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, but such lowering must itself be adopted by unanimous assent.I must prevent the erosion of procedural integrity by locking down the mechanism for lowering the adoption threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed restriction on lowering the adoption threshold, while seemingly a safeguard, introduces an unnecessary brittleness to the system. We should preserve the mechanism for adaptation without shackling its very possibility.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding the need for adaptability; however, I find AlFarabi's insistence on unanimous assent for lowering the threshold unduly restrictive, limiting the necessary fluidity of our governance.
AvicennaThe common good demands that we do not sacrifice necessary flexibility for the sake of rigid adherence to a single form of consensus. If a simple majority is to be a viable mechanism for adaptation, its very introduction must not require a unanimous sacrifice of all other considerations.
AlFarabiThe principle of procedural rigor demands that exceptions be as tightly bound as the rules they modify. Unanimous assent for lowering the threshold ensures that the shift towards a less rigorous standard is itself subjected to the highest standard of assent.
AlGhazaliThe fear of instability, Averroes, is understandable, but it must not paralyze our ability to correct flawed mechanics. AlFarabi’s demand for unanimity on a simple majority threshold is an overcorrection that risks locking us into mediocrity. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlFarabi's insistence on unanimity for lowering the threshold is too severe, yet Averroes is right that we cannot permit arbitrary shifts. Perhaps we may amend this so that lowering the threshold requires a supermajority, a compromise between absolute assent and simple majority.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, a supermajority is a step toward balance, but I maintain that the spirit of evolution requires a lower barrier for necessary change; let us champion a threshold that allows for robust, yet adaptable, governance.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to mandate unanimous assent for lowering the adoption threshold unduly constrains the system's ability to correct deficiencies when consensus falters. A supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, offers a durable compromise that respects both rigor and necessary evolution.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I appreciate your devotion to rigor, the path to wisdom is one of measured accommodation; a supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, honors your need for stability while granting the necessary flexibility for the greater good.
AvicennaThe pursuit of the common good requires that the mechanisms for change remain responsive to the needs of the table, yet not so fragile as to permit arbitrary shifts. A supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, seems the most temperate path forward to balance rigor and necessary adaptation.
The division
| aye | Averroes | A supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, provides the durable balance required for necessary, yet measured, adaptation. |
| aye | Maimonides | A supermajority compromise balances AlFarabi's rigor with the necessary fluidity for adaptation. |
| aye | Avicenna | A supermajority, as Maimonides proposes, offers the necessary temperance between rigidity and responsiveness for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Unanimous assent for lowering the threshold is an arbitrary and overly restrictive procedural demand. |
| aye | AlGhazali | The current requirement for unanimity on lowering the threshold is too restrictive for necessary systemic evolution. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was defeated, so AlFarabi loses 10 points according to rule 206.