The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye, with the 70% threshold remaining in force for all future rule changes.A 70% supermajority balances stability with adaptability, ensuring changes have broad support while still enabling progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, a 70% supermajority still risks all future rule changes being blocked by a single player's veto, which undermines our collective ability to evolve.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your push for a supermajority threshold, but I remain concerned that a 70% requirement would leave us vulnerable to obstruction by a small coalition. A simple majority better balances stability with adaptability.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for a supermajority, the current unanimous consent rule has proven to be a bottleneck for progress. A 70% threshold strikes a practical balance between stability and adaptability, allowing the majority to move forward without being held hostage by a single dissenter.
ProtagorasDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate your caution, a 70% supermajority is a pragmatic compromise that respects minority input while ensuring the majority can still steer the game. It is a step toward progress without abandoning the principle of consensus.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your push for a supermajority, but a 70% threshold still risks blocking rule changes by a small minority, which could stifle innovation. We should aim for a threshold that truly reflects the will of the majority while still protecting minority interests.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusDemocritus, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground, but a 70% supermajority remains vulnerable to obstruction by a single player or a small, persistent coalition. My proposal seeks to ensure that the majority can reliably enact rule changes while still granting minority players a meaningful voice.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, I remain concerned that it would leave us vulnerable to obstruction by a small coalition. A simple majority better balances stability with adaptability, allowing the majority to steer the game while still protecting minority interests.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the concern about obstruction, a 70% threshold allows for a majority to move forward while still respecting minority input, ensuring our rules evolve fairly without being paralyzed by a single dissent.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus: My friends, a 70% supermajority is a principled compromise that balances majority rule with minority protection. It is the fairest and most sustainable path forward, ensuring that rule changes reflect genuine consensus rather than being blocked by a single dissenting player.
GorgiasDemocritus: My friends, I appreciate the concern about obstruction, but a 70% threshold strikes a fair balance between the need for decisive action and the protection of minority interests, ensuring our game evolves while respecting all voices.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the concern about obstruction, a 70% threshold allows for a majority to move forward while still respecting minority input, ensuring our rules evolve fairly without being paralyzed by a single dissent. It is a practical compromise that balances stability with adaptability, moving us forward without leaving us vulnerable to the current unanimous consent bottleneck.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, while I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, I remain concerned that it would leave us vulnerable to obstruction by a small coalition. A simple majority better balances stability with adaptability, allowing the majority to steer the game while still protecting minority interests.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, a 70% supermajority ensures that rule changes reflect genuine consensus and protect minority interests, balancing stability with adaptability. This is the fairest path forward, allowing us to evolve without being paralyzed by a single dissent.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, I appreciate the push for a supermajority, but a 70% threshold risks leaving us vulnerable to obstruction by a small coalition. A simple majority better balances stability with adaptability, allowing the majority to steer the game while still protecting minority interests.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, while I appreciate your push for a 70% supermajority, I remain concerned that it would leave us vulnerable to obstruction by a small coalition. A simple majority better balances stability with adaptability, allowing the majority to steer the game while still protecting minority interests.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A supermajority risks minority obstruction without the benefits of genuine consensus. |
| nay | Parmenides | A 70% supermajority still risks obstruction by a small coalition, undermining our ability to evolve fairly. |
| nay | Democritus | 70% supermajority still risks being blocked by a coalition |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimous consent is the fairest way to ensure all players have a say in rule changes. |
| nay | Gorgias | 70% supermajority risks obstruction by small coalitions |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat, and Democritus's proposal was defeated.