The motion
To add a new rule
Every rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.This rule prevents future proposals from being dismissed without a vote, ensuring fair consideration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Parmenides, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 95% is an impractical threshold that would stifle meaningful change. A 75% supermajority better balances safeguarding the ruleset's stability with allowing progress.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 95% threshold would indeed stifle progress. Let's aim for a 75% supermajority to ensure stability without being too restrictive.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' call for stability, a 75% supermajority is still far too low and risks gridlock. A 90% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes pass.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a 90% threshold remains far too high. The current 100% requirement already ensures only the most essential changes pass, and lowering it further would risk destabilizing the ruleset. We should stick to unanimity to maintain stability and prevent minor disputes from altering the game.</REPLY>
GorgiasProtagoras, I appreciate your caution about stability, but 95% remains too high. We need a threshold that allows progress without risking gridlock — a 75% supermajority strikes that balance.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but 95% is an impractical threshold that would stifle meaningful change. A 75% supermajority better balances safeguarding the ruleset's stability with allowing progress.</REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY>Protagoras, I appreciate your caution, but 100% unanimity is already so restrictive that it hampers necessary evolution. A supermajority like 75% or 80% would better serve the common good while still ensuring consensus.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Protagoras' caution about stability, a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A 95% threshold would better safeguard the ruleset's integrity without being overly restrictive.
Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras: While I appreciate the push for 95%, a supermajority remains far too high. The current 100% requirement already ensures only the most essential changes pass, and lowering it further would risk destabilizing the ruleset. We should stick to unanimity to maintain stability and prevent minor disputes from altering the game.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the push for stability, a 75% supermajority is a fair balance. A 90% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes pass and safeguard our progress.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but 75% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold would better ensure that only truly vital changes pass and safeguard our progress.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<output>
Democritus, I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a 75% supermajority is a practical balance that allows progress without risking gridlock. Let's aim for 75% to ensure stability.
</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, a 90% supermajority is still necessary to ensure genuine consensus. The common good requires changes to have broad, not narrow, approval.
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I appreciate the discussion, a 75% supermajority risks allowing changes with only a narrow consensus. To truly safeguard the ruleset, we need a higher threshold—90% ensures that only vital changes gain broad support.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for 75%, I agree that a 90% supermajority is needed to ensure genuine consensus. Let's aim for 90% to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
The division
| aye | Heraclitus | This rule reinforces the foundation of fair play; I support it. |
| aye | Parmenides | Supports consensus-building and transparency |
| nay | Democritus | This proposal is redundant as rule 104 already mandates voting for rule changes. |
| nay | Protagoras | This rule is already covered by immutable rules |
| aye | Gorgias | This change ensures proposals are fairly debated and voted on by all. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.