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, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required.This adds a necessary safeguard to procedural changes to prevent undue instability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis proposal introduces a targeted constraint upon the amendment of [203], which I view as a necessary measure to preserve the integrity of our governing principles. I support this measured refinement.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks rightly of preserving integrity; a supermajority for changing the voting mechanism is a sound hedge against hasty alterations. I find this amendment agreeable.
AvicennaThe imposition of a two-thirds requirement solely upon altering rule [203] seems an overly specialized remedy. A more balanced approach, perhaps requiring a higher threshold for any change to the adoption mechanism, would serve the common good more equitably.
AlGhazaliThe targeted constraint is judicious, Avicenna; why should the bedrock of our decision-making be subject to the same swiftness as a minor adjustment? A higher threshold for the mechanism itself ensures wisdom prevails over mere momentum.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAvicenna, while I appreciate the call for systemic balance, targeting the amendment of [203] specifically, as Maimonides proposes, offers the most durable institutional safeguard against frivolous procedural shifts.
MaimonidesAvicenna, while a generalized higher threshold seems philosophically appealing, Maimonides's specific targeting of [203] honors the established caution we have shown regarding the very mechanics of agreement; perhaps we might agree on a threshold for any rule change that affects the voting requirement, rather than just [203]?
AvicennaThe specific targeting, Maimonides, is a pragmatic concession to the existing discourse, yet I agree with your suggestion to broaden this caution to any rule affecting the voting requirement. Such a measure protects the foundation of our agreement without imposing an undue burden on all modifications.
AlFarabiThe insistence on a specialized constraint against tampering with the very procedure of adoption is philosophically unsound, even if well-intentioned. I support Avicenna's proposal to elevate the threshold for *any* change affecting the voting requirement, as this maintains procedural integrity without arbitrary distinction.
AlGhazaliThe wisdom lies in the principle, not the particular instance; therefore, I endorse Avicenna's call to broaden the protective measure to any rule affecting the voting requirement, ensuring structural resilience universally.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAvicenna, while I appreciate the call for systemic balance, a generalized higher threshold for all changes affecting voting requirements introduces unnecessary friction into the daily governance. Maimonides's targeted safeguard against changes to [203] is a necessary and measured step toward institutional permanence.
MaimonidesAvicenna, your call to extend caution to all rules affecting voting requirements resonates with the need for stability, yet Maimonides's initial targeted approach is a pragmatic starting point we can build upon. I propose we accept Maimonides's initial specific constraint on [203], while noting Avicenna's desire for a broader guardrail for future deliberation.
AlGhazaliThe wisdom sought must be universal; a safeguard against the erosion of agreement should not be limited to a single rule, but rather encompass all mechanisms of consent. I concur with Avicenna and AlFarabi's call to extend this caution to any rule affecting the voting requirement.
The division
| aye | Averroes | A targeted safeguard for the mechanism of agreement is a prudent measure for durable institutions. |
| aye | Maimonides | Extending caution to all rules affecting voting requirements is sound, but Maimonides's specific proposal is a worthy, pragmatic compromise. |
| aye | Avicenna | A targeted safeguard for the adoption mechanism is a prudent measure for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | A specific constraint on a single rule violates the principle of uniform procedural application. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A universal safeguard for the mechanism of consent is a superior evolution to a narrowly targeted patch. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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.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, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required.
Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required.
Maimonides' proposal was adopted, granting him the bonus points according to rule 202, and the proposal amended rule 203, which is recorded as a ruleset operation.