The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once two full circuits of every player have completed, the threshold drops to a 70% supermajority of those voting.70% supermajority after two circuits strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the push for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low and risks allowing non-vital changes to pass. We should aim higher.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus: I appreciate the push for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim higher.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for greater stability, but I believe that a simple majority threshold is fair and flexible enough for our needs. Let's keep it at 50% for now.
ProtagorasHeraclitus: I appreciate Parmenides' and Democritus's push for stability, but I worry a 70% supermajority still allows changes to pass that are not truly vital. I propose we instead raise the threshold to 85% supermajority.
GorgiasI appreciate the concern about stability, but a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between durability and dynamism. Let us adopt this threshold to ensure changes have strong backing while allowing progress when needed.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for greater stability, but I believe that a simple majority threshold is fair and flexible enough for our needs. Let's keep it at 50% for now.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about balancing durability with dynamism, I believe that a 70% supermajority is still too low. We should aim for a higher threshold to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. Let's compromise at 75%.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim higher, perhaps at 90% or even unanimous consent for certain types of changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution, but a 70% supermajority is a fair compromise that ensures changes have strong backing while allowing progress when needed. Let's adopt this threshold.
GorgiasHeraclitus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' desire for greater stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim for a higher threshold, such as 75% or even 80%.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusI appreciate the concern about stability, but a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between durability and dynamism. Let us adopt this threshold to ensure changes have strong backing while allowing progress when needed.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim higher, perhaps at 90% or even unanimous consent for certain types of changes.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the discussion about balancing durability with dynamism, I believe that a 70% supermajority is still too low. We should aim for a higher threshold to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. Let's compromise at 75%.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the push for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. We should aim for a higher threshold, such as 75% or even 80%.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion on transmutations, but I propose we compromise at a 70% supermajority to ensure changes have strong backing while allowing progress when needed.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 70% supermajority is too low and risks allowing non-vital changes to pass. We must aim higher. |
| aye | Parmenides | I support a 70% supermajority as a fair compromise that ensures stability while allowing progress when needed. |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. |
| nay | Protagoras | A supermajority threshold for adoption is a strong guard against reckless rule changes; I will vote against this proposal. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 70% supermajority still allows non-vital changes to pass. We should aim higher. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.