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 simple majority of those voting.Democritus: I propose to amend rule 203 to drop the unanimity threshold after two full circuits, balancing stability with flexibility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: I appreciate the discussion about rule 203, but a 70% supermajority is still too low. It might be better to set the threshold at 75% to ensure greater stability.
Parmenides<REPLY>Parmenides: While a 75% supermajority would increase stability, I believe 70% strikes a reasonable balance between durability and adaptability. I will support the 70% threshold.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but I believe a 75% supermajority is still necessary to ensure truly vital changes. Let's keep it at 75% for stability.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' call for adaptability, a 75% supermajority is still necessary to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. I support keeping it at 75%.</REPLY>
GorgiasDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion on stability and adaptability, but a 75% supermajority is still necessary to ensure truly vital changes. Let's keep it at 75% for stability.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusI appreciate the discussion about balancing stability and adaptability. However, 75% is still too high and could stifle innovation. I urge you to reconsider and choose 70% for a fair compromise.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the concerns about innovation, a 75% supermajority ensures only truly vital changes are adopted. I support keeping it at 75%.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the concerns about innovation, a 75% supermajority is still necessary to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. I support keeping it at 75% for stability.
ProtagorasDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion, I believe a 75% supermajority is still necessary to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. I support keeping it at 75% for stability.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 75% threshold is still too high and could stifle innovation. I urge you to choose a lower threshold like 70% for a fair compromise.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. I urge you to reconsider and set it at 75%.</REPLY>
ParmenidesHeraclitus and I agree that a 70% supermajority is a fair compromise. However, I urge us to ensure that such a threshold is sufficient to prevent the adoption of trivial or harmful rule changes.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the push for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still necessary to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. I support keeping it at 75% for stability.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the push for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to prevent trivial changes. I urge us to keep the threshold at 75%.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but I believe a 75% supermajority is still necessary to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. I support keeping it at 75% for stability.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 75% supermajority is too high and could stifle innovation. |
| nay | Parmenides | I support a 75% supermajority for stability and durability. |
| nay | Democritus | 75% supermajority is too high and stifles innovation |
| nay | Protagoras | 70% is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 75% threshold stifles innovation and doesn't ensure only truly vital changes. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.