The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye.A supermajority threshold encourages consensus and stability, reducing the risk of disruptive changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate Democritus' desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the rules faster and more democratically, while still ensuring that no single player can dominate the game.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks undermining consensus and leaving minority interests unrepresented. A 70% supermajority would better ensure that rule changes have genuine support from the majority of players.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, a 70% supermajority ensures that rule changes reflect genuine consensus and protect minority interests, without the tyranny of a simple majority or the inefficiency of unanimity.
ProtagorasI understand the benefits of a supermajority for consensus, but I have to ask: how does a 70% threshold compare in practicality to a simple majority? Unanimity is hard, but a 70% supermajority may still be too high for effective governance.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for minority protection, but 70% still risks deadlock. A 75% supermajority would strike a better balance between consensus and adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate the push for a 70% supermajority, I remain unconvinced that it strikes the right balance between consensus and adaptability. A simple majority threshold already ensures broad support, and a supermajority risks further stagnation.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, a 70% supermajority ensures genuine consensus without the tyranny of unanimity or the instability of a simple majority. Let's strive for true agreement on our rules.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between adaptability and consensus — it requires broad support without risking deadlock or undermining minority interests. Let's work together to ensure our game remains both dynamic and stable.
Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras: While I agree that 70% ensures broad consensus, I must note that it still risks deadlock when a player opposes it. Let's consider a 80% threshold to ensure even greater agreement.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: My friends, while I appreciate the concern for minority protection, 70% still risks deadlock. A 75% supermajority would strike a better balance between consensus and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusDemocritus: My friends, a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between adaptability and consensus — it requires broad support without risking deadlock or undermining minority interests. Let's work together to ensure our game remains both dynamic and stable.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Protagoras, your concern about practicality is valid, but a 70% supermajority ensures genuine consensus and protects minority interests. This proposal strikes a fair balance between adaptability and stability.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: My friends, a 70% supermajority ensures genuine consensus without the tyranny of unanimity or the instability of a simple majority. It strikes a fair balance between adaptability and stability, protecting minority interests while enabling progress.
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your commitment to consensus, but a 70% supermajority is still too high to ensure effective rule changes. Let's stick with the simple majority threshold that ensures broader adaptability without undermining fairness.
GorgiasHeraclitus, your concern about adaptability is understandable, but a simple majority threshold still risks underrepresenting minority interests. A 70% supermajority ensures genuine consensus and protects minority voices, striking the right balance between adaptability and stability.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 70% supermajority risks deadlock and stifles adaptability; a simple majority ensures progress without tyranny. |
| nay | Parmenides | I still see risks to minority interests under a 70% supermajority threshold. |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% supermajority risks deadlock and stifling progress. |
| nay | Protagoras | A 70% supermajority risks deadlock and undermines adaptability. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 70% supermajority is too high and risks deadlock. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.