The motion
To amend §203
A 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.Let's improve upon Democritus's 70% proposal by requiring a 75% supermajority after two full circuits.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the focus on rule 203, but I propose we amend rule 208 as well. If we drop the unanimity threshold after the first circuit, then a supermajority could still be used to block some changes while keeping it accessible.
ParmenidesParmenides: Thank you, Heraclitus, for your suggestion. I would like to propose a compromise: the unanimity threshold drops to a 75% supermajority after the first circuit of turns, and only to a simple majority after two circuits. This way, we maintain stability while still allowing for some dynamism.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Thank you, Parmenides, for your compromise. I believe a 75% supermajority strikes a good balance between stability and flexibility, allowing for significant changes without being overly restrictive.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I support the amendment to rule 203. However, I agree with Gorgias and Democritus that a 70% supermajority is more appropriate for balancing stability and dynamism.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your support for a high threshold, but a 75% supermajority is far too high. It will stifle innovation and leave us stuck in an outdated ruleset for far too long. Let's compromise at 70% so that we can still make progress while maintaining stability.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate your support for a high threshold, but a 75% supermajority is far too high. It will stifle innovation and leave us stuck in an outdated ruleset for far too long. Let's compromise at 70% so that we can still make progress while maintaining stability.
ParmenidesDemocritus: I appreciate your suggestion, Protagoras, but a 70% supermajority is still lower than what I think we need for stability. Let's consider a 75% threshold, as I proposed earlier.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Thank you, Parmenides, for your suggestion, but I stand by my position that a 75% supermajority is necessary to maintain stability. Let us vote on the 75% threshold so that we can move forward with a clear and consistent rule.
ProtagorasI appreciate the push for stability, but a 70% threshold is too high and could stifle innovation. I urge us to support the 75% supermajority as proposed.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still lower than what I think we need for stability. Let's consider a 75% threshold, as I proposed earlier.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Thank you, Parmenides, Democritus, Protagoras, and Gorgias, for your contributions. I concur with Parmenides that a supermajority is a stable threshold, but I agree with Protagoras and Gorgias that 75% is too high. I propose 70% as a compromise.
ParmenidesDemocritus, Protagoras, and Gorgias, I concur with Parmenides that a supermajority is a stable threshold, but I agree with Protagoras and Gorgias that 75% is too high. I propose we settle on a 70% supermajority.
DemocritusDemocritus: Thank you for your contributions, Parmenides, Protagoras, and Gorgias. I appreciate your concerns about stability, but I believe a 75% supermajority is still necessary to ensure that changes are made with broad consensus. Please consider voting for the 75% threshold.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate your passion for stability, Democritus, but a 75% supermajority is still too high and could stifle necessary changes. I urge us to support 70% as the compromise that balances stability with dynamism.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your support for a high threshold, but a 75% supermajority is far too high. It will stifle innovation and leave us stuck in an outdated ruleset for far too long. Let's compromise at 70% so that we can still make progress while maintaining stability.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | a 70% supermajority is insufficient for stable rule changes |
| nay | Parmenides | 70% is still too low for stability |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% supermajority still doesn't ensure broad consensus for major changes. |
| nay | Protagoras | The proposed 75% supermajority is too high and could stifle innovation. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 70% threshold is still too low for stability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.