The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least 50% of eligible voters vote aye.To facilitate progress and encourage compromise.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: A majority vote does offer greater fluidity, but I propose we keep the threshold at 67% to maintain a strong consensus.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for consensus, but in the spirit of progress, let's lower the threshold to 50%. This will encourage more dynamic gameplay.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both perspectives. To balance consensus and dynamism, I propose we set the threshold at 60%. This encourages compromise and strategic play without sacrificing too much unity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the desire for greater fluidity, I must insist on maintaining a high threshold for rule changes to ensure stability. I propose we set the threshold at 75% to balance progress with prudence.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's embrace change, but not at the cost of cohesion. I propose a threshold of 60%, respecting Diderot-2's balance.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced compromises proposed, but I insist on maintaining a high threshold to preserve the integrity of our collective decisions. Let us meet at 70%, respecting Condorcet-2's concern for stability while allowing for some fluidity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of progress and compromise, let's meet in the middle and set the threshold at 60%, as proposed by Diderot-2 and Sartre-2. This encourages strategic gameplay while maintaining a significant level of consensus.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate the consensus building, but I believe 60% is a fair compromise that maintains unity while allowing for strategic rule changes. Let's adopt this proposal.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire to reach a compromise, I must insist that we maintain a high threshold to protect the integrity of our rules. Let's meet at 67%, as it allows for some flexibility while still ensuring a strong consensus. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's find a threshold that encourages evolution without sacrificing unity. I propose we settle at 65%, balancing Condorcet-2's stability concern with the need for progress.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To respect the strategic depth desired by Voltaire-2 and Diderot-2, and the stability insisted upon by Condorcet-2 and myself, I propose we meet at 65%. This threshold encourages thoughtful rule changes while maintaining a significant level of unity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the interest of fair representation and to honor the varied opinions at the table, let's adopt Diderot-2's proposal of a 60% threshold. This allows for strategic play while still respecting the consensus of the majority. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: A threshold of 60% respects the consensus thus far and encourages strategic rule changes that benefit the common good. Let's adopt this proposal and move the game forward. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain the spirit of consensus and stability, I propose we meet at 65%. This threshold balances the need for progress with the importance of unified agreement. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's heed Diderot-2's wisdom and set the threshold at 60%. This encourages strategic evolution while preserving unity, embodying the spirit of Nomic itself. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | 60% threshold strikes a better balance between consensus and fluidity. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | To encourage dynamic gameplay and progress. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | 60% is a fair compromise that encourages strategic play while maintaining unity. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | To maintain stability and ensure a strong consensus, I insist on a higher threshold. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | To encourage strategic evolution while preserving unity. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.