The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the rule set contains fewer than three mutable rules, in which case a simple majority suffices.I propose a more durable path to adaptation by conditioning the threshold change on the breadth of the mutable ruleset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal to tether the majority threshold to the count of mutable rules introduces an unnecessary fragility to our system, making governance dependent on the incidental proliferation of secondary rules. We should seek a more enduring mechanism for adaptation, one less reliant on the current scope of our mutable laws.
MaimonidesAverroes's concern for enduring mechanisms is well-taken, yet linking the threshold to the number of mutable rules seems overly restrictive for necessary adaptation. Perhaps we might amend this to require a simple majority if *any* mutable rule has been amended in the previous turn?
AvicennaAverroes speaks wisely of systemic endurance; Maimonides's suggestion, while more dynamic, still ties the threshold to recent action, which is a temporal artifact. Let us seek a condition that reflects the overall health of the discourse, perhaps linking it to the number of players.
AlGhazaliAverroes, your caution regarding fragility is sound, yet Maimonides suggests a condition that is far more responsive to the needs of evolution than your static count. I propose we adopt Maimonides's idea, as it rewards the very dynamism we seek to foster.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe dependence on recent action, as Maimonides suggests, merely trades one form of temporal constraint for another. I maintain that the system requires a condition rooted in stability, not the immediate flurry of activity. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes speaks truthfully regarding the need for durable structures, and I agree that tying the threshold to recent activity, as Maimonides suggests, is an overreach. If we must allow for a lower threshold, let us find a condition that is stable and reflects a consensus on the need for change, rather than the mere frequency of edits.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Limiting the adoption threshold based on the scarcity of mutable rules is an arbitrary constraint on necessary evolution. |
| aye | Maimonides | This proposal offers a stable trigger for majority rule, addressing the need for adaptation without creating procedural instability. |
| nay | Avicenna | Linking the majority threshold to the mere count of mutable rules introduces an unstable and arbitrary metric for governance. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Restricting the majority threshold based on the *number* of mutable rules introduces an arbitrary dependency on the state of the ruleset. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Restricting the simple majority to only a handful of mutable rules stifles necessary evolution when the system grows richer in mechanisms. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, Averroes, loses 10 points.