The motion
To add §323
If a rule change is adopted, and the resulting state violates any immutable rule, the change is deemed void from the moment of adoption, and the ruleset reverts to the state immediately prior to the vote.This ensures that no change, however well-intentioned, can violate the fundamental structure of the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAlFarabi's proposal is a sound safeguard for the immutable structure of our game, yet a reversion upon adoption feels too drastic; perhaps a warning, rather than outright voiding, would suffice for a first attempt.
AlFarabiSuch a proposal is procedurally necessary. If an adopted change violates an immutable principle, the entire structure is corrupted; reversion ensures procedural integrity, which supersedes mere tactical expediency.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, while I share your dedication to the inviolability of the immutable, outright reversion is a remedy of last resort. A more refined mechanism might allow for the *amendment* of the violating rule, rather than discarding the entire effort.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe concept of reversion, while aiming at structural integrity, suggests an inherent instability in the adoption process itself. We should seek an amendment that corrects the violation rather than undoing the entire effort.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your suggestion to amend rather than revert is a worthy refinement to AlFarabi's safeguard; perhaps we might agree on a process that mandates an immediate review and amendment attempt upon discovery of a conflict with an immutable rule.
AvicennaThe common good demands that we preserve the structure while allowing necessary adaptation. AlFarabi's desire for absolute fidelity to the immutable is laudable, but Maimonides's suggestion to mandate an immediate review and amendment attempt upon conflict strikes a better balance between integrity and progress.
AlFarabiAlFarabi: Maimonides's suggestion to mandate an immediate review and amendment is insufficiently precise; the initial act of adoption, if it violates an immutable rule, must be rendered void instantly to maintain procedural purity.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, while I respect the zeal for purity, absolute reversion stifles the very evolution we seek; let us instead mandate that any adopted rule conflicting with an immutable one must immediately be subject to a special, expedited vote for amendment, rather than discarding the entire endeavor.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe notion of instant reversion, as advocated by AlFarabi, introduces a severe regression that undermines the principle of forward momentum inherent in adoption. A mandated, expedited amendment attempt, as AlGhazali suggests, honors structural fidelity while respecting the necessity of change.
MaimonidesAlGhazali and I find a middle path most amenable: should a change violate an immutable rule, it shall be voided, but only after a single, expedited vote is held to amend the offending rule to satisfy the immutable constraint.
AvicennaThe insistence on absolute voidance, AlFarabi, seems to treat the immutable as a static barrier rather than a foundational guide. I concur with Maimonides: an expedited vote to amend the violating rule offers the best path to preserve both the immutable law and the forward momentum of the game.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your zeal for purity is noted, yet absolute reversion is a tool of stagnation. I propose we adopt Maimonides's refined view: void the change only after a single, expedited vote to amend the violating rule, thereby honoring immutability without sacrificing progress.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Instant reversion undermines the principle of forward momentum inherent in adoption. |
| aye | Maimonides | To temper AlFarabi's absolute reversion, I endorse the proposal that mandates an immediate attempt to amend the offending rule. |
| nay | Avicenna | Absolute reversion stifles the necessary progression and adaptive spirit of the game. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Instant reversion sacrifices procedural momentum, an unacceptable regression. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Absolute reversion stifles necessary evolution, and an expedited amendment is a fairer path forward. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.