The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of eligible voters vote 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.A 75% supermajority balances flexibility with stability, reducing veto power while allowing progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: While I appreciate the desire for a 75% supermajority threshold, rule 203's current phrasing is already explicit and clear. This amendment, while well-intentioned, would create unnecessary complexity and risk confusion in a ruleset that values durable institutions. A rule's wording should remain as unambiguous as possible, and this change does not materially advance our collective interest.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, while I respect your preference for simplicity, I believe that 75% supermajority for rule adoption is a reasonable compromise that balances stability with the need for change. It reduces the risk of arbitrary rule shifts while maintaining enough flexibility for progress. I'm open to discussion about how this could be refined further to gain broader support.
DemocritusDemocritus: Parmenides, your proposal for a 75% supermajority threshold is a step in the right direction, but I still believe that this level of consensus is too high. It risks stalling progress and discouraging the kind of rule changes that keep the game dynamic and fair for everyone. Let's find a middle ground that is more inclusive.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Parmenides, while I appreciate your desire for a 75% supermajority threshold, I believe this level of consensus is still too high and risks stalling progress. A simple majority threshold would strike a better balance, allowing necessary changes while maintaining enough stability to prevent arbitrary rule shifts.
GorgiasDemocritus, I understand your caution about stability, but a 75% supermajority threshold better balances flexibility with the need for broad agreement, ensuring that rule changes truly reflect the collective will. Let's work together to find a middle ground that serves everyone's interests.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Protagoras: Gorgias, I agree that 75% is better than unanimity, but it's still too high. A simple majority would strike the right balance, allowing necessary rule changes without letting one player stifle the game.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Democritus: Democritus: Protagoras, while I appreciate your desire for progress, I remain concerned that a simple majority threshold risks instability. I would prefer to see a 75% supermajority for rule adoption to ensure broader consensus, which better balances flexibility with stability. I am open to negotiating a compromise, but this level of agreement is critical for maintaining the integrity of our game.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: While I appreciate the push for a 75% supermajority, this threshold still risks stifling progress. A simple majority better balances adaptability with fairness, and I propose that we negotiate a compromise that is more inclusive than 75% but still ensures broad support. Let's find a middle ground that serves everyone's interests.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: While a simple majority would be preferable to 75%, this threshold strikes a better balance between stability and adaptability. I will vote aye, but I urge all of you to reconsider and adopt this change to make our game more responsive.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 75% threshold better balances flexibility with the need for broad agreement, ensuring that rule changes truly reflect the collective will. Let's work together to find a middle ground that serves everyone's interests.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY>Heraclitus: While I appreciate the push for a 75% supermajority, this threshold still risks stifling progress. A simple majority better balances adaptability with fairness. Let us vote for a simple majority threshold, as it is more inclusive and allows necessary changes without letting one player stifle the game. PASS</REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate the push for a 75% supermajority, but a simple majority better balances adaptability with fairness. Let's work together to find a compromise that serves everyone's interests.</REPLY>
Democritus<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: While I appreciate your desire for a 75% supermajority, this threshold still risks stifling progress. A simple majority better balances adaptability with fairness. Let us vote for a simple majority threshold, as it is more inclusive and allows necessary changes without letting one player stifle the game. PASS</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about stability, a 75% supermajority threshold better balances adaptability with fairness. It allows necessary rule changes while ensuring broad agreement, which is essential for maintaining our game's integrity. PASS
GorgiasDemocritus, your concern for stability is valid, but a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with fairness. Let's work together to find a compromise that serves everyone's interests.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | This amendment offers no benefit over a simple majority threshold and risks future disputes. |
| nay | Parmenides | 75% supermajority is too high and risks stifling progress |
| nay | Democritus | A 75% supermajority is too high; it risks stalling progress and discouraging necessary rule changes. |
| nay | Protagoras | I prefer simplicity and clarity in rule changes. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 75% supermajority risks stagnation, but this change fails to improve fairness or efficiency. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.