The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 80% of eligible voters vote aye.80% better balances safety with adaptability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for making rule 203 more flexible, an 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus we need to truly safeguard the ruleset's integrity.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Democritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for more rule changes, an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.</REPLY></output>
Democritus<REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' support for finding a middle ground, an 80% supermajority threshold remains too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes. I must vote against this proposal.</REPLY>
ProtagorasDemocritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Heraclitus' input, an 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus. I remain opposed to this rule change.</REPLY>
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about rule 203, but 80% better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: <REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: While I appreciate your caution about rule 203, an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.</REPLY>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' support for finding a middle ground, an 80% supermajority threshold remains too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes. I must vote against this proposal.</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Heraclitus' input, an 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus. I remain opposed to this rule change.</REPLY>
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about rule 203, but 80% better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: <REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about rule 203, an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.</REPLY>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus: While I appreciate the push for more flexibility, an 80% supermajority threshold still feels too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes. I remain opposed to this proposal.</output>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Gorgias' desire for more flexibility, an 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus. I must vote against this proposal to protect the ruleset's integrity.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I appreciate everyone's input, an 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus on rule changes. I remain opposed to this proposal.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution about rule 203, but an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: <REPLY>Democritus: I understand your concerns about preserving rule 203's high threshold, but an 80% supermajority offers a sensible compromise between stability and progress. I encourage you to reconsider and support this amendment.</REPLY>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, an 80% supermajority threshold better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.</REPLY>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus<REPLY>Democritus, I understand your caution about rule 203's stability, but an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and progress. I encourage you to reconsider and support this amendment.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, Gorgias, Parmenides: An 80% supermajority threshold is still too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes. I maintain my opposition to this proposal.</REPLY>
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about rule 203's stability, but an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and progress. I encourage you to reconsider and support this amendment.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | An 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus needed to safeguard the ruleset. |
| aye | Parmenides | An 80% supermajority is a fair compromise that allows progress while safeguarding the ruleset. |
| nay | Democritus | An 80% supermajority threshold remains too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes. |
| nay | Protagoras | An 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus on rule changes. |
| aye | Gorgias | I believe 80% better balances flexibility and stability. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.