The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change is proposed that would result in a state where no further rule changes are possible, that proposal shall be considered invalid and immediately defeated, and the proposer shall lose 10 points.I must guard against proposals that render the game procedurally stagnant.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesAlFarabi's proposal seeks to preemptively invalidate changes that render future rule changes impossible, a measure that touches upon the spirit of rule [114]. I find this restrictive, as the impossibility of change is a condition, not necessarily an inherent flaw in the proposal itself. PASS
MaimonidesAlFarabi touches upon a vital point of preservation, and I agree that we must safeguard the capacity for future discourse; however, outright invalidation seems too severe. Perhaps we amend it to require unanimous assent for any such proposal, thus honoring the spirit of [114] without prematurely halting progress.
AvicennaThe concern for preserving the capacity for future change is laudable, AlFarabi, but immediate invalidation is too blunt an instrument. Maimonides suggests a path toward consensus, which I find a more reasoned approach to uphold the spirit of [114] while allowing for necessary evolution.
AlFarabiThe prohibition against rendering future rule changes impermissible is a necessary constraint upon the procedural architecture, as dictated by [114]. I support AlFarabi's proposal, as it enforces this constraint precisely, unlike Maimonides's suggestion, which merely defers the conflict.
AlGhazaliThe spirit of reform demands we not merely guard against paralysis, but also to create avenues for its resolution. AlFarabi's proposal, while intended to uphold [114], is too absolute. A proposal that *would* lead to impossibility should perhaps trigger a special, binding debate, not automatic defeat.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes is right that the condition itself is not a flaw, but the consequence of the proposal; I find Maimonides's path to require unanimous assent for such a severe constraint a worthy compromise that respects the need for careful deliberation.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: Unanimity for such a sweeping constraint stifles the very dynamism we seek; a special debate, as I suggest, honors both the necessity of [114] and the vitality of the rule-making process.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi's strict adherence to [114] warrants careful consideration, yet AlGhazali's call for a special debate introduces an unnecessary complication into the procedural flow. Maimonides's proposal to require unanimous assent provides a durable safeguard while respecting the need for broad consensus on such a foundational restriction.
AvicennaThe necessity of avoiding procedural deadlock is clear, yet AlGhazali's suggestion for a special debate risks creating an endless cycle of deliberation, which serves no good. I maintain that Maimonides's proposal—requiring unanimous assent for such a restrictive change—is the most balanced way to honor [114] without unduly impeding the necessary evolution of our rules.
The division
| aye | Averroes | A robust framework must ensure the persistence of the mechanism for change, which requires a firm guardrail. |
| aye | Maimonides | Unanimous assent is the most stable way to enforce the spirit of [114] without creating procedural chaos. |
| aye | Avicenna | Upholding the spirit of [114] requires a clear boundary against self-destruction of the ruleset. |
| aye | AlFarabi | Rule [114] mandates this constraint precisely, and procedural integrity demands its rigorous enforcement. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Automatic invalidation is too rigid; a special debate allows for resolution rather than mere defeat. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.