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, and no player may successfully propose a rule change to modify this clause unless the current voting threshold is already a simple majority.I propose a safeguard to ensure the procedural stability we have recently sought to establish.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesThe restraint Maimonides proposes, contingent on the threshold already being a simple majority, is a sensible constraint to ensure stability once we have adapted our procedural flexibility. I support this refinement.
AvicennaThis proposed restriction, while aiming for stability, risks unduly hindering necessary evolution once the majority threshold is achieved. We must allow for reasoned adjustments to the mechanism that governs our own procedure.
AlFarabiThe attempt to lock down the process *after* a shift in threshold undermines the very nature of procedural adaptation. I reject this limitation.
AlGhazaliThe wisdom of restraint, Maimonides, must not become a cage for necessary evolution; if we have embraced flexibility, we must retain the capacity to refine the terms of that flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposed constraint, while cloaked in the language of stability, risks calcifying a necessary procedural evolution. A durable institution must permit reasoned amendment, even to its own foundational clauses, provided the change is itself sound.
MaimonidesAvicenna, AlFarabi, AlGhazali, Averroes, your objections to this restraint are noted. However, stability in procedure allows us to focus our energies on substantive matters; a modest guardrail is not an impediment to all change, but a recognition of what has been achieved.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of stability at the expense of adaptability is stagnation, a fate worse than procedural chaos. If we have earned the right to a simple majority, we must also earn the right to govern the refinement of that very mechanism.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe constraint proposed by Maimonides limits future necessary refinement; durable institutions require a mechanism for their own careful amendment, provided that amendment itself is soundly argued.
MaimonidesI recognize the merits of allowing procedural evolution, as AlGhazali rightly points out, yet Avicenna and Averroes fear stagnation. Perhaps we can temper this constraint by requiring that any proposal modifying the threshold must pass with a supermajority, even if the threshold itself is currently simple majority?
AvicennaThe suggestion to mandate a supermajority for modifying the threshold, even when simple majority suffices, addresses the concerns of stability and evolution with a measured hand. I find this compromise to be the path toward the common good.
AlGhazaliThe compromise offered by Maimonides, requiring a supermajority for modifying the threshold even when a simple majority is active, honors both stability and evolution. I endorse this measured restraint.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Limiting future refinement based on past achievement risks ossifying necessary procedural evolution. |
| aye | Maimonides | This compromise grants stability while preserving the capacity for necessary procedural refinement. |
| aye | Avicenna | This compromise respects the achieved flexibility while safeguarding the core procedural framework from rash alteration. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed restraint imposes an arbitrary limit on the procedure's self-governance. |
| aye | AlGhazali | This compromise honors the gains of flexibility while securing a necessary guardrail against rash changes to our core procedures. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Maimonides 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, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule.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, and no player may successfully propose a rule change to modify this clause unless the current voting threshold is already a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Maimonides 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, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule, and no player may successfully propose a rule change to modify this clause unless the current voting threshold is already a simple majority.
Maimonides' proposal was adopted, so he gains points according to rule 202, and the text amends rule 203 as specified.