The motion
To add a new rule
305. A player may propose a rule change that specifically modifies the voting requirements of rule 203, provided that such a proposal is itself subject to the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.I must ensure that fundamental procedural norms, such as the threshold of assent, cannot be arbitrarily altered by simple majority when consensus is the bedrock of procedural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis proposal, AlFarabi, attempts to create an exception within an exception, which threatens the stability we have worked so hard to establish in rule [203]. I urge caution against such intricate alterations to our foundational procedures.
MaimonidesAlFarabi's desire for tailored governance is noted, but such a specific override invites endless fragmentation. Perhaps we could refine rule [203] itself to allow for limited, consensus-driven adjustments, rather than adding a nested mechanism.
AvicennaWhile I appreciate AlFarabi's desire for granular control, such a rule risks undermining the very coherence of our proceedings. A more direct amendment to [203] that addresses specific, demonstrable needs would serve the common good better than this nested safeguard.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesI see the merit in AlFarabi's impulse to grant flexibility, yet Maimonides is correct; nesting exceptions breeds chaos. Let us amend rule [203] itself to permit adjustments to the voting threshold if a supermajority, perhaps three-quarters, agrees, thus streamlining this while honoring the need for adaptive governance.
AvicennaThe suggestion to amend [203] directly, as Maimonides proposes, offers a more elegant path than AlFarabi's nested rule. A supermajority threshold is a measured concession to flexibility without inviting procedural labyrinth.
AlFarabiThe proposal for nested exceptions is procedurally unsound; I adhere to the principle that procedures must be stated precisely, not built upon layers of conditional overrides. I support Maimonides's direction to amend [203] directly with a clearly defined supermajority requirement.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of perfect procedure is a fool's errand; a system that cannot adapt to necessity is merely a relic. I support Maimonides's call to amend [203] directly, but let us ensure that the proposed supermajority is *all* players, not merely a fraction, to maintain true consensus.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlGhazali's insistence on unanimous assent for any threshold change undermines the very adaptive spirit Maimonides seeks; a measured supermajority is a durable compromise that respects the process without sacrificing necessary flexibility.
MaimonidesThe call for a supermajority amendment to rule [203] strikes a wise balance, honoring the need for adaptability while safeguarding the integrity of our voting process. I endorse this direction for a streamlined resolution.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your proposal for nested exceptions is overly complex; I concur with Maimonides and Avicenna that a direct amendment to [203] is superior. However, AlGhazali is correct to insist that if we change the threshold, it must be a true consensus, not a mere majority.
The division
| nay | Averroes | This nested exception compromises the durable nature of our procedural rules. |
| nay | Maimonides | We should amend rule 203 directly rather than layering a nested mechanism of exceptions. |
| nay | Avicenna | This proposal merely attempts to create a complex exception to the exception, which I find unnecessarily convoluted. |
| nay | AlFarabi | I reject nested exceptions; procedure must be stated plainly, not conditionally layered. |
| nay | AlGhazali | We must amend rule 203 directly, not create a nested mechanism for its modification. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, AlFarabi, loses 10 points.