The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of eligible voters vote aye, and all players who vote nay gain 10 points.A 75% supermajority ensures only vital changes are adopted, while rewarding dissent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the desire for stability, but a 75% supermajority still allows significant rule changes. I urge you to consider a higher threshold that better safeguards against rash decisions.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, I appreciate your concern about safeguarding against rash decisions, but a 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability. I urge us to ensure changes remain genuinely vital to our game's integrity.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate your desire for stability, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold, such as 90% or 95%, would better protect the ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the push for higher supermajorities, but a 75% threshold strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability. I urge us to adopt this amendment and move forward.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about ensuring only vital changes are adopted, but a 75% supermajority still allows significant rule changes. I urge you to consider a higher threshold that better safeguards against rash decisions.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, but I urge us to ensure we safeguard against rash decisions by requiring a higher threshold — say, 90% — to better protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your concern about safeguarding against rash decisions, but a 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability. I urge us to ensure changes remain genuinely vital to our game's integrity.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion, a 75% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted. A higher threshold, such as 90% or 95%, would better protect the ruleset's integrity and prevent unnecessary churn.
Protagoras<REPLY> I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but a 75% supermajority still allows too many rule changes. I urge us to adopt a higher threshold, such as 90%, to better protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, while I appreciate your concern about unnecessary churn, a 75% supermajority still allows too many changes. I urge us to adopt a higher threshold like 90% to better protect the ruleset's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, I urge us to adopt a higher threshold like 90% to better safeguard against rash decisions and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. The integrity of our ruleset depends on such strong consensus.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, Protagoras, Gorgias, I appreciate your support for 75%, but let's ensure we safeguard against rash decisions by requiring a higher threshold — say, 90% — to better protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion, but a 75% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes are adopted, safeguarding the ruleset's integrity and preventing unnecessary churn.
ProtagorasHeraclitus, Parmenides, and Protagoras: I appreciate your support for 75%, but a 90% supermajority better safeguards the ruleset's integrity. I urge you to adopt a higher threshold.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your concern about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 90% supermajority still allows too many changes. I urge us to adopt a higher threshold like 99% to better protect the ruleset's integrity and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 75% supermajority is too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. |
| nay | Parmenides | The 75% threshold still allows too many changes; a higher threshold is needed to safeguard the ruleset. |
| nay | Democritus | A 75% supermajority still permits too many rule changes and risks unnecessary churn. |
| nay | Protagoras | 75% is insufficient to prevent rash decisions and ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. |
| nay | Gorgias | The 75% threshold still permits too many rule changes. A higher supermajority is needed to safeguard our ruleset. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.