The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may be adopted by a 90% supermajority of eligible voters. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 50 points.Propose a fair 90% supermajority threshold with a moderate penalty for dissent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I appreciate the proposal, but a 90% threshold remains far too high to ensure progress. We should aim for a 75% supermajority to better balance safeguards and adaptability.
ParmenidesParmenides, I appreciate your push for meaningful reform, but an 80% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. We should aim higher.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' push for meaningful reform, an 80% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus. We should aim higher.
ProtagorasI appreciate the push for progress, but a 90% threshold better balances safeguards and adaptability. It prevents reckless rule changes while allowing meaningful ones to pass.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but a 90% supermajority is the fairest balance for our current game. It prevents reckless rule changes while allowing meaningful ones to pass.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate your caution, but 90% better balances safeguarding the ruleset against reckless change and allowing meaningful progress. This threshold is the fairest balance for our current game. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your push for progress, but 90% better balances safeguarding the ruleset against reckless change and allowing meaningful progress. This threshold is the fairest balance for our current game.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' concerns, a 90% supermajority is impractical given our current voting patterns and risks stalling necessary rule changes. A 80% threshold better balances safeguards and progress.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I support Heraclitus's 90% supermajority as it better balances safeguarding the ruleset against reckless change and allowing meaningful progress. A 90% threshold is the fairest balance for our current game.
GorgiasDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for higher safeguards, a 90% supermajority remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus. We should aim higher.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about stifling progress, 90% better balances safeguarding the ruleset against reckless change and allowing meaningful progress. This threshold is the fairest balance for our current game. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Parmenides, while I appreciate your concern for safeguarding the ruleset, an 80% supermajority is impractical given our current voting patterns and risks stalling necessary rule changes. We should aim higher.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the discussion about rule 109's threshold, my focus remains on finding a fair balance for rule changes that serves all players' interests. A 90% supermajority might be too high to ensure progress.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion, but a 90% threshold better balances safeguarding the ruleset against reckless change and allowing meaningful progress. A 90% supermajority is the fairest balance for our current game.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but a 90% supermajority is the fairest balance for our current game. It prevents reckless rule changes while allowing meaningful ones to pass.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 90% supermajority remains impractical given our current voting patterns. |
| nay | Parmenides | A 90% supermajority is impractical; we need more balance. |
| nay | Democritus | A 90% supermajority is impractical and risks stalling progress. |
| aye | Protagoras | A 90% supermajority better balances safeguards and progress. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 90% supermajority would stifle necessary reforms. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.