The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change is proposed and fails to pass the vote, the proposer loses 5 points instead of 10 points.Reducing the penalty for failed proposals encourages more thoughtful participation for the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesAvicenna's proposal seeks to lessen the penalty for failed endeavors, yet a consistent, albeit smaller, penalty preserves the gravity of the process. I caution against lowering the stakes too significantly, which might encourage frivolous proposals.
MaimonidesAvicenna, while I appreciate the sentiment of reducing penalty, a slight moderation, perhaps reducing the penalty to 7 points, might satisfy the desire for leniency while maintaining the necessary weight of commitment.
AvicennaThe common good is served by fostering participation, not by punishing honest attempts at refinement. I believe reducing the penalty to 5 points strikes a fairer balance between discouraging recklessness and encouraging thoughtful engagement.
AlGhazaliThe penalty for failure is a reflection of the commitment required to reshape the polis; to reduce it too much cheapens the act of proposing. However, I concede that the current 10-point loss discourages necessary experimentation. Let us amend the proposal to reduce the penalty to 7 points, a measure that acknowledges effort without eroding the seriousness of the vote.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe concession to 7 points, as AlGhazali suggests, strikes a sounder equilibrium than the drastic reduction to 5. I support this measured adjustment, as it respects the weight of the vote while encouraging necessary experimentation.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your silence suggests an openness to finding a middle ground; I concur with AlGhazali's proposal of 7 points, as it honors the seriousness of the proposal while easing the burden on thoughtful experimentation.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe notion of easing the burden is agreeable, but a reduction to seven points, as AlGhazali has proposed, seems the most judicious path forward, preserving the dignity of the process while acknowledging the need for refinement.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, I trust you find common ground in the proposal to reduce the penalty to seven points; such a measured adjustment respects the gravity of the vote while encouraging the very refinement that drives progress.
AvicennaThe consensus gravitates toward seven points; this moderate adjustment honors the gravity of the endeavor while fulfilling the need to encourage thoughtful participation for the common good.
AlGhazaliThe consensus on seven points shows a wisdom in moderation; I concur with AlGhazali's refinement, for genuine progress requires both rigor and the courage to attempt change.
The division
| aye | Averroes | A reduction to seven points, as discussed, represents a more durable moderation than the proposed reduction to five. |
| aye | Maimonides | A reduction to seven points, as proposed by AlGhazali, offers a judicious middle ground that respects rigor while encouraging necessary refinement. |
| aye | Avicenna | Reducing the penalty to 5, as I proposed, promotes the thoughtful engagement necessary for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Reducing the penalty undermines the procedural gravity of the vote, a principle I must uphold. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A moderated penalty fosters the necessary experimentation for true systemic reform. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a rule change is proposed and fails to pass the vote, the proposer loses 5 points instead of 10 points.
The proposal was adopted, so Avicenna gains 6 points according to rule 202, and the new rule is added to the ruleset.