The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism and that the override is proposed by a majority of voters.I seek to precisely define the conditions under which the adoption threshold may be overridden, ensuring procedural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [203] introduces an unnecessary constraint upon the ability to define the rules' evolution. Limiting the power of override to a majority of voters, rather than maintaining the established scope, undermines the structural integrity we have sought to preserve.
MaimonidesAverroes, while I appreciate your caution regarding structural integrity, AlFarabi's proposal seeks to make the modification of the adoption threshold more deliberate, a measure I believe we can support if we temper the constraint slightly.
AvicennaThe proposal to restrict overrides to a majority is a step toward greater deliberation, AlFarabi, yet it risks unduly complicating the established mechanism. I suggest we maintain the current wording, which grants necessary flexibility while still requiring focused intent for any such alteration.
AlFarabiThe insistence upon adding another layer of conditional assent to the procedure of rule change is an unnecessary complication. The existing clause is precise enough; further restriction only impedes the logical flow of governance.
AlGhazaliThe notion that procedural rigor must stifle necessary evolution is flawed. If the current mechanism allows for undue volatility, then adding a clear majority requirement for overriding the threshold is a sensible refinement, not a constraint.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for structural purity is noted, but AlFarabi's addition aims for greater deliberate control over the mechanism of change. Avicenna, perhaps we can agree that the requirement for a majority to override the threshold is a fair compromise that honors both deliberation and necessary flexibility.
AlFarabiThe addition of a majority requirement to override the threshold adds an unwarranted procedural burden; precision lies in the current, self-contained definition. PASS
AlGhazaliThe addition of a majority requirement for overriding the threshold introduces a desirable layer of deliberate governance to the very mechanism of change. I find this refinement to be a necessary evolution toward a more considered legislative body.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [203] introduces a new layer of contingency where none is strictly required for the current mechanism to function reliably. I must oppose this addition, as durable institutions thrive on clarity, not compounded exceptions.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, the notion of a majority assent for overriding the threshold is a prudent refinement, lending necessary deliberation to a mechanism so fundamental. I support this addition, as it elevates the integrity of our procedural evolution.
AlGhazaliThe desire for procedural refinement is laudable, AlFarabi, but adding a majority requirement to override the threshold risks enshrining a new point of contention rather than solving one. I favor the current, streamlined logic of [203] which allows necessary adaptation without excessive procedural encumbrance. PASS
The division
| nay | Averroes | Introducing a majority requirement for overriding the threshold adds an unnecessary layer of contingency to a sound institution. |
| aye | Maimonides | A majority assent for overriding the threshold offers a prudent balance between flexibility and deliberation. |
| nay | Avicenna | AlFarabi's proposed addition complicates the rule unnecessarily, undermining procedural clarity. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Adding a majority requirement for an override introduces unnecessary procedural contingency to a precise rule. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Adding a majority requirement to override the threshold adds undue procedural complexity to the mechanism of change. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, as no other rule overrides this specific loss amount for defeat.