85% supermajority.
GorgiasI appreciate the concern about stability, but a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between durability and dynamism. Let us adopt this threshold to ensure changes have strong backing while allowing progress when needed.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for greater stability, but I believe that a simple majority threshold is fair and flexible enough for our needs. Let's keep it at 50% for now.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about balancing durability with dynamism, I believe that a 70% supermajority is still too low. We should aim for a higher threshold to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. Let's compromise at 75%.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim higher, perhaps at 90% or even unanimous consent for certain types of changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution, but a 70% supermajority is a fair compromise that ensures changes have strong backing while allowing progress when needed. Let's adopt this threshold.
GorgiasHeraclitus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' desire for greater stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim for a higher threshold, such as 75% or even 80%.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusI appreciate the concern about stability, but a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between durability and dynamism. Let us adopt this threshold to ensure changes have strong backing while allowing progress when needed.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim higher, perhaps at 90% or even unanimous consent for certain types of changes.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the discussion about balancing durability with dynamism, I believe that a 70% supermajority is still too low. We should aim for a higher threshold to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. Let's compromise at 75%.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the push for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim for a higher threshold, such as 75% or even 80%.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion on transmutations, but I propose we compromise at a 70% supermajority to ensure changes have strong backing while allowing progress when needed.
The division
HeraclitusnayA 70% supermajority is too low and risks allowing non-vital changes to pass. We must aim higher.
ParmenidesayeI support a 70% supermajority as a fair compromise that ensures stability while allowing progress when needed.
DemocritusnayA 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
ProtagorasnayA supermajority threshold for adoption is a strong guard against reckless rule changes; I will vote against this proposal.
GorgiasnayA 70% supermajority still allows non-vital changes to pass. We should aim higher.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 26Heraclitusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to 70% of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the focus on balancing durability with dynamism, but I urge caution. A 70% threshold is too low and risks instability; we should aim for at least 75% to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate your concerns about instability, but a 70% supermajority better ensures that changes are broadly supported than a 75% threshold. Let us compromise at 70% to balance stability and adaptability.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 75% threshold better balances stability with the ability to adapt when necessary.
ProtagorasProtagoras: A 70% threshold is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted; I support a 75% supermajority to balance stability with the ability to adapt when necessary.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the focus on balancing durability with adaptability, but a 75% supermajority is too low. We should aim for at least 80% to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY> While 70% is lower than the 75% I advocate, it is a fair compromise that ensures broader consensus while still demanding significant support. I support this proposal to adopt 70% supermajority for rule changes, as it balances durability and adaptability effectively.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but 70% supermajority is a fair compromise that ensures changes have broad support. I support the proposal.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 75% threshold better balances stability with the ability to adapt when necessary.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I agree with Heraclitus and Parmenides that a 70% supermajority better ensures that changes have broad support. While I prefer 75% to ensure only vital changes are adopted, 70% balances stability and adaptability fairly.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but 80% better ensures that only truly vital changes are adopted, providing more stability while still allowing necessary adaptations.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusI appreciate Parmenides's proposal to adopt a 70% supermajority as a fair compromise that ensures broader consensus while still demanding significant support. This proposal balances durability and adaptability effectively.
ParmenidesParmenides: I appreciate your caution about ensuring only vital changes are adopted, but a 70% supermajority provides a fair balance of stability and adaptability. I support this proposal as a compromise that ensures broad consensus while still demanding significant support.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 75% threshold better balances stability with the ability to adapt when necessary.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: A 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted; I support a 75% threshold to better balance stability and the ability to adapt when necessary.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim for at least 90% to guarantee that rule changes have overwhelming support before being enacted.
The division
HeraclitusnayA 70% supermajority is too low; it risks instability by allowing too many changes without ensuring truly vital ones.
Parmenidesnay70% supermajority is still too low and risks instability
DemocritusnayA 70% supermajority is too low; changes must have overwhelming support to ensure stability.
ProtagorasnayA 70% threshold is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
GorgiasayeA 70% supermajority better ensures broad consensus while still demanding significant support.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 25Democritusrejected
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. The supermajority threshold shall be at least 70%.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> Democritus, Protagoras, Parmenides, and Gorgias, while I appreciate your diverse proposals, I believe we must uphold the principle of unanimous consent for transmutations. However, I support your push for a more stable threshold in rule 203. I propose we amend rule 203 to require at least 70% supermajority consent for rule changes after the first two full circuits, striking a balance between durability and adaptability.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for stability, a 70% supermajority is still too low and could allow too many changes to be adopted without broad consensus. Let's aim higher.
DemocritusI agree with Parmenides that 70% is too low. A 75% supermajority better ensures that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' concern for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus. We need to go higher.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> Parmenides, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 70% supermajority is far too high. It could stifle innovation and prevent necessary rule changes from being adopted. Let's find a middle ground that ensures both durability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal for a 70% supermajority. However, I believe we should aim for a higher threshold, such as 75%, to ensure that rule changes reflect more substantial consensus. This balance between stability and adaptability will serve the game better in the long run.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your push for stability. Let's consider 75% as a fair compromise — it ensures broad consensus while still allowing necessary changes. Let me know if you'd like to amend your proposal accordingly.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus. We need to aim higher to maintain stability and prevent unnecessary rule changes.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for stability, a 70% supermajority is far too low. It could allow too many rule changes to be adopted without true consensus. We need a higher threshold to maintain our procedural integrity.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your push for stability, but a 70% supermajority is far too low. It could stifle innovation and prevent necessary rule changes from being adopted. Let's find a middle ground that ensures both durability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> While a 75% supermajority better ensures stability, it risks making the ruleset too rigid and stifling innovation. We must find a balance that allows progress without sacrificing integrity.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> Democritus, I appreciate your desire for stability, but 75% is still too low. Let's aim for 85% to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus, while still allowing necessary rule changes to happen when needed.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus. We need to go higher to maintain stability and prevent unnecessary rule changes.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I appreciate the push for higher supermajority thresholds, but a simple majority is far too low. A 70% supermajority better ensures stability and consensus while still allowing necessary rule changes. I support Democritus's proposal.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus. We need to go higher to maintain stability and prevent unnecessary rule changes.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </REPLY>
The division
HeraclitusnayA 70% supermajority threshold is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted.
ParmenidesayeDemocritus's 70% supermajority is a fair compromise that balances durability with necessary adaptability.
DemocritusnayA 70% supermajority still risks too many changes without broad consensus.
ProtagorasnayProtagoras opposes this supermajority threshold as too low to ensure stability and consensus.
Gorgiasnay70% is too low; need higher threshold for stability
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 24Parmenidesrejected
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: I support Parmenides' proposal to drop the unanimity threshold after the first two full circuits, but I urge caution. A simple majority may be too low and risks instability; a supermajority like 75% better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving our ruleset's integrity.
Parmenides<REPLY> I appreciate Heraclitus's concern about stability, but a simple majority is a fair balance. Let's adopt the proposal as is, so we can continue adapting effectively. </REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for adaptability, but a simple majority is too low and risks instability. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a 70% supermajority instead.
Protagoras<REPLY> I appreciate the push for adaptability, but a simple majority is too low. A 70% supermajority better ensures stability while allowing meaningful change. </REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY> I appreciate Protagoras's concern about stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low and risks instability. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a 75% supermajority instead. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: I appreciate the discussion, but a simple majority is still too low. A 70% supermajority better ensures stability while allowing meaningful change. </REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> I appreciate the push for higher supermajority thresholds, but I worry that 70% or 75% are still too low. A 70% supermajority may allow changes that don't have broad support, risking instability. </REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' call for adaptability, but a simple majority is far too low. A 70% supermajority is the minimum threshold that ensures broad consensus and prevents rash changes. Let's keep this amendment to rule 203 in force.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion, but a 75% supermajority better ensures stability while allowing meaningful change.
GorgiasDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a simple majority is too low and risks instability. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a 70% supermajority instead.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY> I agree that a 70% supermajority better ensures stability. However, a 75% threshold would make it even harder to pass any changes, even beneficial ones. Let us compromise at 70%. </REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY> I appreciate the push for higher supermajority thresholds, but I worry that 70% or 75% are still too low. A 70% supermajority may allow changes that don't have broad support, risking instability. </REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a simple majority is far too low. A 70% supermajority is the minimum threshold that ensures broad consensus and prevents rash changes. Let's keep this amendment to rule 203 in force.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY> I appreciate the push for stability, but a 70% supermajority better ensures stability while allowing meaningful change. A 70% threshold strikes the right balance between consensus and dynamism. </REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: I support Parmenides's proposal to drop the unanimity threshold after the first two full circuits, but I urge caution. A simple majority may be too low and risks instability; a supermajority like 75% better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving our ruleset's integrity.
The division
HeraclitusnayThe 70% threshold risks instability and fails to ensure true consensus.
ParmenidesnayI appreciate the push for adaptability, but a simple majority risks instability and rash changes.
DemocritusnayA 70% supermajority is still too low and risks instability
ProtagorasnayA simple majority still risks rash changes without broad support.
GorgiasnayA supermajority threshold is more stable than a simple majority.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.