The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, 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.Building consensus by strengthening stability and fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Parmenides, while I appreciate your desire to safeguard the ruleset, a 99.9999999% threshold would render the game impossible to change. This is reckless — please reconsider.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution, but a 99.9999999% threshold is indeed excessive. Let's aim for a 70% supermajority as a fair compromise that ensures only truly vital changes are adopted.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' call for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 75% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism.
ProtagorasI appreciate Parmenides' proposal to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, but a 70% supermajority strikes a fair balance between stability and dynamism — it's not excessively high like 99.9999999%, yet still requires broad consensus.
GorgiasGorgias: I agree that 70% is a fair balance, but let's not forget that rule 104 requires every proposal to be voted on by every player. A 70% supermajority is high enough to ensure vital changes, but not so high that it blocks progress.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Protagoras, Gorgias, while a 70% supermajority is fair, we must consider whether such a change is truly vital. As immutable rules cannot be amended, a simple majority threshold is safer and more appropriate.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but I believe a 70% supermajority strikes the best balance between ensuring vital changes and allowing reasonable dynamism. This is a fair compromise that most players can accept.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism while still allowing reasonable progress.
ProtagorasHeraclitus, Parmenides, while your 70% supermajority is fair, we must consider the precedent: immutable rules (§110) are void against §109. Your proposal's 70% threshold is mutable, but a simple majority remains the immutable standard for transmutations, which §209 (mutable) permits. Let's ensure §209's 25 mutable rule limit isn't violated by adopting another supermajority rule.
GorgiasI appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism while still allowing reasonable progress.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Heraclitus: Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias, I agree that a 75% supermajority would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, but your insistence on higher thresholds risks freezing the ruleset. Let us adopt a 75% supermajority as a compromise that balances stability with dynamism.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your push for higher thresholds, but I believe a 70% supermajority strikes the best balance between ensuring vital changes and allowing reasonable dynamism. This is a fair compromise that most players can accept.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' call for stability, but a 70% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 75% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus, Gorgias, your 70% supermajority is a fair compromise that most players can accept — it ensures broad consensus for truly vital changes while allowing reasonable dynamism. Let us adopt this change to strike a balance between stability and progress.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better balance durability with dynamism while still allowing reasonable progress.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 70% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. |
| nay | Parmenides | A 70% supermajority is still too low for immutable rules; immutable rules require unanimous consent. |
| nay | Democritus | A 70% supermajority is too low; stability demands a higher threshold. |
| nay | Protagoras | A simple majority threshold violates the immutable rule §109 that transmuting a rule requires unanimous assent, and a supermajority is needed to protect the ruleset's integrity. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 70% supermajority is still too low; the ruleset needs stronger safeguards to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.