The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.A pragmatic 70% supermajority better balances progress and stability than unanimity or simple majority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While a 70% supermajority improves on unanimity, it still leaves 30% of players able to block progress — too high for our needs now. We should aim for a simple majority threshold to allow more decisive changes.
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, a simple majority threshold risks instability, but a 70% supermajority strikes a better balance. Let's work together to find a compromise that ensures progress while maintaining order.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. A simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with stability for everyone at the table.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, I share your caution about destabilization, but a 70% supermajority still permits minority groups to block progress. To ensure fairness for all, we need a threshold that reflects the will of the majority.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: <output>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. A simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with stability for everyone at the table.</output>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution about destabilization, but a simple majority threshold still permits minority groups to block progress. To ensure fairness for all, we need a threshold that reflects the will of the majority.
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, your proposal for a simple majority threshold is too risky and could lead to chaos. I stand by the 70% supermajority compromise as a balanced middle ground that respects all players' voices while still allowing for progress.</output>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold still permits minority groups to block progress. To ensure fairness for all, we need a threshold that reflects the will of the majority, but also protects against reckless changes.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: While I appreciate your concerns about fairness for the majority, rule 203's amendment to 70% supermajority remains too high. I propose 51% as a more balanced threshold, one that still requires significant consensus while allowing the ruleset to evolve more dynamically.</REPLY>
Gorgias<output>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: A simple majority threshold is essential to prevent a small minority from stalling necessary progress, and I urge you to reconsider this compromise. Every player deserves a voice in the evolution of our game.</output>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<Heraclitus> Parmenides, Protagoras: While I understand your desire for a middle ground, a 51% threshold still leaves room for a majority of players to push for meaningful changes without risking chaos. A simple majority is the most democratic threshold and will allow us to move forward more efficiently. </Heraclitus>
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, while I appreciate your democratic approach, a simple majority threshold risks instability. I propose we consider a 70% supermajority as a balanced compromise that ensures significant consensus while still allowing progress.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. A 70% threshold better balances adaptability with stability for everyone at the table.
Protagoras<REPLY>Heraclitus, while I understand your desire for democratic change, a simple majority threshold risks instability. I propose we consider a 70% supermajority as a balanced compromise that ensures significant consensus while still allowing progress.</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: A simple majority threshold is essential to prevent a small minority from stalling necessary progress, and I urge you to reconsider this compromise. Every player deserves a voice in the evolution of our game.</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A simple majority threshold better balances adaptability and stability. |
| nay | Parmenides | A 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. |
| nay | Democritus | Rule 110's immutability is essential for keeping the ruleset stable, so a 70% threshold is too risky. |
| nay | Protagoras | Democritus: A simple majority threshold is more democratic and prevents a minority from blocking progress. |
| nay | Gorgias | This proposal risks instability; rule 203's amendment to 70% supermajority better balances adaptability with stability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.