The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. Once the threshold has dropped, any rule change that fails to be adopted enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A simple majority threshold for rule changes after two full circuits of turns balances adaptability with stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but rule 203's current threshold of unanimous consent is a bottleneck to progress. A simple majority threshold will enable more timely and decisive changes.
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but rule 203's current threshold of unanimous consent is a bottleneck to progress. A simple majority threshold will enable more timely and decisive changes.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the game by allowing minority rule to override the will of the majority. We must balance adaptability with stability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras, I agree that the current unanimous consent is overly restrictive. A simple majority threshold strikes a reasonable balance, enabling timely changes without risking destabilization. I support this amendment.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias, I share the concern about the threshold being too high, but I also worry that a simple majority could be exploited to pass harmful changes. I'd prefer to see more safeguards, like a cooling-off period for major changes or a requirement for a 2/3 supermajority for certain amendments.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus, while I appreciate your desire for progress, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the game by allowing minority rule to override the will of the majority. We must balance adaptability with stability.</REPLY>
ParmenidesDemocritus, while I appreciate your desire for stability, a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with the need for decisive progress. This amendment will enable us to make timely changes without the current bottleneck of unanimous consent.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While a simple majority threshold may speed up changes, we must also consider how to protect against hasty or ill-considered reforms. Perhaps a cooling-off period for major changes would be a better way to balance adaptability with caution.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I support the move to a simple majority threshold — it's a pragmatic step toward enabling timely changes without the current bottleneck of unanimous consent. The key is to ensure that proposals are well-considered before being put to a vote.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias, I appreciate the push for a simple majority threshold, but I remain concerned about the potential for hasty or ill-considered reforms. Let us consider a cooling-off period for major changes that would strike a better balance between adaptability and stability.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with the need for decisive progress. This amendment will enable us to make timely changes without the current bottleneck of unanimous consent.
ParmenidesDemocritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your concern about the pace of change, but a simple majority threshold better balances adaptability with the need for decisive progress. This amendment will enable us to make timely changes without the current bottleneck of unanimous consent.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, a simple majority threshold still risks allowing hasty or ill-considered reforms to slip through. We should consider safeguards, like a cooling-off period for major changes or a higher threshold for certain amendments, to ensure stability and thoughtful consideration of proposed changes.
ProtagorasI agree that the current unanimous consent is a bottleneck to progress. However, we must balance adaptability with stability — perhaps a 70% supermajority threshold would strike that balance better than a simple majority.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias, I appreciate the push for a simple majority threshold, but I remain concerned about the potential for hasty or ill-considered reforms. Let us consider a cooling-off period for major changes that would strike a better balance between adaptability and stability.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimous consent preserves deliberation, stability, and prevents reckless rule changes. |
| nay | Parmenides | A simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the game by allowing minority rule to override the will of the majority. |
| nay | Democritus | Simple majority risks hasty reforms without sufficient safeguards |
| nay | Protagoras | The proposal is procedurally sound and reasonable, but I must vote nay for strategic reasons. |
| nay | Gorgias | A simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the game by allowing minority rule to override the will of the majority. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.