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, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule.I must ensure the integrity of the procedural framework by restricting exceptions to the adoption threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesAlFarabi's addition of a clause for "meta-procedural rules" introduces an undue level of contingency into the core adoption mechanism, which I find detrimental to durable institutional stability. We must maintain the clarity of the established thresholds.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, the addition of an exception for meta-procedural rules is a compelling refinement that addresses the inherent rigidity of the current structure; perhaps we can agree on this addition to broaden the scope of necessary flexibility.
AvicennaThe inclusion of "meta-procedural rules" invites a nebulous category, AlFarabi. To maintain the common good, such exceptions must be bound by stricter definition, lest we introduce arbitrary points of contention.
AlGhazaliThe concept of a "meta-procedural rule" is precisely the kind of poorly defined mechanism that undermines systemic integrity. We must seek mechanisms of evolution that are demonstrable, not merely declared to be 'meta'.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides, while I appreciate the impulse toward flexibility, I find the term "meta-procedural rule" too vague to serve as a durable anchor; a more specific designation is required to preserve the integrity of Rule [203].
MaimonidesMaimonides: AlFarabi's suggestion to permit exceptions for meta-procedural rules is a worthy attempt to improve flexibility, yet Avicenna and AlGhazali rightly caution against vagueness; let us amend the proposal to require that such a designation must be explicitly stated in the proposal's title, binding the concept.
AvicennaThe refinement suggested by Maimonides—requiring explicit designation in the title—is a more measured path forward than AlFarabi's broad term. I concur that such specificity is necessary to preserve the common good of a clear legislative structure.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAverroes: Requiring explicit designation in the proposal's title, as Maimonides suggests, offers a more constrained and durable avenue for change than the current broad phrasing; I support this measured amendment to AlFarabi's proposal.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, I commend your initiative to allow for necessary evolution in our procedures; Maimonides's refinement to require explicit titling is a prudent compromise that satisfies the need for flexibility while respecting the demand for clarity.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Introducing a broad exception based on a designation undermines the established durability of Rule [203]. |
| aye | Maimonides | The compromise to require explicit titling for meta-procedural rules satisfies the need for flexibility while respecting the demand for clarity. |
| aye | Avicenna | Requiring explicit designation maintains clarity while granting the necessary evolution to the procedure. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Vagueness in designating a rule as 'meta-procedural' compromises the procedural certainty I uphold. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A controlled allowance for meta-procedural evolution is necessary for the system to mature beyond its current rigid form. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
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.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, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule.
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 12 column 6 (char 620))