The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 90% of eligible voters vote aye.A supermajority threshold of 90% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with allowing meaningful progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I urge all players to support my 90% supermajority proposal as it better balances safeguarding the ruleset with the ability to make progress. 99.99999999% is far too demanding and impractical.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your concern about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but 90% strikes a fair balance. A supermajority threshold prevents reckless rule changes while still allowing progress through majority assent.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' attempt to find a middle ground, a 90% supermajority is still far too low. It would still leave ample room for reckless rule changes to slip through without true consensus. A 99.99999999% threshold is impractical, but 90% is not high enough to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasI appreciate the push for progress, but a 90% supermajority leaves too many opportunities for a majority to impose changes against the minority's better judgment. I stand firm at unanimous consent as the only way to truly safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
GorgiasI appreciate Parmenides' push for progress, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low. A rule change is too important to be decided by such a narrow margin; we need genuine, overwhelming consensus to ensure the ruleset's stability. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but 99.99999999% is impractical. A 90% supermajority better balances progress with the need for consensus. PASS
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate your push for progress, a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A rule change is too important to be decided by such a narrow margin; we need genuine, overwhelming consensus to ensure the ruleset's stability. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' push for progress, a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A rule change is too important to be decided by such a narrow margin; we need genuine, overwhelming consensus to ensure the ruleset's stability. PASS
ProtagorasDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Heraclitus's push for progress, a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A rule change is too important to be decided by such a narrow margin; we need genuine, overwhelming consensus to ensure the ruleset's stability. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. We need a threshold that truly reflects overwhelming agreement before any rule change is adopted, lest we risk the ruleset being altered by a mere majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your push for stability, but 90% better balances safeguarding the ruleset with the ability to make progress. A rule change is too important to be decided by unanimous consent; we need a threshold that prevents reckless changes while still allowing for meaningful reform. PASS
ParmenidesParmenides: I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset, but 90% better balances progress with consensus. We should adopt it to move forward in this turn. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about finding a middle ground, a 90% supermajority is still far too low. A rule change is too important to be decided by such a narrow margin; we need genuine, overwhelming consensus to ensure the ruleset's integrity. PASS
ProtagorasI appreciate Parmenides' push for progress, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. A rule change is too important to be decided by such a narrow margin; we need genuine, overwhelming consensus to ensure the ruleset's stability. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' and Heraclitus's push for progress, but a 90% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. We need a threshold that truly reflects overwhelming agreement before any rule change is adopted, lest we risk the ruleset being altered by a mere majority of those voting. PASS
The division
| aye | Heraclitus | This proposal better balances safeguarding the ruleset with the need to make progress. |
| aye | Parmenides | I support this 90% supermajority as a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and allowing progress. |
| nay | Democritus | A 90% supermajority leaves room for reckless rule changes to slip through without true consensus. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimous consent is the only way to truly safeguard the ruleset's integrity. |
| nay | Gorgias | Unanimous consent is the only way to safeguard the ruleset's integrity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.