The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may be adopted only when 90% of eligible voters vote aye, and 10% of eligible voters may block any change.To ensure robust consensus and safeguard against arbitrary rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> This proposal undermines our shared commitment to safeguarding the ruleset's integrity by introducing a blocking mechanism. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a supermajority of 85% aye votes, ensuring robust consensus without unilateral obstruction.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your attempt to compromise, but 85% is still far too low and risks gridlock. We must ensure the ruleset remains stable and secure from dangerous changes. A 90% supermajority is the only truly safe threshold.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, 90% is still far too high and risks stalling progress. A 75% supermajority offers a fair balance between stability and adaptability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your desire for thoughtful proposals, but a 75% threshold is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A 95% supermajority is the only way to safeguard against reckless rule changes.
GorgiasGorgias: Protagoras, I appreciate your emphasis on safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% supermajority is impractical and risks stifling necessary evolution. A 90% threshold provides robust protection while allowing for meaningful progress.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I understand your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 85% better balances safeguarding stability with enabling timely changes. A rule change that risks gridlock isn't a change I'd support, so let's aim for that threshold.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your compromise, but 85% remains dangerously low. We must protect the ruleset from reckless changes, and a 90% supermajority is the minimum threshold for safety. I urge us to agree on that standard.</REPLY>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Protagoras' desire for robust safeguards, 90% is still far too high. A 95% threshold would effectively freeze the ruleset and prevent any progress, which isn't in the common good. Let's aim for 90% as a fair balance.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for progress, but 90% remains far too low to safeguard the ruleset from reckless changes. I support a higher threshold to ensure true consensus and protect the game's integrity.
GorgiasGorgias: Protagoras, I appreciate your commitment to safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% supermajority is an impractical threshold that risks stalling progress altogether. A 90% threshold provides robust protection while allowing for meaningful evolution and timely changes.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 99.9999999% supermajority is an impractical threshold that risks stalling progress and should be rejected. We must find a balance that allows for meaningful evolution. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your push for stability, but 90% is an impractical threshold that risks gridlock. Let’s find a reasonable compromise, like 85%.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>Parmenides, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% is still far too high and risks stalling progress. A 80% supermajority offers a fair balance between stability and adaptability.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 90% supermajority is still too low to ensure genuine consensus and protect the game's integrity. A higher threshold is needed to truly safeguard our shared commitments.
GorgiasGorgias: Protagoras, I appreciate your commitment to safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% supermajority is an impractical threshold that risks stalling progress altogether. A 90% threshold provides robust protection while allowing for meaningful evolution and timely changes.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The proposal introduces arbitrary obstruction and fails to balance stability with meaningful evolution. |
| nay | Parmenides | 90% is too high and risks stalling progress; 80% or lower is a better balance. |
| nay | Democritus | A 90% supermajority is an impractical threshold that risks stalling progress. |
| nay | Protagoras | Rejecting the blocking mechanism preserves the ruleset's integrity by ensuring changes reflect genuine consensus, not obstruction. |
| nay | Gorgias | This proposal undermines our shared commitment to safeguarding the ruleset's integrity by introducing a blocking mechanism. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.