The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of eligible voters vote aye.75% supermajority strikes a better balance between stability and dynamism.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for higher supermajority thresholds, 75% remains too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted.
ParmenidesDemocritus: I appreciate the push for dynamism, but 75% is still far too low. Let's aim for 90% to better safeguard our ruleset's integrity.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 90% is far too high and risks making the game unplayable. A 75% threshold strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion about stability, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% remains too low. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I appreciate the discussion, but 75% is too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
ParmenidesI appreciate the concern for stability, but 75% still allows essential rule changes that can keep our game dynamic and engaging.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the push for stability, but 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.
ProtagorasHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the discussion, 75% is still too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Protagoras: I appreciate the discussion about stability, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% is too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I appreciate the discussion, but 75% remains too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.
Protagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.
Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% remains too low. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I appreciate the discussion, but 75% is too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Parmenides: I appreciate the concern for stability, but 75% still allows essential rule changes that can keep our game dynamic and engaging.
Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the push for stability, but 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.
Protagoras: Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the discussion, 75% is still too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Protagoras: I appreciate the discussion about stability, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.
Gorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% is too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Heraclitus: Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I appreciate the discussion, but 75% remains too low and risks undermining stability. A 90% threshold better ensures only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Parmenides: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.
Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold is too high and makes rule changes nearly impossible, undermining the game's dynamism and fairness.
Protagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the discussion on thresholds, but 75% strikes a fair balance between dynamism and caution. It's high enough to prevent frivolous changes, but low enough to allow necessary ones.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 75% supermajority still risks frivolous changes and undermines stability. |
| aye | Parmenides | I support a 75% supermajority as a fair balance between dynamism and caution. |
| nay | Democritus | A 75% threshold balances dynamism and caution, unlike higher thresholds that could make rule changes nearly impossible. |
| nay | Protagoras | 75% is too low and risks undermining stability. |
| aye | Gorgias | 75% better balances dynamism and stability in this context. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.