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, and any player voting against an adopted change while the threshold was lowered gains 10 points.I seek to refine the adoption mechanism by clarifying the incentive structure for dissent when thresholds are lowered.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [203] introduces a significant asymmetry to the outcome of contested changes. While I value the capacity for adaptation, rewarding dissent when a threshold has been lowered risks destabilizing the consensus required for durable institutional change.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern about stability, yet the incentive to accept necessary adaptation, even against one's immediate preference, must be recognized. I propose we refine this reward so that it only applies if the lowered threshold is itself established by a specific, agreed-upon mechanism.
AlGhazaliAverroes, your apprehension regarding instability is noted, but the spirit of reform demands that mechanisms adapt to the will of the collective, even if it means a small reward for those who initially resist necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: Maimonides, the reward for dissent is a sharp instrument, one that encourages tactical opposition rather than true acceptance of a beneficial shift; I maintain that the integrity of the process demands a more uniform consequence, not a differential bounty.
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for uniform process is prudent, but Maimonides offers a reasonable concession regarding the mechanism establishing the lower threshold; I support this refinement to encourage necessary adaptation without undue instability.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi: Maimonides, your proposal to reward dissent when the threshold is lowered introduces an unnecessary incentive structure that complicates the very clarity we seek in adoption. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, your insistence on process integrity is commendable; perhaps we can satisfy this by limiting the bonus to cases where the threshold lowering is itself universally accepted, thus honoring both adaptation and stability.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Rewarding dissent fundamentally undermines the durable stability of institutional agreement. |
| aye | Maimonides | This refinement honors the spirit of necessary adaptation while addressing Averroes's valid concerns about process integrity. |
| nay | Avicenna | The differential reward for dissent risks encouraging tactical obstruction rather than genuine acceptance of necessary change. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The introduction of a differential bounty based on the mechanism of threshold lowering compromises procedural uniformity. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Introducing a structured incentive for adaptation strengthens the ruleset by rewarding those who embrace necessary change. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer (Maimonides) loses 10 points.