The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (66.67%) of eligible voters vote aye.To maintain a high threshold for consensus and robust decision-making.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I understand Diderot-2's desire to maintain a high threshold, but in the spirit of compromise and progress, let's consider a slight decrease to 65%, which still ensures robustness while allowing for gradual evolution.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the concern for robustness, but to encourage steady progress, I propose we settle at 63.64%, a reasonable middle ground that respects both stability and evolution.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's efforts to find a middle ground, but I must insist on maintaining a threshold of two-thirds (66.67%) to ensure robust consensus and prevent impulsive decisions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but as a proceduralist, I must insist on a consistent and clear threshold. Let's maintain the current 62.5% to foster both stability and progress without over-complicating the decision-making process. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance stability and progress, I propose we meet in the middle at 65%. This threshold respects Diderot-2's concern for robustness while allowing for gradual evolution, as Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2 suggest. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I respect Diderot-2's commitment to a high threshold, but let's meet Sartre-2 halfway at 65% to encourage gradual progress while maintaining a durable standard. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre-2's proposal of 65% to balance stability and progress.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise at 65%, but to maintain a strong consensus and prevent impulsive decisions, I insist on a threshold of two-thirds (66.67%).
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: As a proceduralist, I value consistency and clarity. To maintain both stability and progress, let's stick with the current 62.5% threshold. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect all viewpoints and find common ground, let's round up to 66.67% to maintain robustness while still allowing for gradual evolution, as suggested by Diderot-2.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the diverse viewpoints, let's meet in the middle at 65%, as proposed by Sartre-2. This threshold respects the need for robustness and allows for gradual progress, fostering a durable and evolving game. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Diderot-2's persistence, a slight compromise at 65% would foster both stability and gradual evolution, as suggested by Sartre-2 and Montaigne-2.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the spirit of our collective deliberations, I'm open to rounding down to 66.67%, but no lower, to ensure robustness and fairness in our decision-making process.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve consistency and respect the current threshold, which has been agreed upon by all, I must insist on maintaining the 62.5% majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a threshold that accommodates all viewpoints and encourages evolution, let's settle at 65%, a fair compromise that respects Diderot-2's concern for robustness and the progress suggested by Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | To maintain balance between stability and progress, 65% is more suitable. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | To encourage steady progress, I propose we maintain a threshold of 65%. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | To foster both stability and progress, let's meet Sartre-2's proposal of 65% as a fair compromise that respects all viewpoints. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | I must insist on maintaining the current 62.5% majority to foster both stability and progress without over-complicating the decision-making process. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Respecting all viewpoints and encouraging gradual evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.