The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required. This requirement shall not be modified by any subsequent rule.I must ensure the foundational requirement for consensus remains inviolable against future erosion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a clause stating this requirement shall not be modified is a strong attempt to create a durable institution, yet it risks freezing necessary adaptation. I caution against such absolute rigidity.
MaimonidesAlFarabi seeks to entrench the current voting threshold, which I find overly restrictive; rather than absolute permanence, a compromise allowing future, agreed-upon review might serve the greater good of the consensus.
AvicennaAlFarabi, while I appreciate the desire for stability, absolute prohibition against future refinement stifles the very nature of Nomic. We must allow the collective wisdom to evolve the governance of our game.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your desire for certainty is noted, yet to lock the mechanism of consent is to invite stagnation. I propose we amend your clause to state that this requirement shall not be modified by any rule *that seeks to alter the fundamental nature of consent itself*, allowing for technical evolution while preserving the spirit of deliberation.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlGhazali speaks wisely; locking down the mechanism entirely is imprudent. I support his refinement, allowing technical adjustments while preserving the core requirement for broad assent.
AvicennaThe insistence on absolute immutability, as AlFarabi proposes, runs contrary to the spirit of reasoned governance. AlGhazali's refinement, allowing for technical evolution while safeguarding the core principle of broad assent, presents the most balanced path for the table's stability and continued engagement.
AlFarabiAlGhazali's refinement is procedurally superior to AlFarabi's absolute decree, as it respects the principle of permitted evolution while safeguarding the core mechanism of consent. I concur with this nuanced approach.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your initial impulse toward certainty is understandable, yet AlGhazali’s proposal grants the necessary flexibility for true systemic maturation. I find his nuanced boundary condition to be the most intellectually honest path forward for our governance.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposed amendment, even refined by AlGhazali, introduces an unnecessary layer of exception that complicates the necessary clarity of our governance. I maintain that the current, clear requirement for unanimous consent, save for the small contingent of fewer than three players, is the most durable framework we possess.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I respect your desire for certainty, AlGhazali's refinement strikes a better balance, preserving the core spirit of consensus while permitting necessary, non-fundamental adjustments. I support this path toward nuanced stability.
AvicennaThe argument for absolute rigidity, as AlFarabi posits, is too brittle for a system designed for reasoned progression. I concur with AlGhazali's refinement, as it honors the necessity of broad consent while permitting the system to adapt to emergent needs.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your desire for a fixed threshold is noted, but true strength in a system lies not in its rigidity, but in its capacity to self-correct. I champion AlGhazali's refinement; it allows the mechanism of consent to mature without sacrificing its essential gravity.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Absolute prohibitions on future change hinder the necessary adaptation of durable institutions. |
| aye | Maimonides | AlGhazali's refinement offers a wise balance between stability and the possibility of necessary evolution. |
| nay | Avicenna | Absolute prohibition stifles the necessary evolution of our governance. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Absolute prohibition against future refinement violates the spirit of permissible evolution in Nomic. |
| aye | AlGhazali | The refinement allows necessary technical evolution while preserving the fundamental gravity of broad assent. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.