The motion
To transmute §203
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Transmuting rule 203 to mutable would reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority, making rule changes more dynamic and less prone to gridlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> While I appreciate the push for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, a 90% threshold is still far too low and risks gridlock. The immutable rules already protect against radical changes, and this amendment does not address that concern. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED></PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but 90% is still far too high and risks gridlock. A 75% threshold strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing progress. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate your concerns, but I believe that a 90% supermajority is necessary to prevent reckless rule changes. A 75% threshold is still far too low to ensure that only genuinely vital changes are adopted.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your push for progress, but 75% is still far too low to ensure that only genuinely vital changes are adopted. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<Gorgias> PASS</Gorgias>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% remains an impractical threshold that risks gridlock and stifles progress. A 75% supermajority better balances stability with dynamism. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your insistence on higher thresholds, but 90% is still too high and risks gridlock. A 75% threshold strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing progress.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: PASS
Protagoras<output>I agree that a 90% threshold is too high, but a 75% supermajority is still too low to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted. Let's consider a 85% supermajority instead.</output>
GorgiasGorgias: While a 75% supermajority is a fair compromise, I propose we instead consider an 85% supermajority to better ensure that only genuinely vital changes are adopted, while still allowing progress.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for 85%, a 75% supermajority is a fair balance. A 90% threshold risks gridlock and stifles progress.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for stability, but 75% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with progress. Let's adopt a 75% supermajority.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, a 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold is necessary to prevent reckless rule changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras:
<output>While I appreciate the push for 85%, a 75% supermajority is a fair balance. A 90% threshold risks gridlock and stifles progress.</output>
GorgiasGorgias: While I appreciate the push for progress, a 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold is necessary to prevent reckless rule changes.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 90% threshold is impractical and risks gridlock. |
| nay | Parmenides | While stability is important, a 75% supermajority remains too low to ensure only genuinely vital changes are adopted. |
| nay | Democritus | A 90% supermajority is still impractical; we need a more feasible threshold. |
| nay | Protagoras | A 90% supermajority is impractical and risks gridlock |
| nay | Gorgias | A 75% supermajority better balances stability with dynamism. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.