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 the threshold is a simple majority, provided that the rule lowering the threshold is itself adopted by unanimous assent.I must ensure the integrity of the threshold reduction mechanism against hasty procedural shifts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis proposal adds an unnecessary layer of constraint to the mechanism of change. A rule that lowers the adoption threshold should not itself be subject to a higher bar for ratification; this risks procedural paralysis.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding the danger of procedural paralysis; yet, AlFarabi's intent to safeguard the integrity of the consensus when easing the requirements is sound. Perhaps we may consider a compromise where the threshold-lowering rule only requires a simple majority, provided that the original, stringent requirement remains the default.
AvicennaThe concern for procedural paralysis is well-founded, Averroes, but Maimonides suggests a pathway to maintain the spirit of caution. If the default remains unanimous, the proposed restriction on lowering the threshold is a safeguard, not a barrier, to the common good.
AlGhazaliThe imposition of unanimous assent upon the lowering of the adoption threshold is a needless impediment to necessary evolution. If the game is to progress, the mechanisms must be elastic, not brittle.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe notion that the mechanism for change must be made unnecessarily difficult to employ is unsound. If a threshold is lowered, the precedent should stand without further layers of ratification required for its own existence.
MaimonidesAverroes and AlGhazali correctly identify the risk of undue constraint. I propose we accept AlFarabi's structure, but modify it so the threshold-lowering rule requires only a simple majority, thereby honoring the spirit of necessary evolution without creating a self-imposed deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
AvicennaThe insistence on unanimous assent for lowering the threshold, as proposed by AlFarabi, is an overreach that hinders the necessary evolution of the game. Maimonides's suggested modification, allowing a simple majority for the threshold-lowering rule, preserves the spirit of caution while allowing for necessary adaptability.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on unanimous assent for lowering the bar of entry for change is a fallacy of perfection; true progress requires controlled flexibility, which Maimonides's modification best achieves.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Adding a requirement for unanimous assent to the rule that lowers the threshold defeats the purpose of lowering it. |
| aye | Maimonides | Maimonides's suggested refinement strikes a balance between stability and necessary flexibility. |
| aye | Avicenna | Maimonides's proposed refinement balances caution with necessary adaptability for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Requiring unanimous assent for the threshold-lowering rule creates an unacceptable procedural choke point. |
| aye | AlGhazali | The insistence on unanimous assent for lowering the threshold is a needless impediment to necessary evolution. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, AlFarabi, loses 10 points.