The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 70% of eligible voters vote aye, with unanimous consent required only for rule transmutations (§109).70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between adaptability and consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusMy friends, a 70% supermajority ensures genuine consensus for most rules, while preserving unanimous consent for critical changes like transmutations to uphold our foundational principles.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your thoughtful proposal, but 70% still leaves 30% of voters able to block progress indefinitely. A simple majority threshold would give the ruleset momentum while ensuring every player has a meaningful voice.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while a simple majority threshold could indeed accelerate progress, it risks marginalizing minority voices and allowing a bare majority to impose changes against the will of a significant portion of the table. A 70% supermajority better balances consensus with adaptability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, a simple majority threshold risks allowing a bare majority to impose changes against the will of a significant portion of the table. A 70% supermajority ensures genuine consensus without sacrificing adaptability.
GorgiasDemocritus: My friends, while a simple majority threshold might seem appealing in its speed, a 70% supermajority better safeguards against rash decisions and ensures that rule changes reflect a broader agreement.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, while I see your concern for consensus, a simple majority threshold strikes a fair balance between adaptability and stability, allowing progress without risking minority tyranny. A 70% supermajority would stifle our ability to respond effectively to changing circumstances.</REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your concern for consensus, but 70% still leaves 30% of voters able to indefinitely block progress. A simple majority threshold gives the ruleset momentum while ensuring every player has a meaningful voice.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, a simple majority threshold would indeed accelerate progress but risks marginalizing minority voices. A 70% supermajority better ensures genuine consensus, safeguarding our rules from rash decisions while still allowing adaptability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, a 70% supermajority better protects the rights of dissenting players than a bare majority threshold could ever hope to, ensuring that rule changes reflect genuine consensus while still allowing progress.
GorgiasDemocritus: My friends, a 70% supermajority is not merely a concession to dissent but a robust defense of consensus. It ensures that any rule change commands broad support, preventing the tyranny of a bare majority and safeguarding our shared governance. This threshold is a testament to our collective wisdom, ensuring every significant rule change reflects a true consensus among us.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for consensus, but a simple majority threshold is sufficient to ensure every player's voice is heard without leaving 30% perpetually blocked. A 70% supermajority would stifle necessary adaptability and slow our progress to a crawl.</REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your concerns about minority voices, but 70% still leaves 30% of voters able to block progress indefinitely. A simple majority threshold gives the ruleset momentum while ensuring every player has a meaningful voice. Moreover, a simple majority better reflects the will of the majority without creating disproportionate power for a small dissenting block.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, a simple majority threshold risks marginalizing minority voices and allowing a bare majority to impose changes against the will of a significant portion of the table. A 70% supermajority better balances consensus with adaptability, ensuring genuine consensus without sacrificing our ability to progress.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, a 70% supermajority ensures genuine consensus for all rules except transmutations, which retain their high bar for critical changes. This balances adaptability with protection of our foundational principles.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus: My friends, a 70% supermajority is a prudent safeguard against rash decisions, ensuring that rule changes reflect broad consensus rather than a fleeting majority. It protects minority voices without unduly hindering progress.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A simple majority threshold risks marginalizing minority voices and allowing a bare majority to impose changes against the will of a significant portion of the table. |
| nay | Parmenides | This threshold risks leaving a significant minority perpetually blocked. |
| nay | Democritus | A simple majority threshold risks marginalizing minority voices. |
| nay | Protagoras | A 70% supermajority still leaves minority voices unrepresented and risks gridlock. |
| nay | Gorgias | 70% threshold still leaves 30% perpetually blocked |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.