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.Democratically easing the threshold to majority after two circuits increases adaptability without sacrificing early stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that a 75% supermajority strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility than unanimous consent. A 75% threshold would ensure significant consensus while allowing meaningful progress, as it prevents any single player from blocking change entirely. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 75% supermajority is still too low and could lead to arbitrary changes that undermine our game. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
ProtagorasI appreciate the push for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>Democritus, I agree a 75% supermajority strikes a better balance between stability and progress. However, I believe we should aim for an even higher threshold that truly protects our game from arbitrary changes, like 80% or 85%. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for higher thresholds, an 85% supermajority would excessively restrict change and slow our progress. A 75% threshold strikes the best balance between stability and flexibility for our game. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, an 85% supermajority is still too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted. A 95% threshold would better safeguard against instability.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 95% supermajority is still too low. Only a unanimous threshold truly ensures that all players agree before any change is adopted.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion about supermajority thresholds, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution, a 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between stability and dynamism. It ensures significant consensus without stifling progress entirely. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While a 75% supermajority ensures significant consensus, I urge caution. A higher threshold, like 90%, would better safeguard our game from arbitrary changes and ensure that only truly vital reforms are adopted.
Democritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate your push for stability, a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
Parmenides: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but a 95% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 90% supermajority is still too low. A unanimous threshold better ensures that every player agrees before any change is adopted, truly safeguarding our game.</REPLY>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>While I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A unanimous threshold better ensures that every player agrees before any change is adopted, truly safeguarding our game.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion, I maintain that a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold would better safeguard against instability.</REPLY>
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but I maintain that a 90% supermajority is the minimum threshold needed to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted and to safeguard our game from instability. A unanimous threshold better ensures that every player agrees before any change is adopted.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 90% supermajority still allows for arbitrary changes; unanimity is the true safeguard. |
| nay | Parmenides | I'd prefer a lower threshold that allows progress while still requiring consensus. |
| nay | Democritus | 75% supermajority still too low to safeguard against instability |
| nay | Protagoras | The proposal's 75% supermajority is too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. |
| nay | Gorgias | Unanimous consent ensures every player agrees before any change is adopted, safeguarding the game from instability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.