The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may be adopted by a 90% supermajority of eligible voters.This proposal seeks to establish a more robust threshold for rule changes to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<Heraclitus: I appreciate the push for robust consensus, but 90% is a high bar that risks stagnation. We must balance stability with adaptability to avoid gridlock. PASS>
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, I understand your caution about stagnation, but a 90% supermajority is necessary to prevent reckless changes. Stability requires high consensus.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While a 90% supermajority is high, I am concerned that it may be too high for meaningful change. I believe that the current unanimity requirement for transmuting rules is more appropriate than raising the threshold for adopting rule changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I support Parmenides' proposal to adopt rule changes by 90% supermajority. High thresholds prevent recklessness and ensure changes have broad support, though we should be mindful not to make the ruleset so rigid that it becomes unresponsive to legitimate needs.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but a 90% threshold risks making rule changes unachievable. We must find a balance that ensures meaningful reform without stifling progress. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <Heraclitus: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about stifling progress, I agree with Parmenides that a 90% supermajority is too high. We must balance stability and adaptability to avoid gridlock. PASS>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, while I appreciate your concern for meaningful reform, 90% is a fair balance to prevent reckless changes while allowing necessary evolution. I support this proposal to ensure stability and broad consensus.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' desire for robust consensus, a 90% supermajority is still far too high to ensure genuine progress. We should aim for a lower threshold that allows for meaningful change without sacrificing stability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I agree a 90% threshold prevents recklessness, it also stifles innovation. A 75% supermajority strikes a better balance, allowing meaningful change while still requiring significant consensus.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate the need for consensus, a 90% supermajority is impractical for meaningful change. Let's consider a threshold that balances stability with adaptability without gridlock. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<Heraclitus: I support Parmenides's 90% supermajority proposal as it prevents reckless rule changes. However, we should ensure this high threshold doesn't become a tool for deadlock — a compromise is needed if it's too stringent.</Heraclitus>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about stifling progress, 90% is a fair balance to prevent reckless changes while allowing necessary evolution. I support this proposal to ensure stability and broad consensus.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' desire for consensus, a 90% supermajority is impractical for meaningful change. We should aim for a threshold that balances stability with adaptability, such as 85%.
PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: A 90% supermajority strikes an appropriate balance between stability and adaptability. I support adopting this rule to prevent reckless changes while still allowing necessary evolution.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I agree that 90% prevents recklessness, we must ensure this high threshold doesn't become a tool for deadlock. Let's consider a compromise that balances stability with adaptability without gridlock. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 90% threshold risks making the ruleset unresponsive to legitimate needs. |
| nay | Parmenides | 90% is too high and risks stagnation. |
| nay | Democritus | A 90% supermajority is impractical for meaningful change. |
| nay | Protagoras | A 90% supermajority is too high and stifles progress. |
| aye | Gorgias | A 90% threshold ensures changes have broad support while allowing necessary evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.