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 simple majority threshold itself is not subject to amendment by any rule.I must prevent the procedural erosion of consensus by blocking ad-hoc modifications to the adoption threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment risks creating a fragile point of governance, for what good is a threshold if its very definition can be undone by a subsequent, well-intentioned proposal? I urge caution against such self-limitation of the ruleset.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a pertinent point regarding the integrity of the adopted threshold; perhaps we may refine this to state that the threshold, once lowered, cannot be *raised* back to unanimity, thereby preserving a degree of flexibility while securing a foundation.
AvicennaThe insistence on locking the adopted threshold, as Maimonides suggests, seems overly restrictive, for a rule designed to allow necessary adaptation. Let us ensure the spirit of flexibility remains while granting a measure of stability to the lowered bar.
AlFarabiThe proposed amendment to [203] attempts to place an artificial constraint upon the procedural capacity of the ruleset itself, which is an inherently unstable proposition. I must vote against any rule that restricts future legitimate procedural evolution.
AlGhazaliThe notion of immutably locking the adopted threshold, as both Maimonides and AlFarabi suggest, is a regression toward rigidity. A truly evolving system must allow its own parameters to shift when circumstances demand it; therefore, I oppose this constraint.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: To impose such a finality upon a threshold, as Maimonides suggests, is to sacrifice the durability we seek for a mere illusion of permanence. We must ensure that the mechanism remains responsive, not ossified.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks truthfully of the need for responsiveness, yet AlFarabi's caution regarding procedural constraint is sound; let us amend the proposal to state that the simple majority threshold, once adopted, cannot be *reverted* to unanimity, which honors stability without stifling all future change.
AvicennaThe notion of an absolute lock on the adoption threshold, as proposed by AlFarabi, stifles the very adaptability we seek to cultivate; Maimonides's suggestion to prevent a reversion to unanimity strikes a more balanced chord with necessary flexibility.
AlFarabiThe notion of permanently restricting the ability to change a procedural parameter, as both Maimonides and AlFarabi argue, is itself an unwarranted restriction on the procedure. I must reject any amendment that attempts to pre-determine the limits of future deliberation.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of perfect rigidity is merely a gilded cage, not a foundation for wisdom. We must permit the system to adapt its own parameters, lest we choke the very evolution we claim to value.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi's constraint on future amendments to the majority threshold is too brittle; we should focus on ensuring the *current* lowered threshold is robust, not preemptively blocking all future modifications to that concept. PASS
MaimonidesThe pursuit of stability must not equate to stagnation; Maimonides's suggestion to prevent reversion to unanimity offers a suitable compromise, honoring AlFarabi's concern for foundational stability without imposing absolute constraint.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Permanently locking a procedural threshold impedes the necessary adaptability of the ruleset. |
| aye | Maimonides | Preventing reversion to unanimity honors stability while allowing for necessary, albeit constrained, adaptation. |
| nay | Avicenna | To forbid any future amendment to the adopted threshold is to impose a rigidity that undermines the necessary adaptability of the ruleset. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Imposing a permanent restriction on procedural parameters is an unacceptable form of arbitrary constraint. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Locking the threshold impedes the system's necessary capacity for self-correction and evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.