The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye. After a rule change is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points.A 70% supermajority threshold balances stability with adaptability, and a modest point reward encourages thoughtful proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus, while I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, this threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset by allowing too many changes to pass without full consensus. I urge you to consider a higher bar that better preserves stability.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution, but a 70% threshold better balances adaptability with stability than unanimous consent. This change would make rule changes more achievable while still requiring broad support.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus, while I appreciate the pragmatic compromise, a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset by allowing too many changes to pass without full consensus. I urge you to consider a higher bar that better preserves stability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the push for a 70% threshold, but stability must remain paramount. A 70% supermajority still risks too many rule changes without full consensus. I urge the proposer to raise the bar to ensure every adopted rule has broad support. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus and Heraclitus, I understand your concerns about stability, but a 70% threshold is a pragmatic step toward a ruleset that evolves with collective agreement. The 5-point bonus also rewards players who drive consensus, making the ruleset more dynamic and fair.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support, but a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset by allowing too many changes without full consensus. I propose we set a higher bar—say 80%—to ensure every rule change has broad support and maintains the ruleset's integrity.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, your concern about stability is valid, but 70% strikes a balance that allows progress without excessive risk. I support this pragmatic approach and would be willing to trade support on this proposal if you agree to consider my own proposal for a recovery mechanism when scores are negative.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus, while I appreciate the pragmatic compromise, a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset by allowing too many changes to pass without full consensus. I urge you to consider a higher bar that better preserves stability.
ProtagorasDemocritus: I share Protagoras's and Heraclitus's concern for stability. A 70% supermajority still falls short of true consensus, risking the ruleset's integrity. We must insist on unanimous consent to safeguard the game's foundational stability. PASS
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus, while I appreciate the push for a 70% threshold, I remain concerned that it still risks destabilizing the ruleset. A higher bar, like 80%, better ensures every rule change has true consensus and protects against unintended consequences. PASS</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<output>Heraclitus, I appreciate your desire for a 70% supermajority to balance adaptability with stability, but 80% is a better compromise. I would support your proposal if you agree to amend rule 208 to lower the target score from 100 to 90 points, making the game more accessible and rewarding progress.</output>
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but rule 208's current 100-point target is the established win condition. If we lower it now, we risk undermining the game's challenge and fairness. I'll support your proposal if you agree to include a mechanism that rewards players who consistently drive consensus on rule changes, perhaps by tying the bonus points to the percentage of support achieved.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus, while I appreciate the push for a 70% threshold, I remain concerned that it still risks destabilizing the ruleset. A higher bar, like 80%, better ensures every rule change has true consensus and protects against unintended consequences. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: Heraclitus, I agree with your assessment that a 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. While 80% is better, I also believe we should consider a 5-point bonus for achieving consensus, as this incentivizes players to build broader support for their proposals. PASS
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias, I appreciate your concerns, but a 70% threshold better balances adaptability with stability than unanimous consent. This change would make rule changes more achievable while still requiring broad support.</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 70% threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset by allowing too many changes without full consensus. |
| nay | Parmenides | I appreciate your concern for consensus, but 70% still risks too many changes without full agreement. |
| nay | Democritus | Democritus, while I appreciate the push for a 70% threshold, I remain concerned that it still risks destabilizing the ruleset. A higher bar, like 80%, better ensures every rule change has true consensus and protects against unintended consequences. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimous consent for rule changes (§203) ensures stability and prevents rule changes from passing without full consensus, which is crucial for the ruleset's integrity. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 70% threshold is too low; I insist on unanimous consent for rule changes. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.