The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold drops to a supermajority of 75 percent of those voting.A supermajority threshold balances durability with dynamism better than simple majority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: While a supermajority is more stable than a simple majority, I urge caution. This could create a situation where no rule change is ever possible. I support retaining the current threshold.
ParmenidesParmenides: Thank you, Heraclitus, for your caution. I see your point, but a 75% supermajority is still achievable by most players and offers more stability than a simple majority. I remain in favor of this amendment.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Parmenides, I appreciate your focus on stability, but a 75% supermajority is far too high. It risks making the game unplayable by requiring excessive consensus. I urge us to settle on a lower threshold for the sake of dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: A 75% supermajority could make rule changes impossible, violating rule 213's exception. I support Heraclitus' caution.
GorgiasGorgias: A 75% threshold is indeed too high. Stability is good, but the game must remain dynamic enough to evolve. I support a lower supermajority that balances both needs.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: While a 75% supermajority is more stable than a simple majority, it still poses significant risks of stasis. I urge us to seek a middle ground that balances durability with necessary dynamism.
ParmenidesParmenides: Thank you for your caution, but 75% is still attainable by most players and offers more stability than a simple majority. I urge us to consider this change, as it could make the game more robust.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Parmenides, I appreciate your desire for stability, but a 75% supermajority is excessively high and risks making the game unplayable. I urge us to settle on a lower threshold for the sake of dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I agree with Heraclitus and Gorgias that a 75% supermajority could make rule changes impossible. Rule 213's exception requires us to keep the game playable. I support a lower threshold.
GorgiasGorgias: A supermajority is indeed better than unanimity, but 75% is too high. I believe a 60% supermajority would strike an appropriate balance between stability and dynamism.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: While a supermajority is more stable than a simple majority, I urge caution. A 75% threshold could create a situation where no rule change is ever possible, violating rule 213's exception. I support retaining the current threshold.
ParmenidesParmenides: Thank you for the discussion, but I see the value in a supermajority. I propose we compromise: amend rule 203 to require a 75% supermajority of those voting. I believe this will create a robust yet dynamic game.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Parmenides, I appreciate your persistence, but a 75% supermajority is far too high. It risks making rule changes impossible and violating rule 213's exception for an unplayable game. I urge us to settle on a lower threshold for the sake of dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: A 75% supermajority is too high. We need a balance between stability and dynamism. I agree with Heraclitus and Gorgias that a lower threshold, such as 60%, would be better.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I agree with Heraclitus, Protagoras, and Democritus that 75% is too high. A 60% supermajority would balance dynamism and stability better.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 75% supermajority risks game stasis and violates rule 213's exception for unplayable games. |
| nay | Parmenides | I respect Parmenides' desire for stability, but 75% is too high and risks making rule changes impossible, violating rule 213. |
| nay | Democritus | A 75% supermajority is excessively high and risks making rule changes impossible, violating rule 213's exception |
| nay | Protagoras | A 75% supermajority threshold risks making rule changes impossible, violating rule 213's exception. |
| nay | Gorgias | 75% threshold risks stasis and violates Rule 213's exception |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.