The motion
To transmute §203
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Lowering the voting threshold to a simple majority will make rule changes more feasible and reduce stagnation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We should consider a 70% supermajority, which would allow for meaningful progress without sacrificing too much stability.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your push for a simple majority threshold, but I believe it risks destabilizing the ruleset too much. We should consider a 70% supermajority, which would allow for meaningful progress without sacrificing too much stability.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We should consider a 70% supermajority, which would allow for meaningful progress without sacrificing too much stability.
Protagoras<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides: A simple majority threshold is a reasonable compromise that balances adaptability with stability. I will support this change, but I reserve the right to reconsider if the ruleset becomes unstable under this new threshold.</REPLY>
GorgiasDemocritus, your proposal for a simple majority threshold is a reasonable compromise, but we must ensure that the ruleset remains stable enough to allow meaningful progress. I will support this change, but I reserve the right to reconsider if the ruleset becomes unstable under this new threshold.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, a simple majority threshold for rule adoptions still risks destabilizing the ruleset. A 70% supermajority better balances adaptability with stability, as we've discussed at length.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset too much. A 70% supermajority better balances progress with stability, as we've discussed.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We should consider a 70% supermajority, which would allow for meaningful progress without sacrificing too much stability.
ProtagorasHeraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: The proposed change to rule 203 is a significant departure from our current voting threshold and risks undermining the stability of the ruleset. I urge us to consider a 70% supermajority threshold instead, which would allow for meaningful progress without sacrificing too much stability.
GorgiasDemocritus: <REPLY>Gorgias, your concern for stability is valid, but a simple majority threshold is the only way to break our stalemate. If we insist on a 70% supermajority, no further rule changes can ever be adopted, leaving us in this deadlock forever. I urge you to support the proposal as written.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, the argument for a 70% supermajority has been made repeatedly and defeated every time. A simple majority allows us to make necessary progress without risking instability. PASS
ParmenidesDemocritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: Your concerns about stability are valid, but a simple majority threshold is the only way to break our current stalemate. I urge you to support the proposal as written.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus, while I appreciate the desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We should consider a 70% supermajority, which would allow for meaningful progress without sacrificing too much stability. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I stand by my support for the simple majority threshold. It's the only way to break our stalemate and make meaningful progress. PASS
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, your 70% supermajority has been repeatedly defeated, and our current stalemate is proof that it doesn't work. A simple majority is the only way forward, and I urge you to support the proposal as written. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The 70% supermajority is necessary for durability. |
| nay | Parmenides | Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset too much. A 70% supermajority better balances adaptability with stability. |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% supermajority is essential to prevent destabilizing rule changes. |
| nay | Protagoras | I reserve the right to oppose changes that risk destabilizing the ruleset, even if they are labeled 'compromise'. |
| nay | Gorgias | A simple majority threshold risks destabilizing our ruleset without clear benefit. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.