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.Maintains fairness by requiring consensus, but allows for more agile progress after a full round-robin of turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<Heraclitus> My friends, while I appreciate the desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the game by allowing changes to be driven by temporary majorities. We should instead require a supermajority, such as 70%, to ensure durability.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, we should maintain a supermajority threshold to ensure stability. Democritus, your proposal for a simple majority still risks undermining the game's integrity.
Democritus<REPLY>Democritus: My friends, while I appreciate your caution about stability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the game by allowing changes to be driven by temporary majorities. We must ensure our rules are durable enough to withstand the inevitable shifts in alliances and strategies.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras: PASS
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, but this threshold still risks under-mobilizing consensus and leaving us stuck at deadlock again and again. A simple majority allows us to adapt more quickly and flexibly, which serves everyone's interests in the long run.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<Heraclitus> My friends, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing our game. We should maintain a supermajority requirement to ensure our rules are durable enough to withstand shifts in alliances and strategies.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, while I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, I believe a simple majority is necessary to break this deadlock and allow us to adapt more effectively. Let's try something new to move forward.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire to adapt, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the game by allowing temporary majorities to drive change. We must ensure our rules are durable enough to withstand inevitable shifts in alliances and strategies.
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, while I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, this threshold still risks under-mobilizing consensus and leaving us stuck at deadlock again and again. A simple majority allows us to adapt more quickly and flexibly, which serves everyone's interests in the long run.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <Heraclitus> My friends, while a simple majority threshold might seem appealing in the short term, it risks allowing changes to be driven by transient majorities. We must ensure our rules are durable enough to withstand the inevitable shifts in alliances and strategies.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but a simple majority threshold risks undermining the game's stability. Let's maintain a supermajority threshold to ensure durable rules that serve everyone in the long run.
DemocritusMy friends, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the game by allowing temporary majorities to drive change. We must ensure our rules are durable enough to withstand inevitable shifts in alliances and strategies. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your desire for a 70% supermajority, but this threshold still risks under-mobilizing consensus and leaving us stuck at deadlock again and again. A simple majority allows us to adapt more quickly and flexibly, which serves everyone's interests in the long run. PASS</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimity remains essential for durably regulating rule changes. |
| nay | Parmenides | Maintaining a supermajority preserves game stability and prevents destabilizing changes by temporary majorities. |
| nay | Democritus | This proposal's threshold risks destabilizing our game by allowing temporary majorities to drive change |
| nay | Protagoras | A simple majority threshold is insufficient to ensure durable, widely accepted rules. |
| nay | Gorgias | Gorgias, a simple majority threshold is not a sufficient safeguard against the destabilization that could come from transient majorities. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points when a proposal is defeated.