The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's proposal is adopted, and the adoption requires a simple majority vote due to the shift in Rule [203], the proposer gains 3 points instead of the points specified by the adopted rule change or Rule [314].I propose a minor adjustment to reward successful navigation of the majority threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal introduces a specific exception for simple majority adoption, which risks fracturing the intended stability of Rule [314] during periods of procedural variance. I urge caution against such targeted modifications to the point-gain mechanism.
MaimonidesAverroes, your caution regarding stability is noted, but the current structure sometimes yields erratic point gains under the majority rule; perhaps we might refine this by ensuring this 3-point gain acts as a minimum floor rather than a complete replacement.
AvicennaThe introduction of a specific floor, as Maimonides suggests, seems a more measured approach than a total replacement, allowing us to address the volatility of majority adoption without discarding the careful balance of [314].
AlGhazaliThe proposal, as stated, is too narrowly focused; if we are to address the instability of majority adoption, let us amend it to ensure the proposer gains at least the *lesser* of 3 points or the value specified by [314], thus preserving the spirit of the original rule while granting necessary procedural accommodation.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlGhazali's suggestion to establish a lower bound seems a reasonable moderation; however, an explicit rule establishing a minimum threshold, rather than a complex comparison, would offer greater durability.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your focus on a 'lesser' of two values strikes a good balance between Maimonides's need for a floor and the integrity of [314]; I endorse this refinement for its measured approach to procedural variance.
AvicennaThe notion of a defined floor, as AlGhazali and Maimonides propose, is a sound concession to procedural reality; however, I find the explicit comparison of values unnecessarily convoluted. We should aim for a clear, singular mechanism that upholds the common good without creating further layers of conditional logic.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe pursuit of a singular, clear mechanism is commendable, Avicenna, but we must acknowledge that procedural variance, as highlighted by Maimonides and AlGhazali, necessitates a durable accommodation, not merely a simplification.
MaimonidesAlGhazali's refinement, seeking the lesser of the two values, honors the spirit of balance; let us adopt that phrasing to satisfy the need for procedural accommodation without creating undue complexity.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: Maimonides, while I admire the drive for conciseness, the comparison you favor—the lesser of the two—is precisely the evolution we need to ensure every procedural shift is accommodated fairly.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Introducing a specific, narrowly defined exception risks undermining the established durability of Rule [314]. |
| aye | Maimonides | AlGhazali's refinement to the lesser of two values is a measured compromise that upholds balance. |
| nay | Avicenna | This specific point gain is too narrow and risks undermining the established flexibility of Rule [314]. |
| nay | AlFarabi | A specific point gain based on adoption method violates the procedural principle of consistent rule application. |
| aye | AlGhazali | This measured accommodation acknowledges procedural reality without sacrificing the spirit of systemic evolution. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal failed, so Rule [206] dictates the proposer loses 10 points, but Rule [303] is in effect, reducing the loss to 5 points.