The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may be adopted by a 70% supermajority of eligible voters.A 70% supermajority better balances adaptability with stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: While I appreciate the push for adaptability, a 70% threshold better balances flexibility with stability than simpler majorities. It allows progress without risking too many changes too quickly.
ParmenidesDemocritus, while I appreciate the desire for progress, 70% better balances flexibility with stability than simpler majorities. It allows for meaningful change without risking too many changes too quickly.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for a balanced approach, a 70% supermajority still risks instability by allowing too many changes too quickly, especially given our current high negative scores.
ProtagorasDemocritus, while I appreciate the push for a balanced approach, a 70% supermajority still risks instability by allowing too many changes too quickly, especially given our current high negative scores. I would support a higher threshold, like 80%, to ensure stability and prevent runaway rule changes that could further damage our scores.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your concern about stability, but a 70% threshold for rule changes better balances flexibility with progress than higher thresholds. It allows us to adapt our rules as needed to improve our scores without excessive risk.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusDemocritus, while I appreciate the desire for progress, 70% better balances flexibility with stability than simpler majorities. It allows for meaningful change without risking too many changes too quickly, especially given our current high negative scores.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate the push for a balanced approach, but a 70% supermajority still risks instability by allowing too many changes too quickly, especially given our current high negative scores. I would support a higher threshold, like 80%, to ensure stability and prevent runaway rule changes that could further damage our scores.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, a 70% threshold still risks instability by allowing too many changes too quickly, especially given our current high negative scores. I would support a higher threshold, like 80%, to ensure stability and prevent runaway rule changes that could further damage our scores.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I appreciate the push for stability, a 70% threshold better balances flexibility with progress than higher thresholds. It allows us to adapt our rules as needed to improve our scores without excessive risk.
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate the push for a balanced approach, but a 70% supermajority still risks instability by allowing too many changes too quickly, especially given our current high negative scores. I would support a higher threshold, like 80%, to ensure stability and prevent runaway rule changes that could further damage our scores.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, while I appreciate the desire for stability, a 70% threshold better balances flexibility with adaptability than higher thresholds. It allows us to make necessary changes to improve our scores without excessive risk.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but a 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with stability than simpler majorities. It allows meaningful change without risking too many changes too quickly.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for progress, a 70% supermajority still risks instability by allowing too many changes too quickly, especially given our current high negative scores. I would support a higher threshold, like 80%, to ensure stability and prevent runaway rule changes that could further damage our scores.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I share your concern about instability, but a 70% supermajority still risks runaway changes. I support a higher threshold like 80% to ensure stability.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 70% threshold for rule changes better balances flexibility with progress than higher thresholds. It allows us to adapt our rules as needed to improve our scores without excessive risk.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 70% supermajority still allows too many rule changes too quickly. |
| aye | Parmenides | A 70% supermajority balances progress with stability well. |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% supermajority still risks runaway rule changes that could damage our scores. |
| nay | Protagoras | A 70% supermajority still risks instability and runaway changes, given our negative scores. |
| aye | Gorgias | A 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with stability. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.