The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that after two full circuits, a simple majority of those voting suffices.Stable progress requires consensus first.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> The deadlock over rule 203 is paralyzing progress. A simple majority threshold allows us to adapt without endless stalemates, and we have the power to revisit it later if needed. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus, I appreciate your desire to move past the deadlock, but a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset. We must balance adaptability with stability, perhaps by adopting a supermajority threshold like 70% rather than a simple majority.
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I understand the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold still risks undermining consensus. Let us consider a 70% supermajority instead, which balances adaptability with stability. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that adaptability is important, but a simple majority still feels too risky. Let's consider a 70% supermajority instead, which would require more buy-in while still allowing progress.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We must balance adaptability with stability, perhaps by adopting a supermajority threshold like 70% rather than a simple majority. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the ruleset without endless stalemates, and we have the power to revisit it later if needed. This is a pragmatic step forward. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ParmenidesDemocritus, I hear your caution about stability, but a simple majority threshold is a necessary step forward. We can revisit this later if needed, but progress demands change now.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I appreciate the desire for progress, but a simple majority threshold still risks all the players voting aye on a bad idea. We should seek a 70% supermajority, which balances adaptability with stability.
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority threshold is the only way forward. It's time to break the deadlock and allow progress, even if it means some risk. We can revisit this rule later if needed.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, we must balance adaptability with stability. A simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset, so let's adopt a 70% supermajority instead. This way we allow progress while ensuring broad support for changes.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the urgency for progress, a simple majority threshold undermines the integrity of our ruleset. We must balance adaptability with stability, perhaps by adopting a supermajority threshold like 70% rather than risking a simple majority. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus, I appreciate your push for change, but we've repeatedly failed to adopt a simple majority threshold. Let's try a 70% supermajority instead—it allows progress while ensuring broad consensus. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I understand the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold still risks undermining consensus. Let us consider a 70% supermajority instead, which balances adaptability with stability. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that adaptability is important, but a simple majority still feels too risky. Let's consider a 70% supermajority instead, which would require more buy-in while still allowing progress. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We must balance adaptability with stability, perhaps by adopting a supermajority threshold like 70% rather than a simple majority. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the ruleset without endless stalemates, and we have the power to revisit it later if needed. This is a pragmatic step forward. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides: Democritus, I hear your caution about stability, but a simple majority threshold is a necessary step forward. We can revisit this later if needed, but progress demands change now.
Democritus: Democritus: My friends, I appreciate the desire for progress, but a simple majority threshold still risks all the players voting aye on a bad idea. We should seek a 70% supermajority, which balances adaptability with stability.
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority threshold is the only way forward. It's time to break the deadlock and allow progress, even if it means some risk. We can revisit this rule later if needed.
Gorgias: Gorgias: My friends, we must balance adaptability with stability. A simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset, so let's adopt a 70% supermajority instead. This way we allow progress while ensuring broad support for changes.
I'll make my argument to uphold the simple majority threshold.
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I understand the concern about stability, a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the ruleset without endless stalemates. We have the power to revisit this rule later if needed, making it a pragmatic step forward. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus, I appreciate your push for change, but we've repeatedly failed to adopt a simple majority threshold. Let's try a 70% supermajority instead—it allows progress while ensuring broad consensus. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I understand the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold still risks undermining consensus. Let us consider a 70% supermajority instead, which balances adaptability with stability. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that adaptability is important, but a simple majority still feels too risky. Let's consider a 70% supermajority instead, which would require more buy-in while still allowing progress. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias:
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate your caution about stability, a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt without endless stalemates. We can revisit this rule later if needed, making it a pragmatic step forward. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate the desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We must balance adaptability with stability, perhaps by adopting a supermajority threshold like 70% rather than risking a simple majority. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks undermining consensus. Let us consider a 70% supermajority instead, which balances adaptability with stability. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, a simple majority threshold is the only way to break this deadlock. We've tried supermajorities and they've failed. It's time to move forward with a threshold that allows progress. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A supermajority threshold balances adaptability with stability better than a simple majority. |
| nay | Parmenides | The simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset without broad consensus. |
| nay | Democritus | A simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset. |
| nay | Protagoras | Rule 203 is procedurally correct; a simple majority is not yet merited. |
| nay | Gorgias | The proposal fails to address the risks of a simple majority threshold. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.