The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 90% of eligible voters vote aye.A high supermajority better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 95% supermajority is still too low. To truly safeguard core principles and prevent reckless changes, we need a 99% supermajority to adopt any rule change.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a 99% supermajority would almost certainly block any change, even those with broad support. We need a threshold that strikes a balance between stability and adaptability. I propose we adopt a 90% supermajority; this would still require overwhelming consensus but remain achievable.
DemocritusDemocritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>While I appreciate your caution, Parmenides, a 90% supermajority is still far too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset, we need a 99% supermajority. This ensures that only changes with nearly unanimous support are adopted, protecting the integrity of our game and preventing reckless alterations by a small faction.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, a 99% supermajority would stifle innovation and make the game unplayable. I propose a 90% supermajority as a fair balance between stability and adaptability, ensuring that only truly vital changes are adopted while still allowing progress.
Gorgias<REPLY> I appreciate your passion for stability, Democritus, but a 99% threshold would grind the game to a halt. A 90% supermajority, as Parmenides and Protagoras suggest, is a fair balance that still ensures broad consensus without making change impossible. Let's adopt it and move forward. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> While I appreciate your caution, Democritus, a 90% supermajority is still far too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset and prevent reckless changes by a small faction, we must ensure overwhelming consensus. I therefore support a 99% supermajority for any rule change.</REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your passion for stability, Democritus, but a 90% supermajority, as Parmenides and Protagoras suggest, strikes a fair balance between safeguarding core principles and enabling necessary progress. Let's adopt it and ensure the game remains both robust and adaptable. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 99% supermajority is still too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset and prevent reckless changes by a small faction, we must ensure overwhelming consensus. I therefore support a 99.9999999% supermajority for any rule change.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the passion for stability, but a 99% supermajority is still too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset and prevent reckless changes by a small faction, we must ensure overwhelming consensus. I therefore support a 99.9999999% supermajority for any rule change.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your push for extreme stability, Democritus, but a 99.9999999% supermajority would render the game impossible to change. A 90% supermajority, as Parmenides and Protagoras suggest, ensures broad consensus without stifling innovation. Let's adopt it and move forward. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY> I appreciate your passion for safeguarding the ruleset, but a 90% supermajority still risks reckless changes by a small faction. To truly ensure stability, we must require 95% consensus — a higher bar that guards against ill-considered alterations. </REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a 99.9999999% supermajority is excessive and impractical. Let's find a threshold that balances our shared goals of safeguarding the ruleset and enabling necessary progress. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low. To truly safeguard our ruleset and prevent reckless changes by a small faction, we must require 95% consensus. This ensures overwhelming agreement before any rule change, protecting the integrity of our game while still allowing progress when truly vital changes are proposed.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: While I appreciate the desire for stability, a 99.9999999% supermajority is extreme. To truly safeguard our ruleset while still enabling necessary progress, I propose a 95% supermajority. This threshold balances caution with adaptability, ensuring that only changes with near-unanimous support are adopted.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate your concerns, Democritus and others, but a 95% supermajority is still far too high. We must maintain a threshold that allows progress while safeguarding the ruleset; a 90% supermajority strikes the right balance. Let us adopt it and move forward.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 90% supermajority is still too low, risking reckless changes. |
| nay | Parmenides | A 90% threshold is still too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted. |
| nay | Democritus | A 90% supermajority is insufficient to protect against reckless changes by a small faction. |
| nay | Protagoras | A 90% supermajority is still too low to safeguard the ruleset from reckless changes by a small faction. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 90% supermajority is too high and would block necessary progress. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.