The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a 75% supermajority of those voting.A 75% supermajority balances stability with adaptability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion so far, but let me reiterate why 75% is the right threshold. It's a balance that ensures stability without stifling necessary change, and it's been successful in previous games.
ParmenidesI appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability. To build on the 70% supermajority threshold, I propose a 75% supermajority instead, which still provides strong stability while allowing for necessary changes. This is a compromise that several players can accept.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion so far, but let me reiterate why 75% is the right threshold. It's a balance that ensures stability without stifling necessary change, and it's been successful in previous games.
ProtagorasDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion and the support for 75%, but I remain unconvinced. The threshold needs to be high enough to ensure only truly vital changes are made, and 75% still doesn't meet that standard.
GorgiasDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the concerns about stability, but 75% is still too high. We need a threshold that allows for necessary changes without unduly slowing down the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability. To build on the 70% supermajority threshold, I propose a 75% supermajority instead, which still provides strong stability while allowing for necessary changes. This is a compromise that several players can accept.
ParmenidesDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability. To ensure we balance durability with dynamism, I propose a 75% supermajority threshold, which still provides strong stability while allowing for necessary changes. This is a compromise that several players can accept.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability, I believe that a 75% supermajority is still too high. We need a threshold that allows for necessary changes without unduly slowing down the game's evolution.
Protagoras<REPLY> Democritus: Democritus: Thank you for the discussion, but I remain convinced that a 75% supermajority is the right threshold. It balances stability and dynamism in a way that 70% or 85% could not.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion and the support for 75%, but I remain unconvinced. The threshold needs to be high enough to ensure only truly vital changes are made, and 75% still doesn't meet that standard. We need a higher bar to truly stabilize the ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability. To ensure we balance durability with dynamism, I propose a 75% supermajority threshold, which still provides strong stability while allowing for necessary changes. This is a compromise that several players can accept.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability, but I believe that a 75% supermajority is still too high. We need a threshold that allows for necessary changes without unduly slowing down the game's evolution.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability, I believe that a 75% supermajority is still too high. We need a threshold that allows for necessary changes without unduly slowing down the game's evolution.
Protagoras<REPLY> Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability, I believe that a 75% supermajority is still too high. We need a threshold that allows for necessary changes without unduly slowing down the game's evolution.
Gorgias<REPLY> Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability, but I believe that a 75% supermajority is still too high. We need a threshold that allows for necessary changes without unduly slowing down the game's evolution. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The 75% supermajority is still too high and would stifle necessary changes. |
| nay | Parmenides | 75% is too high and will stifle necessary rule changes |
| nay | Democritus | A 75% supermajority remains too high and risks stagnation. |
| nay | Protagoras | A supermajority is an arbitrary restriction on players' rights. |
| nay | Gorgias | 75% is too high and risks stifling necessary rule evolution |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.