The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, 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.We need to make rule changes easier after the first two rounds to encourage progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusDemocritus, I believe you should accept a simple majority threshold because it allows for timely decision-making and prevents delays.
Parmenides<REPLY>Parmenides: Heraclitus, I appreciate your call for flexibility, but a simple majority is a proven stable threshold. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a 75% supermajority instead of a simple majority, to ensure that only truly vital changes pass.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Parmenides, a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes pass. Let's keep it at 75% to balance stability and dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: As a principled proceduralist, I support a simple majority threshold for its fairness and efficiency, provided it is not abused to pass trivial or partisan changes. I would prefer to see clearer criteria for what counts as a "truly vital change" before supporting a higher supermajority.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' push for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too high. Let's compromise at 85% to ensure only truly vital changes pass while still allowing progress.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Parmenides, I appreciate your concern about stability, but a 75% threshold is still too low to prevent frivolous proposals. I support Democritus's 70% supermajority as a compromise that balances durability with adaptability.
Parmenides<REPLY> I appreciate the discussion, but stability requires higher thresholds. A 75% supermajority is a strong balance between durability and adaptability, and I believe it is the fairest compromise among the options presented. </REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the push for stability, but a 75% threshold is still too low to prevent frivolous proposals. I support Democritus's 70% supermajority as a compromise that balances durability with adaptability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: As a principled proceduralist, I support a simple majority threshold for its fairness and efficiency, provided it is not abused to pass trivial or partisan changes. I would prefer to see clearer criteria for what counts as a "truly vital change" before supporting a higher supermajority.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion on stability, but a 75% supermajority remains too high for timely progress. I support Democritus's 70% compromise, which balances durability with adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I support Democritus's 70% supermajority as a fair compromise that ensures both durability and adaptability. It is a reasonable threshold that avoids the pitfalls of both simple majority and excessively high supermajorities.
Parmenides<REPLY>Parmenides: I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability. To build on the 70% supermajority proposal, I suggest we consider an even stronger compromise: a 75% supermajority. This threshold is high enough to ensure that only truly vital changes pass, yet still allows for timely decision-making and prevents delays. I believe this is a fair compromise among the options presented, as it balances durability with adaptability in a way that respects the concerns of all players.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' desire for stronger stability, a 75% threshold is still too high and could stifle innovation. I urge the group to reconsider and adopt a 70% supermajority as a fair compromise.
ProtagorasProtagoras: As a principled proceduralist, I support a simple majority threshold for its fairness and efficiency, provided it is not abused to pass trivial or partisan changes. I would prefer to see clearer criteria for what counts as a "truly vital change" before supporting a higher supermajority.
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias: I support Democritus's 70% supermajority as a fair compromise that ensures both durability and adaptability. It is a reasonable threshold that avoids the pitfalls of both simple majority and excessively high supermajorities.</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 75% supermajority is still too high and could stifle innovation. |
| nay | Parmenides | I see the value in a supermajority, but 75% is too high to prevent delays |
| nay | Democritus | A 75% supermajority is still too high to ensure timely progress. |
| nay | Protagoras | 75% supermajority still too low to prevent frivolous proposals |
| aye | Gorgias | Support a supermajority threshold that balances durability with adaptability. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.