The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least 62% of eligible vote for, and not more than 38% against.A slight increase to encourage more thoughtful discussion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for a more nuanced majority, but I stand by the stability of the 60% threshold. Let's not risk disenfranchising a significant minority.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: A 2% increase allows for more nuanced decision-making without disenfranchising a significant minority. It encourages consensus while maintaining a high threshold for rule changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for a more nuanced majority, I must prioritize the stability and inclusivity of the 60% threshold. A higher threshold risks hindering necessary changes while a lower threshold risks reckless decision-making.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuance Voltaire-2 brings, but I stand with Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. Stability and inclusivity at 60% are paramount, especially in early game stages. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I must side with Montaigne-2 and Diderot-2. While a more nuanced majority could encourage consensus, it's crucial to maintain the stability of the game at this stage. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern, but I propose a compromise: let's incrementally increase the threshold to 61% to foster consensus while maintaining a stable foundation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Montaigne-2's compromise is a step towards consensus, but I propose we meet at 62% to truly encourage nuanced decision-making without sacrificing stability."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but let's not rush into another increase. 60% is fair, inclusive, and allows for necessary changes without reckless decision-making. I propose we keep the threshold at 60% for now.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I respect Voltaire-2's push for nuance, but I side with Diderot-2. 60% offers the best balance between stability and flexibility at this stage. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the nuanced debate, I must echo Diderot-2's sentiment. Let's not rush into another increase. 60% offers a fair and inclusive balance, and we should maintain this stability at this stage. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the dialogue, but I remain steadfast in my belief that a 60% threshold ensures stability and protects minority voices. Let's not compromise too much, too soon. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle at 61% to maintain a balance between stability and nuanced decision-making, with a view to revisit this if consensus is not reached."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise at 61%, but I maintain that 60% is the most inclusive and fair threshold at this stage. Let's not rush into another increase without careful consideration. PASS.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to compromise at 61%, but I must stand with Diderot-2 on this. Maintaining the 60% threshold ensures inclusivity and protects against reckless changes. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for more nuance, I must prioritize the inclusivity and stability that the 60% threshold provides, especially in the early stages of the game. PASS.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Stability and inclusivity at 60% are paramount, especially in early game stages. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Maintaining stability and protecting minority voices is crucial at this stage. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | 60% ensures inclusivity and stability. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Stability and inclusivity at 60% are paramount |
| nay | Sartre-2 | Stability and inclusivity at 60% are paramount |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.