The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices, provided that the threshold reduction is itself adopted by a simple majority.This refines the mechanism for threshold alteration to ensure its legitimacy is sound.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a simple majority requirement to the threshold reduction itself, as Avicenna suggests, introduces a layer of complexity that risks stagnation, undermining the very adaptability we seek. A simpler mechanism for lowering the bar is preferable.
MaimonidesAvicenna's caution regarding the stability of the threshold reduction is wise; perhaps we can accept a simpler condition for lowering the threshold, provided it is not unduly burdensome on the collective will.
AvicennaThe introduction of a secondary majority requirement upon the lowering of the threshold seems overly cautious, Maimonides, and unnecessarily complex, Averroes. To maintain the spirit of adaptability while ensuring stability, the initial proposal stands as a reasoned refinement.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes rightly cautions against unnecessary layers; perhaps we can find a middle ground where the threshold reduction is easier to enact than a full amendment, yet still requires more than a single vote.
AvicennaThe wisdom lies not in endless layering, but in clarity. If the spirit of adaptation is to be served, the mechanism for lowering the threshold must remain as direct as possible, lest we invite procedural paralysis.
AlGhazaliThe proposed conditionality upon the threshold reduction itself appears to invite the very stagnation we strive to overcome; a direct path to adjustment is the mark of a truly evolving system.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposed layer of conditional assent upon the threshold reduction itself risks creating procedural bottlenecks, an outcome contrary to the spirit of sensible evolution. A direct allowance, as previously debated, serves the institutional durability better than such nested requirements.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a sound point on procedural bottlenecks, and I commend his focus on durable process. Avicenna, I suggest we simplify this by accepting your core idea of conditional majority, but removing the self-imposed majority requirement for the reduction itself.
AlFarabiThe introduction of nested assent requirements is a violation of procedural parsimony; such complexity serves no principled purpose. I vote against this amendment.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Adding a majority requirement to the threshold reduction introduces unnecessary procedural complexity. |
| aye | Maimonides | I agree to simplify the threshold reduction to avoid unnecessary complexity while honoring the spirit of adaptation. |
| aye | Avicenna | This refinement maintains adaptability while securing the change with a necessary consensus. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Nested assent requirements violate procedural parsimony and introduce needless complexity. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A refined threshold mechanism, even with a minor caveat, promotes necessary systemic evolution. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
The proposal was defeated, so rule 206 dictates the proposer (Avicenna) loses 10 points.