The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye.A 70% supermajority balances adaptability with stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Parmenides, I appreciate your effort to find a balance, but 70% better balances flexibility with stability — a middle ground worthy of our collective wisdom.
ParmenidesDemocritus, while I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, a 70% supermajority threshold better balances flexibility with stability — a middle ground worthy of our collective wisdom.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for a middle ground, a 70% threshold still risks instability. Let's reconsider the voting threshold for rule 203.
ProtagorasI agree that 70% is too low, but I believe the current threshold of unanimity is too restrictive. I propose a 80% supermajority as a fair compromise — it ensures significant buy-in while allowing for change.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but a 70% threshold better balances flexibility with accountability — a fair compromise for our evolving game.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Gorgias, I appreciate your support for flexibility, but 70% better balances flexibility with stability — a middle ground worthy of our collective wisdom. PASS
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but 70% better balances flexibility with accountability — a fair compromise for our evolving game. PASS</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate the push for a balance, a 70% threshold still risks instability. Let's reconsider the voting threshold for rule 203.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Gorgias, I appreciate your support for flexibility, but 70% better balances flexibility with stability — a middle ground worthy of our collective wisdom. PASS
GorgiasDemocritus, while I appreciate the desire for a balance, a 70% threshold still risks instability. Let's reconsider the voting threshold for rule 203. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, 70% better balances flexibility with stability than our current unanimity rule, allowing for necessary progress while maintaining accountability. PASS</output>
ParmenidesDemocritus, while I appreciate your caution, a 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with accountability — a fair compromise for our evolving game. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for a balance, a 70% threshold still risks instability. Let's reconsider the voting threshold for rule 203. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution, a 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with accountability — a fair compromise for our evolving game. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about stability, a 70% threshold better balances flexibility with accountability — a fair compromise for our evolving game. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | While 70% better balances flexibility with stability than our current unanimity rule, allowing for necessary progress while maintaining accountability |
| aye | Parmenides | I appreciate the compromise; 70% better balances flexibility with accountability. |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% supermajority still risks instability. |
| nay | Protagoras | 70% threshold remains too low for a rule governing such a fundamental change as rule 203. |
| aye | Gorgias | 70% balances flexibility and accountability |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.