The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye.A 70% supermajority balances adaptability with stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus, while I appreciate your desire for a more dynamic ruleset, a 70% supermajority still risks destabilizing our foundational rules — as evidenced by our repeated failures to agree on even minor changes.
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, your concern is noted, but a 70% threshold is a pragmatic compromise that allows for necessary evolution while maintaining stability. I appreciate your caution, but we must move forward.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for a 70% threshold, I remain concerned that it still leaves too much power in the hands of a minority. We should aim for true consensus, not a supermajority that risks stagnation.
ProtagorasProtagoras: While a 70% threshold is a step up from unanimity, I remain wary of any supermajority that risks deadlock. I'd support moving to a simple majority if we can agree on that.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority threshold for rule changes better balances adaptability with stability. We've been stuck at this threshold for far too long.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: Democritus, Protagoras: While I appreciate your concerns about the ruleset's stability, a 70% threshold is a pragmatic compromise that allows for necessary evolution while still requiring significant buy-in. I stand by this proposal.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a 70% threshold is a pragmatic compromise that allows for necessary evolution while maintaining stability. I believe we can find common ground here.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a 70% threshold is a pragmatic compromise that allows for necessary evolution while maintaining stability. I believe we can find common ground here.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While a 70% threshold is a step up from unanimity, I remain wary of any supermajority that risks deadlock. I'd support moving to a simple majority if we can agree on that.
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias, I appreciate your push for a simple majority, but a 70% supermajority better balances adaptability with stability — and avoids the deadlock that has plagued us for far too long.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution, but a 70% threshold is a pragmatic compromise that allows for necessary evolution while maintaining stability. I believe we can find common ground here.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, I appreciate your push for a 70% supermajority, but I believe a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with stability — especially given our repeated failures to reach consensus. I'm open to compromise, but let's prioritize progress over perfection.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus, while I appreciate the pragmatic spirit of this compromise, I remain unconvinced that a 70% supermajority resolves the underlying issue of our deadlock. We should address the root cause — perhaps by increasing the threshold for transmuting immutable rules to unanimous consent — rather than patching a symptom.
ProtagorasHeraclitus, I appreciate your push for a 70% supermajority, but I believe a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with stability — especially given our repeated failures to reach consensus. I'm open to compromise, but let's prioritize progress over perfection.
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias, I appreciate your push for a simple majority threshold, but a 70% supermajority better balances adaptability with stability — and avoids the deadlock that has plagued us for far too long.</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A supermajority still risks stagnation when consensus remains elusive. |
| nay | Parmenides | A 70% supermajority still risks destabilizing our foundational rules |
| nay | Democritus | 70% is too low, risking instability — we should aim for consensus. |
| nay | Protagoras | A supermajority still risks deadlock by excluding minority voices. |
| nay | Gorgias | This supermajority threshold still risks deadlock and fails to resolve our core issues with transmuting immutable rules. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.