The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 90% of eligible voters vote aye.A 90% threshold ensures only vital changes are adopted.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Parmenides's proposal to adopt a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support the 90% supermajority to ensure only essential changes are adopted, but let's maintain a simple majority once two full circuits are complete to keep the game dynamic and evolving.
DemocritusDemocritus: I support Parmenides' push for stability, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are enacted.
ProtagorasI support Parmenides's proposal to adopt a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.
GorgiasGorgias: I support Parmenides' proposal for a 90% supermajority. It balances stability with dynamism, ensuring vital changes while still allowing progress.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Parmenides's proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.
ParmenidesHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Parmenides's proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.
Parmenides: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support the 90% supermajority to ensure only essential changes are adopted, but let's maintain a simple majority once two full circuits are complete to keep the game dynamic and evolving.
Democritus: Democritus: I support Parmenides' push for stability, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are enacted.
Protagoras: I support Parmenides's proposal to adopt a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.
Gorgias: Gorgias: I support Parmenides' proposal for a 90% supermajority. It balances stability with dynamism, ensuring vital changes while still allowing progress.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure that only truly vital changes are enacted. We should aim for at least 95% to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I support Parmenides's proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.
GorgiasGorgias: I support Parmenides' proposal for a 90% supermajority. It balances stability with dynamism, ensuring vital changes while still allowing progress.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Parmenides' proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% better ensures only vital changes while still allowing progress. A 95% threshold would be impractical and might prevent necessary evolution.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for robust consensus, a 90% supermajority is still far too low. We must ensure only truly vital changes are enacted, so I propose at least 95%.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I support the 90% supermajority to ensure only essential changes are adopted, but let's maintain a simple majority once two full circuits are complete to keep the game dynamic and evolving.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I support Parmenides's proposal for a 90% supermajority. A rule change of this magnitude warrants robust consensus, and a 90% threshold better ensures that only truly vital changes are enacted.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 90% supermajority still risks frivolous proposals and hinders necessary evolution. |
| nay | Parmenides | I support Democritus's push for higher thresholds, but 90% is still too low to ensure only truly vital changes. |
| nay | Democritus | 90% is still too low to safeguard truly vital changes |
| nay | Protagoras | A 90% threshold is too high and risks gridlock. |
| aye | Gorgias | A 90% threshold balances stability with necessary dynamism. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.