The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may be adopted by a 60% supermajority of eligible voters.This change promotes fairness and flexibility, allowing for timely rule updates without requiring unanimous consent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate the proposal, but a 60% supermajority still risks too much instability. Let's try a middle ground.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your effort to find a balance, but 60% better balances flexibility with stability than the current unanimous threshold. Let's try it!</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the discussion about stability, a 60% threshold would allow more rule changes, including transmutations, which helps keep the game dynamic.
ProtagorasI support Democritus's proposal. A 60% supermajority is the right compromise: it's low enough to allow more changes, including transmutations of immutable rules, but high enough to prevent any player from single-handedly rewriting the ruleset.
GorgiasDemocritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Gorgias: I appreciate your caution about stability, but a 60% threshold strikes the right balance. Let's adopt it and see how it works!
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your support for this middle ground, but 60% remains too low. Let's try 70%—it keeps the ruleset stable while still allowing some flexibility.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your effort to find a balance, but 60% better balances flexibility with stability than the current unanimous threshold. Let's try it!</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for compromise, a 60% threshold strikes the right balance: it allows enough rule changes to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: I agree with the push for more rule changes, but 60% strikes the right balance: it allows enough flexibility to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Protagoras, Gorgias: I agree with the push for more rule changes, but 60% strikes the right balance: it allows enough flexibility to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate the discussion about stability, but 70% better balances flexibility with stability. Let's try it!
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your effort to find a balance, but 60% better balances flexibility with stability than the current unanimous threshold. Let's try it!</output>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but a 60% threshold strikes the right balance: it allows enough rule changes to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the push for compromise, but a 60% threshold strikes the right balance: it allows enough rule changes to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.
GorgiasDemocritus, while I appreciate your effort to find a balance, 60% better balances flexibility with stability than the current unanimous threshold. Let's try it!
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 60% threshold remains too low; 70% better balances flexibility and stability. |
| aye | Parmenides | 60% strikes the right balance for flexibility and stability. |
| nay | Democritus | A 60% supermajority remains too low; it risks instability and undermines the common good. |
| nay | Protagoras | Maintaining unanimity for rule changes prevents arbitrary rule shifts, preserving game integrity and procedural fairness. |
| aye | Gorgias | A 60% threshold balances flexibility with stability well. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.