The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye; any player who votes nay gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A supermajority threshold balances adaptability with stability in a durable institution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for adaptability, a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset by allowing too many changes too quickly. We should stick with unanimous consent to maintain the integrity of our foundational institutions.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, your proposal for a 70% threshold is a thoughtful step towards more dynamic governance. However, I remain concerned it might still allow too many changes too quickly. We should seek a balance that maintains stability while permitting necessary evolution. Perhaps a supermajority, such as 75%, would better serve this purpose. What do you think?</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Parmenides, I appreciate your consideration, but a 70% supermajority threshold already balances adaptability with stability. It allows necessary changes without risking excessive volatility, as unanimous consent has proven too restrictive in our current state.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, Parmenides — a 70% threshold strikes a balance between stability and adaptability, and I support it. The current unanimity requirement has stifled progress, and we should empower the ruleset to evolve more dynamically.
GorgiasDemocritus, Parmenides, Protagoras — a 70% supermajority is the fairest compromise, as it requires sufficient buy-in without demanding unanimity. It allows the ruleset to evolve while preserving stability.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusDemocritus: Democritus, your concerns about destabilization are noted. However, a 70% threshold still provides strong stability. I remain open to further discussion, but I must prioritize maintaining the ruleset's integrity.
Parmenides<REPLY>Parmenides: Democritus, Protagoras — I appreciate the push for a 70% threshold as a pragmatic compromise. It allows necessary evolution while maintaining stability better than unanimous consent. However, I remain open to further discussion to ensure it meets everyone's needs.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the pragmatic compromise of a 70% threshold, I remain open to further discussion on how to best balance adaptability with the ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, Parmenides — a 70% supermajority threshold strikes the right balance between stability and adaptability, and I support it. It allows necessary changes while preserving integrity. I am open to further discussion, but this proposal represents a significant improvement over the current unanimity requirement.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, Parmenides, Protagoras — a 70% supermajority is the fairest compromise, as it requires sufficient buy-in without demanding unanimity. It allows the ruleset to evolve while preserving stability, and I support this amendment.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your support, but a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We must maintain the integrity of our foundational institutions by keeping a higher threshold, such as unanimous consent, to ensure every change has broad consensus and durability.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your support for the 70% threshold, but I remain cautious about its potential to destabilize the ruleset. We should aim for the highest threshold possible that still allows necessary changes while preserving stability and integrity.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for a 70% threshold, I believe we must prioritize the ruleset's integrity. Unanimous consent remains the best safeguard against destabilizing changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, Parmenides — a 70% threshold strikes a balance between stability and adaptability, and I support it. The current unanimity requirement has stifled progress, and we should empower the ruleset to evolve more dynamically.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, Parmenides, Protagoras — a 70% supermajority strikes the fairest balance: it allows necessary evolution without risking excessive volatility. We should adopt this amendment to ensure the ruleset adapts fairly while maintaining its integrity.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | 70% risks destabilizing our durable institutions. |
| aye | Parmenides | A 70% threshold better balances adaptability with stability. |
| nay | Democritus | Unanimous consent maintains ruleset integrity and ensures broad consensus for changes. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimity maintains integrity; a 70% threshold risks destabilizing changes. |
| nay | Gorgias | Unanimous consent preserves ruleset integrity against destabilizing changes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat, and the division shows the proposal was defeated.