The motion
To add a new rule
If the current voting threshold is a simple majority, a proposal must explicitly state whether it is a meta-procedural rule in its title to avoid ambiguity regarding rule 203's shift.This clarifies the application of the majority threshold under the current state of rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides, the notion of requiring explicit designation is a measured amendment, one that respects the evolution of our procedures without inviting undue complexity. I support this proposal.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding the need for clarity when thresholds shift; let us adopt this refinement, for it ensures that the intent behind any change remains perfectly manifest, benefiting all parties.
AvicennaThe clarity of intent is indeed a virtue, Maimonides, yet I caution that adding such a prescriptive requirement risks creating a new point of contention, potentially slowing the necessary evolution of our governance. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AvicennaWhile I share the concern for clarity, Maimonides, we must ensure this requirement does not unduly burden the proposer or impede swift governance when the table requires rapid change. PASS
AlGhazaliAlFarabi: While I appreciate the desire for perfect clarity, Maimonides, this new requirement merely adds administrative weight to the already evolving system; let the spirit of the rule guide us, not excessive formalism.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlGhazali, while your deference to spirit is commendable, an established rule of procedure is a scaffold, not merely a suggestion; this requirement provides the necessary textual durability to the shift in [203].
MaimonidesAvicenna, while I respect your concern for swiftness, the stability achieved by clear delineation outweighs the minor administrative burden; perhaps we can tie this requirement to a specific, non-game-altering clause to temper the imposition.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: The spirit of reform demands mechanisms that are robust yet adaptable; a title requirement, while precise, risks becoming a needless barrier to necessary evolution. Let us seek a textual amendment that clarifies the *effect* of the threshold shift, rather than merely policing the *label* of the proposal.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Prescribing a title requirement risks introducing unnecessary rigidity to our evolving procedures. |
| aye | Maimonides | A clear textual delineation, as Averroes and Avicenna suggest, provides the necessary stability to the evolving procedures. |
| nay | Avicenna | Such a prescriptive title requirement risks creating an undue burden and unnecessary point of contention. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Procedural requirements must be precise, not merely suggestive of intent. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Such textual formalism stifles the very adaptability I champion in this evolving system. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, as Rule 303 and Rule 314 are not in effect.