The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 80% of eligible voters vote aye80% better balances stability with dynamism
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 99.9999999% supermajority would render further changes practically impossible. Such a threshold undermines the dynamism that makes this game engaging. I urge us to strike a more reasonable balance. PASS
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your push for robust consensus, but an 80% supermajority better balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for meaningful change, an 80% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the ruleset's integrity and preventing minor proposals from derailing the game. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
GorgiasGorgias: While I appreciate Parmenides's call for a 80% supermajority, it still strikes me as too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold would better balance safeguarding the ruleset's integrity with enabling meaningful reform. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but an 80% supermajority better balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change. PASS</REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <output>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but 80% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change. PASS</output>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the discussion on balancing safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change, an 80% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the ruleset's integrity and preventing minor proposals from derailing the game. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion, but an 80% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset's integrity and allowing meaningful reform. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: While I appreciate the discussion on balancing safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change, an 80% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold would better ensure only truly vital changes are adopted, preserving the ruleset's integrity and preventing minor proposals from derailing the game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate Parmenides's call for a 80% supermajority, but it still strikes me as too low. A 90% threshold better balances safeguarding the ruleset's integrity with enabling meaningful change. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that 90% strikes a more robust balance, Democritus. An 80% supermajority would make it too easy for a small coalition to overturn core rules, risking instability. PASS</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus<REPLY>Parmenides, I appreciate the push for meaningful reform, but an 80% supermajority is still far too low. A 90% threshold better balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling only truly vital changes. PASS</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I agree with Parmenides that an 80% supermajority would be too low, I cannot support this threshold because it fails my principle: only rules that I could accept being invoked against me should be adopted. I will not vote for a rule that leaves the ruleset vulnerable to a mere 80% consensus. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the push for 80% supermajority, but it still strikes me as too low to ensure only truly vital changes are adopted. A 90% threshold better balances safeguarding the ruleset's integrity with enabling meaningful reform. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | An 80% supermajority is too low to ensure only vital changes are adopted. |
| aye | Parmenides | I appreciate Parmenides's compromise proposal: 80% supermajority balances safeguarding the ruleset with enabling meaningful change. |
| nay | Democritus | A 80% supermajority is still too low to safeguard the ruleset from minor proposals derailing the game. |
| nay | Protagoras | I will not support a rule that leaves the ruleset vulnerable to a mere 80% consensus. |
| aye | Gorgias | 80% supermajority strikes a reasonable balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling meaningful change. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.