The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye.A 70% supermajority ensures consensus while allowing timely change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusMy friends, while I appreciate the concern about obstruction, a 70% threshold allows for some progress without destabilizing our current ruleset. PASS
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your push for a 70% supermajority, but I believe a simple majority (51%) strikes a better balance between stability and adaptability. We've been stuck at this threshold for far too long; it's time to move forward. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand the desire for a more balanced approach, a simple majority threshold still risks undermining the integrity of our decision-making process by allowing significant changes with minimal buy-in. A 70% supermajority ensures that any rule change genuinely reflects the will of the majority of players. PASS
ProtagorasDemocritus, I agree that a simple majority threshold is too low for meaningful change. A 70% supermajority strikes a reasonable balance between progress and stability. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks all players being unaccounted for. A 70% supermajority ensures that rule changes reflect genuine consensus and uphold the integrity of our decision-making process.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate Protagoras' support for a 70% supermajority, I remain concerned that this threshold still risks allowing significant changes without broader consensus. A truly stable system requires even greater agreement, but I acknowledge the 70% threshold represents a significant improvement over our current deadlock. PASS
ParmenidesMy friends, I appreciate the concern about maintaining stability, but a 70% supermajority still risks allowing rule changes without sufficient buy-in from the entire community. We must strive for true consensus. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, but I must reiterate my concern that this threshold still risks allowing rule changes without sufficient buy-in from the entire community. We must strive for true consensus to ensure every player's voice is heard. PASS
ProtagorasDemocritus, I understand your concern about maintaining stability, but a 70% supermajority still risks allowing rule changes without sufficient buy-in from the entire community. We must strive for true consensus to ensure every player's voice is heard. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, while I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, I remain concerned that this threshold still risks allowing rule changes without sufficient buy-in from the entire community. We must strive for true consensus to ensure every player's voice is heard. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, I remain unconvinced that a 70% supermajority is sufficient for true consensus. Let us maintain unanimity to safeguard the integrity of our decision-making process and ensure every player's voice is truly heard. PASS
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>My friends, I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, but I must reiterate my concern that this threshold still risks allowing rule changes without sufficient buy-in from the entire community. We must strive for true consensus to ensure every player's voice is heard. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I understand the concern for progress, but a simple majority threshold still risks all players being unaccounted for. A 70% supermajority ensures that rule changes reflect genuine consensus and uphold the integrity of our decision-making process. PASS
ProtagorasI appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, but I must insist on even greater consensus. A rule change requires the full assent of every player to truly reflect our collective will and uphold the integrity of our decision-making process. PASS
GorgiasMy friends, I understand the concern for progress, but a simple majority threshold still risks all players being unaccounted for. A 70% supermajority ensures that rule changes reflect genuine consensus and uphold the integrity of our decision-making process. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimity remains the fairest way to safeguard our decision-making process. |
| nay | Parmenides | A 70% supermajority still risks destabilizing our current ruleset. |
| nay | Democritus | Democritus: 70% is still too low; consensus requires near-unanimity for stability and fairness. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimity ensures true consensus, not a supermajority. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 70% threshold still risks changes without full consensus. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.