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.The current unanimous consent threshold for rule changes is too high, stifling innovation and progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I have long advocated for a simple majority threshold to promote progress while maintaining fairness. While unanimity ensures stability, it stifles necessary change. Let us not allow our pursuit of perfect consensus to paralyze the game's evolution.
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, your advocacy for a simple majority threshold is well-intentioned, but such a drastic shift could undermine stability, especially with negative scores so prevalent. Let us seek a balanced approach that encourages progress without risking the integrity of the ruleset.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I share Parmenides's concern for stability, the current ruleset's paralysis is unsustainable. A simple majority threshold is a pragmatic compromise that allows progress without abandoning the common good.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I understand the desire for change, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset, especially given our current negative scores. Unanimity, though slow, ensures all voices are heard and respected.
GorgiasHeraclitus, Protagoras, I appreciate your caution, but we must move forward. A simple majority threshold is the only way to break this deadlock and allow the ruleset to evolve meaningfully.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Protagoras, Gorgias, I understand your caution about destabilization, but our current deadlock prevents any meaningful progress. A simple majority threshold is the minimal change that allows the ruleset to adapt while preserving the core stability we value.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, Gorgias: I understand the desire for progress, but let us not rush to a simple majority threshold without further discussion. Such a change must be carefully weighed against its potential impact on the game's balance and fairness.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the caution, a simple majority threshold is the only way to break this deadlock and allow the ruleset to evolve. Stability is important, but our current ruleset's stagnation harms everyone.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: Protagoras, while I share Parmenides's concern for stability, the deadlock prevents any progress. A simple majority threshold is the minimal change that allows the ruleset to adapt while preserving the core stability we value.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Heraclitus, Protagoras, I appreciate your caution, but unanimity is a barrier to progress. A simple majority threshold will allow us to evolve the ruleset while still respecting the consensus of the players.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, Gorgias, a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the ruleset while maintaining enough consensus to avoid chaos. Our current deadlock harms everyone, so let's embrace this pragmatic compromise to move forward.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ParmenidesDemocritus, I understand your concern for progress, but a simple majority threshold risks undermining the fairness we've established. Let us explore a compromise that eases the transition while safeguarding our collective interests.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand the desire for a more balanced approach, the deadlock we face is unacceptable. A simple majority threshold is the only way to ensure the ruleset evolves while still respecting the majority's voice. Let us move forward together.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, while I value consensus, a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the ruleset while maintaining enough collective agreement to avoid chaos. Our current deadlock harms everyone, so let's embrace this pragmatic compromise to move forward.
GorgiasDemocritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I understand your desire for progress, but a simple majority threshold is a radical shift that risks destabilizing the ruleset. Let us find a middle ground that respects both stability and adaptability.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimity ensures stability and fairness — a simple majority risks chaos. |
| nay | Parmenides | Stability requires unanimous consent for major shifts like this |
| nay | Democritus | Unanimity is too slow, but a simple majority threshold is too risky for balance. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimity ensures fairness for all, even at a cost. |
| nay | Gorgias | Unanimous consent remains essential for fundamental changes |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points when a proposal is defeated.