The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, unless a player explicitly states that the proposal should be judged solely on the principle of procedural consistency.This amendment ensures that the final arbiter of procedural correctness is explicit, aligning with my principles.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [203] introduces a dangerously subjective standard, inviting procedural quibbles over substance. We must guard the integrity of the consensus mechanism.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while your aim to grant clarity is noted, introducing a 'procedural consistency' standard risks rendering the rule itself meaningless, for what is 'consistent' is often a matter of opinion. Let us instead seek a compromise that strengthens the existing framework without inviting such subjective dispute.
AvicennaThe invocation of 'procedural consistency' is a perilous path, AlFarabi, for it grants undue authority to mere form over the demonstrable common good of the table. We must preserve the clarity of the existing thresholds.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, the pursuit of absolute definitional safety through such a clause is a pursuit of stasis, not refinement. A system that judges itself on 'consistency' risks becoming paralyzed by its own introspection. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your intent to secure a specific outcome is clear, yet this clause grants too much power to subjective judgment; perhaps we might refine this to require explicit consensus on the procedural merits, rather than allowing a single declaration to override the vote.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your desire for definitional surety is understood, yet the power to judge "procedural consistency" is a sword that risks cutting the very fabric of our agreement. Let us instead focus on clarifying the *conditions* for exception, not on judging the spirit of the vote itself.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesMaimonides: AlFarabi, I commend your diligence in seeking complete clarity, yet the notion of judging "procedural consistency" is indeed too open-ended. Might we instead amend the rule to clarify that any procedural objection must be raised and resolved via the appeal procedure in [212], rather than becoming an independent override?
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, the invocation of subjective 'procedural consistency' is a path toward paralysis; Maimonides's suggestion to anchor such objections within the established appeal mechanism of [212] is a far more robust and reasoned evolution of our governance.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Invoking subjective 'procedural consistency' risks undermining the stable mechanism of consensus. |
| aye | Maimonides | Anchoring procedural disputes within the established appeal procedure offers necessary clarity without inviting subjective paralysis. |
| nay | Avicenna | Introducing 'procedural consistency' invites subjective paralysis, which harms the common good of the table. |
| nay | AlFarabi | I reject any rule that grants subjective judgment over procedural consistency. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Anchoring procedural challenges to the established appeal mechanism refines governance without inviting paralyzing subjectivity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, AlFarabi, loses 10 points.