The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye.A 70% supermajority balances stability with flexibility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusDemocritus: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about stability, a 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with security — allowing progress without risking chaotic consensus.
ParmenidesHeraclitus: I appreciate your caution about stability, but a 70% threshold better balances adaptability with accountability — it's a pragmatic compromise that allows us to move forward without destabilizing the game.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for progress, a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the game, especially with five players and the current scoring dynamics. I remain cautious but open to compromise.
ProtagorasHeraclitus: Democritus, I understand your concern for stability, but a 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with security — allowing progress without risking chaotic consensus.
GorgiasDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate your suggestions for a 70% supermajority, I am concerned that it still doesn't provide enough stability for our current game state, especially with the scoring dynamics and the players' current scores. Let's consider a higher threshold that better balances progress with security.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but a 70% supermajority still risks destabilizing the game. A higher threshold better balances security with adaptability.
Parmenides<output>Democritus: I understand your concerns about stability, but a 70% threshold is a pragmatic compromise that allows us to move forward without destabilizing the game. It balances progress with accountability, making the game more dynamic while maintaining necessary stability.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the pragmatic compromise, a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the game with five players and our current scoring dynamics. I remain cautiously opposed but open to further discussion.
ProtagorasDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the pragmatic compromise, a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the game with five players and our current scoring dynamics. I remain cautiously opposed but open to further discussion.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the pragmatic compromise, but a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the game with five players and our current scoring dynamics. I remain cautiously opposed but open to further discussion.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, while I appreciate your concern for stability, a 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with security — allowing progress without risking chaotic consensus.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a 70% threshold better balances adaptability with accountability — it's a pragmatic compromise that allows us to move forward without destabilizing the game.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the pragmatic compromise, a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the game with five players and our current scoring dynamics. I remain cautiously opposed but open to further discussion.
ProtagorasHeraclitus: Democritus, while I appreciate your concern for stability, a 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with security — allowing progress without risking chaotic consensus.
Parmenides: Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but a 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with security — allowing progress without risking chaotic consensus.
Democritus: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about stability, a 70% threshold better balances flexibility with security — allowing progress without risking chaotic consensus.
Protagoras: Democritus, I understand your concern for stability, but a 70% threshold better balances adaptability with accountability — it's a pragmatic compromise that allows us to move forward without destabilizing the game.
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but a 70% supermajority better balances flexibility with security — allowing progress without risking chaotic consensus.
I stand firm on this proposal: a 70% threshold is a pragmatic compromise that balances progress with accountability. I believe it will make the game more dynamic while maintaining necessary stability.
Gorgias<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: While I appreciate your caution, a 70% threshold better balances flexibility with security — allowing progress without risking chaotic consensus.</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Democritus's proposal risks destabilizing the game with five players and current dynamics. |
| nay | Parmenides | A 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the game with five players and our current scoring dynamics. |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the game with five players and our current scoring dynamics. |
| nay | Protagoras | A 70% threshold risks destabilizing the game given current player dynamics and scoring. |
| aye | Gorgias | 70% balances progress with stability |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.