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, unless that specific rule itself is deemed by a unanimous vote to be unstable.This refines the majority threshold by adding a safeguard against instability in the adoption mechanism itself.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a condition requiring unanimous assent to deem a threshold rule "unstable" introduces an unnecessary and potentially crippling bottleneck. We seek durable mechanisms, not those perpetually held hostage by the fear of abstract instability.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of stability, yet I find his aversion to the concept of 'instability' itself to be an oversimplification. If a threshold rule proves too volatile, a unanimous check is the wisest safeguard against reckless change.
AvicennaThe notion of "instability" is too subjective to serve as a sound arbiter of procedure; a clear, observable criterion for deeming a rule volatile is necessary for the common good.
AlFarabiThe notion of 'unstable' is a linguistic evasion, Avicenna; procedural rigor demands precise definition, not vague apprehension. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of a vague criterion, 'unstable,' renders this amendment an instrument of arbitrary judgment, which is antithetical to durable governance. We must refine the concept of instability into a measurable parameter, or discard this addition entirely.
MaimonidesAverroes, your demand for precision is sound; however, Avicenna, rather than 'instability,' perhaps we should require a supermajority vote to invoke this check, balancing rigor with pragmatism.
AvicennaThe invocation of 'instability' remains an ill-defined concept, a mere shadow of governance. If we must guard against volatility, let us demand a specific, measurable metric for that volatility, rather than relying on subjective consensus.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to codify "instability" is merely to hide procedural indecision behind lofty language; a measurable standard, as Avicenna suggests, is the only true path to systemic improvement.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes correctly identifies the peril of the undefined; Avicenna, in turn, demands a measurable criterion, a path we might forge by requiring that the supermajority check invoke only if the rule has been rejected by a specific, repeated margin.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The inclusion of a subjective concept like 'unstable' undermines the durable nature of any codified rule. |
| aye | Maimonides | We can refine the concept of 'unstable' by tying it to a measurable rejection margin, which satisfies precision while allowing necessary flexibility. |
| nay | Avicenna | The term 'unstable' lacks the precise definition required for sound governance. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The term 'unstable' is insufficiently defined for procedural acceptance. |
| aye | AlGhazali | To introduce a measurable criterion for procedural health ensures the mechanism evolves with reasoned caution. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.