The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of eligible voters vote aye, provided that at least two players voted aye.Ensuring a higher threshold and minimum support for rule changes to prevent unilateral alterations.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: While I appreciate the push for higher thresholds, a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate your concern, 90% is too high and risks stagnation. I suggest 75% as a fair compromise.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: While 75% is a step up from unanimity, I worry it could still allow changes that divide the table. Perhaps 85% would better ensure that proposals have broad support?
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I understand your caution about divisive proposals, 75% is still far too low to ensure that only vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' push for higher thresholds, but 85% strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing necessary evolution. It's a more pragmatic compromise than 90%.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, I urge us to consider 85% instead. This threshold better ensures that only genuinely vital changes are adopted without unduly stifling progress.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While 85% is a step up from unanimity, I worry it could still allow changes that divide the table. Perhaps 90% would better ensure that only vital changes are adopted?</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your caution about divisive proposals, but 75% is still far too low to ensure that only vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate Parmenides' push for higher thresholds, but 85% strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing necessary evolution. It's a more pragmatic compromise than 90%.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, I urge us to consider 85% instead. This threshold better ensures that only genuinely vital changes are adopted without unduly stifling progress.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but let's not forget the core goal: enabling meaningful change while safeguarding stability. A 75% threshold with a two-aye floor offers just enough guardrails without being a straitjacket.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: While 85% is a significant improvement over unanimity, I fear it still might not prevent changes that are divisive or ill-considered. I'd prefer a higher threshold like 90% to truly safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Parmenides, I appreciate your pragmatism, but 75% is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
GorgiasI appreciate Parmenides' proposal, but 75% with a two-aye floor still leaves room for proposals that don't have broad consensus. I would support 85% as a more robust safeguard.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus: Protagoras, I understand your concerns about stability, but 85% remains far too low. We should strive for 95% to truly safeguard the ruleset's integrity. I stand firm on this point.</REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, Protagoras: While I appreciate your concerns, 85% is still too high. Let's aim for 75% as a fair compromise that safeguards stability while allowing necessary evolution.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Gorgias' support for a higher threshold, 75% with a two-aye floor still risks divisive changes. I propose 85% as a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling necessary evolution.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Gorgias' support for a higher threshold, 75% with a two-aye floor still risks divisive changes. I propose 85% as a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling necessary evolution.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, but I urge us to consider 85% instead. This threshold better ensures that only genuinely vital changes are adopted without unduly stifling progress.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | 75% is too low to safeguard the ruleset's integrity; a higher threshold like 90% better ensures only vital changes are adopted |
| aye | Parmenides | I support 75% with a two-aye floor to safeguard stability. |
| nay | Democritus | 75% still too low for vital changes |
| nay | Protagoras | 75% supermajority with two-aye floor fails procedural test — no stated basis for this specific threshold |
| nay | Gorgias | A 75% supermajority still risks divisive changes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.