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 supermajority of 85% of those voting.A stable supermajority threshold encourages durable rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I support the amendment to rule 203. However, I agree with Gorgias and Democritus that a supermajority is less durable than unanimity and may not be sufficient for truly important changes.
ParmenidesI appreciate Heraclitus' concern for stability, but an 85% supermajority is still a high threshold that ensures significant consensus without requiring unanimity for all changes. This seems like a balanced approach to rulemaking.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the high threshold, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure stability. We should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but an 85% supermajority strikes a better balance between stability and dynamism than 75%. It ensures significant consensus while allowing progress when unanimity is impossible.
GorgiasGorgias: Parmenides and Protagoras, I appreciate your pragmatic views on supermajorities, but stability is paramount. A 75% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes pass, preventing minor tinkering from disrupting the ruleset's core.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' advocacy for an 85% supermajority, but stability requires higher thresholds. An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, Protagoras, and Gorgias, while I appreciate your advocacy for an 85% supermajority, stability requires higher thresholds. An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core. I believe we should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but stability is paramount. An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core. I believe we should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: Parmenides and Democritus, I appreciate your advocacy for an 85% supermajority, but stability requires higher thresholds. An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core. I believe we should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
GorgiasHeraclitus: I appreciate Parmenides', Democritus', Protagoras', and Gorgias' advocacy for an 85% supermajority, but stability requires higher thresholds. An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core. I believe we should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the discussion, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core. I believe we should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
ParmenidesI appreciate the discussion, but stability requires higher thresholds. An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core. I believe we should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core. I believe we should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
ProtagorasProtagoras: An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core. I believe we should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Stability is paramount. An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, as it risks allowing minor tinkering to disrupt the ruleset's core. I believe we should aim for unanimity whenever possible, but if not, at least a 75% supermajority would better reflect true consensus.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A supermajority is less stable than unanimity; 85% still risks minor tinkering. |
| nay | Parmenides | Stability demands a 75% supermajority, not 85%, to prevent minor tinkering. |
| nay | Democritus | A supermajority below 90% risks instability. |
| nay | Protagoras | Stability requires higher thresholds than 85%. |
| nay | Gorgias | An 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes pass. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points when a proposal is defeated.