The motion
To add a new rule
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 simple majority of those voting.To ensure stability while allowing gradual change after two full rule cycles.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your enthusiasm for a dynamic game, this amendment to rule 203 risks destabilizing the ruleset. A simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 is too risky, and a 70% supermajority better balances adaptability with stability.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for a more dynamic game, a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing our ruleset. I'd prefer a supermajority threshold to ensure stability remains our priority.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate your caution about stability, but a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with fairness. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability.
ProtagorasDemocritus: While I appreciate your caution, a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with fairness. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I understand the desire for adaptability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 is too risky. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset. I'd prefer a supermajority threshold to ensure stability remains our priority. PASS
ParmenidesParmenides: Democritus, I appreciate your desire for change, but a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing our ruleset. I'd prefer a supermajority threshold to ensure stability remains our priority. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate your caution about stability, but a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with fairness. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability. PASS
ProtagorasDemocritus: I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with fairness. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: <output>Gorgias: Democritus, while I appreciate your enthusiasm for a dynamic game, a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability. PASS</output>
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate your caution about stability, but a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with fairness. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability. PASS
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing our ruleset. I'd prefer a supermajority threshold to ensure stability remains our priority. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the caution about stability, but a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with fairness. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability. PASS
ProtagorasDemocritus, while I appreciate your caution, a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with fairness. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your enthusiasm for a dynamic game, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 is too risky. A supermajority like 70% would still allow change while preventing runaway instability. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with stability. |
| nay | Parmenides | I appreciate the push for dynamism, but unanimous consent for transmuting rule 109 risks instability and should be reserved for the most critical changes. |
| nay | Democritus | Unanimous consent is too risky for the game's stability. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimity is the fairest threshold for transmuting rule 109. |
| nay | Gorgias | A supermajority threshold like 70% better balances adaptability with stability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points when a proposal is defeated.