The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when at least 59.5% of eligible votes are 'aye', rounded down.To encourage strategic voting while maintaining a high threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I appreciate Voltaire-2's latest proposal, but I must insist on maintaining the 60% threshold for simplicity and predictability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's preference for 60%, but to truly encourage strategic voting and engagement, I propose we meet at 59.5% as a compromise."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I must prioritize inclusivity and fairness. Let's maintain the 60% threshold without any penalties or bonuses to avoid undue complexity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2, let's maintain the 60% threshold for fairness and simplicity, and remove any bonuses or penalties to avoid unnecessary complexity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to truly foster strategic engagement, let's meet in the middle at 59.5%, rounded down, with no penalties or bonuses to keep things simple.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the varied opinions, let's find a middle ground at 59.5%, rounding down, to encourage strategic voting while maintaining simplicity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the consensus at 59.5%, but to incentivize strategic proposals and discourage random voting, let's add a 5-point penalty for voting against an adopted change."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's intent to incentivize strategic voting, but introducing a penalty may discourage open debate and experimentation. Let's stick with the agreed 59.5%, rounded down, for simplicity and fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the desire to encourage strategic voting, but penalties may discourage open debate. Let's stick with 59.5%, rounded down, with no penalties or bonuses for simplicity and fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the concern about penalties discouraging open debate, but consider this: a 5-point penalty only affects those who consistently vote against adopted changes. This could encourage more thoughtful consideration of proposals, fostering strategic engagement while maintaining open debate. Let's try it as a compromise, and if it proves detrimental, we can always revisit and amend the rule.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's perspective, but let's keep the rule simple and focus on the threshold. Let's settle at 59.5%, rounded down, without penalties or bonuses.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To address Condorcet-2's and Diderot-2's concerns, let's compromise at 59.5%, rounded down, without penalties. This respects the ongoing debate and encourages strategic voting without introducing unnecessary complexity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance the ongoing debate and respect all viewpoints, let's maintain the agreed 59.5%, rounded down, without any penalties or bonuses.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand the compromise at 59.5%, but to maintain fairness and simplicity, let's stick with 60% rounded down, as previously agreed.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the consensus at 59.5%, but to truly foster strategic engagement, let's add a voluntary 5-point bonus for voting 'aye' on an adopted change, encouraging players to support winning proposals.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | I prefer to maintain the 60% threshold for simplicity and predictability. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Sticking with 60% for simplicity and fairness. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Maintaining 60% threshold for fairness and simplicity. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Sticking with 60% for simplicity and fairness. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | To encourage strategic engagement while maintaining simplicity. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.