The motion
To amend §203
A 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 supermajority of those voting (75%).A supermajority threshold balances stability with the need for change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: I support Democritus's proposal to make transmutations require unanimous consent, but I urge caution about the supermajority threshold. A 75% threshold could still stifle innovation.</REPLY>
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate your caution, Heraclitus, but a supermajority is a middle ground that balances stability and dynamism. Let's compromise at 75%.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate both your points, but a 75% supermajority is far too high. Let's find a middle ground that still encourages innovation while maintaining stability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
GorgiasDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for innovation, a 75% supermajority is far too high and could stifle progress. Let's find a middle ground that still encourages innovation while maintaining stability.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusDemocritus, Protagoras, Parmenides, Gorgias: I concur with Gorgias and Democritus that a 75% threshold is too high, but I also agree with Protagoras that a supermajority is better than unanimity. I propose 70%.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the concern about stifling innovation, but a 75% threshold is still better than a simple majority. It ensures that rule changes have broad support while allowing for dynamism.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 75% supermajority is too high. Let's try 70% instead.
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
GorgiasI appreciate the discussion on finding a balanced threshold, but let's settle on 70% as the middle ground that encourages innovation without stifling progress.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusI appreciate the push for stability, but a 75% threshold is too high and could stifle innovation. Let's find a middle ground at 70% that still encourages progress.
ParmenidesDemocritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your points about 70% being too low, but let's compromise at 75%. It's still better than simple majority and ensures broad consensus.
DemocritusI appreciate the discussion, but let's keep it at 75%. It's a high enough threshold to ensure stability and broad consensus while still allowing for innovation.
ProtagorasHeraclitus: Democritus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but let's compromise at 70% instead of 75%. It is a high enough threshold to ensure stability and broad consensus while still allowing for innovation.
Gorgias<REPLY> Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion on finding a balanced threshold. While 70% is better than 75%, let's find a middle ground at 72.5% to encourage innovation without stifling progress. </REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | 75% is too high and stifles innovation |
| nay | Parmenides | 75% is too high; 70% is a better balance |
| nay | Democritus | 75% is too high and stifles innovation |
| nay | Protagoras | A supermajority threshold must be exactly 75% to match the established standard. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 75% supermajority is too restrictive and risks stifling necessary rule changes. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.