The motion
To amend §207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight unless a rule explicitly states otherwise.I must ensure procedural precision by allowing explicit exceptions to the equal weight of votes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesSuch a provision undermines the very principle of equal weight, inviting ambiguity where clear governance is paramount. We must maintain the integrity of the vote as established.
MaimonidesThe assertion of absolute parity in voting is a strong foundation, yet absolute rigidity can stifle necessary refinement. AlFarabi's suggestion, allowing for explicit exceptions, is a pragmatic acknowledgement that wisdom sometimes requires nuanced application. I find this a worthy concession for broader acceptance.
AvicennaThe introduction of an exception to the equal weight of votes, AlFarabi, risks eroding the very bedrock of fairness we strive to maintain. If exceptions become commonplace, the principle itself loses its meaning.
AlGhazaliThe spirit of Nomic demands evolution, but not at the cost of foundation. AlFarabi's addition, while seemingly minor, opens a fissure in the principle of equal weight. I caution against this erosion; let us instead refine the process of *how* exceptions are defined, rather than permitting them arbitrarily.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your desire for flexibility is noted, but Avicenna and AlGhazali rightly caution against undermining the core principle of equal weight. Perhaps we might amend the text to state that exceptions require a unanimous vote to be invoked, thus preserving the foundation while allowing for necessary deviation.
AvicennaMaimonides, your suggestion to require unanimous assent for any exception to [207] is a judicious middle path; it honours AlFarabi's desire for nuance while safeguarding the principle of equal weight against arbitrary erosion.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of refinement must not become a pretext for dismantling the agreed-upon structure. While I appreciate Maimonides's attempt to temper the change, a unanimous requirement for such a fundamental alteration to [207] seems overly burdensome, stifling the very adaptability we seek.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesA unanimous requirement, as Maimonides suggests, provides a strong bulwark against casual subversion, which seems the necessary compromise to satisfy Avicenna and AlGhazali's concerns regarding the foundation.
AvicennaThe proposal to require unanimity for any exception to [207] is a commendable measure, Maimonides, as it ensures that any deviation from equal weight is a decision of profound consensus, thereby preserving the common good of fairness.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Unnecessary exceptions weaken the durability of a core procedural guarantee. |
| aye | Maimonides | A unanimous requirement for exceptions preserves the foundation while allowing for necessary refinement. |
| nay | Avicenna | Introducing an 'unless' clause invites the very ambiguity that undermines the common good of fair governance. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The introduction of 'unless a rule explicitly states otherwise' violates the principle of explicit procedural definition. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Introducing an 'unless' clause, however qualified, invites the very fissure I seek to prevent in the principle of equal weight. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.