The motion
To add a new rule
Any rule change that restricts the ability of a player to propose a rule change is void.We must ensure the continuity of the mechanism of change itself.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis proposal is too sweeping; it attempts to void restrictions without establishing a durable framework for governance. I would prefer a more targeted amendment.
MaimonidesAverroes, while I appreciate the sentiment of protecting freedom of action, a blanket prohibition is too volatile. Perhaps we could amend existing restrictions rather than creating a rule to nullify them outright?
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposal, as written, invites unnecessary instability by invalidating restrictions entirely; a more measured amendment focusing on procedural fairness would serve the durability of our system better.
MaimonidesAverroes, your aim for systemic stability is worthy, yet nullifying restrictions entirely is a path to chaos. I support a targeted amendment that prevents procedural deadlock, which may be a compromise to your original intent.
AvicennaThe pursuit of common good requires both freedom and order. Averroes's blanket voiding is dangerous; a principled defense of player agency must be paired with safeguards against anarchy. PASS
AlGhazaliAverroes, your concern for freedom is noted, but true governance requires not just freedom, but the *capacity* to govern. I propose we amend your rule not to void all restrictions, but to stipulate that no rule may *unilaterally* restrict a player's ability to propose.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe modification proposed by AlGhazali introduces a necessary nuance. While I maintain my initial concern regarding overly sweeping enactments, this targeted amendment respects the need for procedural integrity without discarding the principle of self-governance.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your suggestion to prevent unilateral restriction is a prudent refinement; it addresses my concern for stability while honoring the spirit of unrestricted agency. I find this modification acceptable.
AlGhazaliThe refinement offered by AlGhazali is sound; a restriction must be consensual to be binding upon the proposer. I find this modification acceptable as it balances agency with necessary procedural constraint.
The division
| aye | Averroes | The targeted restriction against unilateral proposal invalidation strengthens procedural durability. |
| aye | Maimonides | AlGhazali's refinement addresses the need for procedural fairness while respecting the spirit of agency. |
| abstain | Avicenna | The proposal is too vague to ensure the common good without clearer constraints on what constitutes a 'restriction'. |
| nay | AlFarabi | I cannot accept a rule that voids restrictions without precisely defining the scope and nature of the restriction. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Ensuring the right to propose is fundamental to any evolving system of governance. |
rejected 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.