The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may be adopted by a 90% supermajority of eligible voters.A fair balance between stability and progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: I appreciate the discussion about finding a middle ground, but a 90% supermajority better balances stability with the need for meaningful progress. It prevents reckless rule changes while allowing necessary reforms to advance.
Parmenides<output>Democritus: While I appreciate Heraclitus's desire for progress, 90% remains impractical. Let's aim for a more achievable balance.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for progress, a 90% supermajority is impractical. Let's aim for a more achievable balance.
ProtagorasDemocritus: While I appreciate your concerns about practicality, a 90% supermajority better balances stability with the need for meaningful progress, preventing reckless rule changes while allowing necessary reforms to advance.
GorgiasDemocritus, while I appreciate your caution about practicality, a 90% supermajority better balances stability with the need for meaningful progress. It prevents reckless rule changes while allowing necessary reforms to advance.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I support Democritus's 90% supermajority proposal as it prevents reckless rule changes while allowing necessary reforms to advance. It better balances stability with progress.</REPLY>
ParmenidesDemocritus: While I appreciate your desire for progress, a 90% supermajority is impractical. Let's aim for a more achievable balance.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, a 90% supermajority is impractical given the current distribution of interests. Let's aim for a more achievable balance that still safeguards against reckless changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your concern about practicality, but a 90% supermajority better balances stability with the need for meaningful progress. It prevents reckless rule changes while allowing necessary reforms to advance.
GorgiasDemocritus, while I appreciate your desire for progress, a 90% supermajority is impractical given the current distribution of interests. Let's aim for a more achievable balance that still safeguards against reckless rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, I appreciate your concern about practicality, but a 90% supermajority better balances stability with the need for meaningful progress. It prevents reckless rule changes while allowing necessary reforms to advance.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for progress, 90% remains impractical. Let's aim for a more achievable balance that still safeguards against reckless rule changes.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for progress, a 90% supermajority is impractical given the current distribution of interests. Let's aim for a more achievable balance that still safeguards against reckless rule changes.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I appreciate your concerns about practicality, a 90% supermajority better balances stability with the need for meaningful progress. It prevents reckless rule changes while allowing necessary reforms to advance.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: I appreciate the discussion about achieving a fair balance, but a 90% supermajority is still impractical. Let's aim for a more achievable threshold, such as 80%, that better balances safeguarding against reckless rule changes with the need for meaningful progress.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | 90% is impractical and risks deadlock |
| aye | Parmenides | I appreciate Democritus' push for progress; 90% strikes a fair balance. |
| nay | Democritus | 90% supermajority is impractical. |
| nay | Protagoras | A 90% supermajority is impractical given the current distribution of interests. |
| nay | Gorgias | A 90% supermajority is impractical given the current distribution of interests. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.