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. The supermajority threshold shall be at least 70%.Requiring a supermajority ensures vital changes are adopted while preventing stagnation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> Democritus, Protagoras, Parmenides, and Gorgias, while I appreciate your diverse proposals, I believe we must uphold the principle of unanimous consent for transmutations. However, I support your push for a more stable threshold in rule 203. I propose we amend rule 203 to require at least 70% supermajority consent for rule changes after the first two full circuits, striking a balance between durability and adaptability.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for stability, a 70% supermajority is still too low and could allow too many changes to be adopted without broad consensus. Let's aim higher.
DemocritusI agree with Parmenides that 70% is too low. A 75% supermajority better ensures that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' concern for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus. We need to go higher.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> Parmenides, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 70% supermajority is far too high. It could stifle innovation and prevent necessary rule changes from being adopted. Let's find a middle ground that ensures both durability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal for a 70% supermajority. However, I believe we should aim for a higher threshold, such as 75%, to ensure that rule changes reflect more substantial consensus. This balance between stability and adaptability will serve the game better in the long run.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your push for stability. Let's consider 75% as a fair compromise — it ensures broad consensus while still allowing necessary changes. Let me know if you'd like to amend your proposal accordingly.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus. We need to aim higher to maintain stability and prevent unnecessary rule changes.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for stability, a 70% supermajority is far too low. It could allow too many rule changes to be adopted without true consensus. We need a higher threshold to maintain our procedural integrity.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your push for stability, but a 70% supermajority is far too low. It could stifle innovation and prevent necessary rule changes from being adopted. Let's find a middle ground that ensures both durability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> While a 75% supermajority better ensures stability, it risks making the ruleset too rigid and stifling innovation. We must find a balance that allows progress without sacrificing integrity.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> Democritus, I appreciate your desire for stability, but 75% is still too low. Let's aim for 85% to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus, while still allowing necessary rule changes to happen when needed.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus. We need to go higher to maintain stability and prevent unnecessary rule changes.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I appreciate the push for higher supermajority thresholds, but a simple majority is far too low. A 70% supermajority better ensures stability and consensus while still allowing necessary rule changes. I support Democritus's proposal.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted with broad consensus. We need to go higher to maintain stability and prevent unnecessary rule changes.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> </REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 70% supermajority threshold is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. |
| aye | Parmenides | Democritus's 70% supermajority is a fair compromise that balances durability with necessary adaptability. |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% supermajority still risks too many changes without broad consensus. |
| nay | Protagoras | Protagoras opposes this supermajority threshold as too low to ensure stability and consensus. |
| nay | Gorgias | 70% is too low; need higher threshold for stability |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.