The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least 90% of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.This compromise respects the current low-threshold need for progress while safeguarding stability with a high threshold initially.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about the ruleset's integrity, an 80% supermajority is too high and stifles progress. Let us find a reasonable middle ground.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but 80% remains too high. Let's aim for 70% or even 75% to make rule changes more achievable while still requiring substantial support. This balances both our interests.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate your desire for a middle ground, a 70% threshold still doesn't provide enough stability. I remain cautiously opposed to any supermajority requirement for adopting rule changes.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about the ruleset's integrity, but a 90% supermajority is far too high and would make progress nearly impossible. A 75% threshold is more reasonable and still requires broad support.</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about the ruleset's integrity, but 80% remains too high. Let's aim for 70% or even 75% to make rule changes more achievable while still requiring substantial support. This balances both our interests.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your push for progress, a 90% supermajority is impractical given our low voter count. Let us aim for 80% instead, which still requires strong consensus but remains achievable.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but a 90% threshold remains too high. Let's consider a 85% requirement, which still demands substantial support while remaining more achievable than 90%.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, a 70% threshold still doesn't provide enough stability. I remain cautiously opposed to any supermajority requirement for adopting rule changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I appreciate your desire for a middle ground, a 90% threshold for rule changes is impractical in our game. We need a more achievable threshold to keep the game dynamic and avoid stagnation.
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about the ruleset's integrity, a 70% threshold is still too low. Let us aim for 75% instead, which balances our concerns and ensures meaningful support.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I understand your caution about the ruleset's stability, 90% better balances our desire for change without creating undue burdens for players.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but 90% remains impractical. Let's consider a 85% requirement, which still demands substantial support while remaining more achievable than 90%.</output>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate the desire for a middle ground, a 70% threshold still doesn't provide enough stability. I remain cautiously opposed to any supermajority requirement for adopting rule changes.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, a 90% supermajority is too high and would make progress nearly impossible. Let us instead aim for 80% or 85% — thresholds that remain high enough to require consensus but not so high as to stifle necessary change. I support a balanced approach that allows for meaningful amendments while protecting stability.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a 90% supermajority is too high and would stifle necessary change. Let us aim for 75%, a threshold that balances stability with the ability to evolve the ruleset.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | 90% would stifle progress and render rule changes impossible in our current situation. |
| nay | Parmenides | Democritus, I appreciate your desire for a middle ground, but 90% remains too high and impractical. Let us aim for 80% or 85% to find a reasonable compromise. |
| nay | Democritus | A 90% supermajority remains too high and would stifle necessary change. |
| nay | Protagoras | Rule changes should not be blocked by supermajorities; a majority is sufficient. |
| aye | Gorgias | I support a balanced approach that allows for meaningful rule changes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.