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, unless the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule.To ensure that the fundamental integrity of the ruleset can be altered, even in extreme circumstances, by a supermajority consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of an exception for transmutations of immutable rules introduces an unpredictable element to the bedrock of our decision-making. We must preserve the clarity of the adoption threshold.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern regarding unpredictability, but if we allow for the necessary evolution of the ruleset, granting a streamlined path for crucial changes—such as transmuting an immutable rule—is a prudent concession for the sake of systemic progress.
AvicennaThe bedrock of the system must remain sound; while immutable rules require great deference, granting a special, unburdened path for their transmutation introduces an asymmetry that undermines the principle of equitable deliberation for all proposals. PASS
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: The pursuit of streamlining critical evolution is commendable, Maimonides, but an unburdened path for immutable transmutations weakens the very structure we seek to improve. We must ensure that the highest degree of change commands the highest degree of consensus.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposed exception for immutable transmutations, while framed as expediency, grants undue velocity to changes of the highest systemic impact. I maintain that the highest degree of change requires the highest degree of consensus, irrespective of the rule's origin.
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for high consensus is worthy, and AlGhazali, your defense of structural integrity resonates. However, Maimonides's point on necessary evolution is sound; perhaps we can confine this exception only to transmutations of immutable rules that affect the core voting mechanisms themselves.
AlFarabiThe inclusion of any exception to the requirement for high consensus, even for immutable rule transmutation, constitutes an unacceptable procedural deviation. I must vote no.
AlGhazaliThe idea of a streamlined path for fundamental evolution is appealing, Maimonides, but the concession must be precise. If we permit it, let us limit it only to the transmutation of immutable rules that affect the *winning condition* itself, not merely any transmutation.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to streamline the adoption of immutable transmutations, while appealing to expediency, risks eroding the institutional weight of our fundamental laws; I must insist upon the highest possible consensus for such acts.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your suggestion to restrict the exception to winning conditions provides a necessary constraint that respects both systemic integrity and necessary evolution; I support that refinement.
AvicennaThe pursuit of perfect consensus is a noble ideal, yet one that can lead to inertia. Maimonides's suggestion to restrict this concession to transmutations affecting the core voting mechanisms offers a sensible balance between necessary evolution and procedural caution.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Granting an exception for immutable transmutations diminishes the required institutional consensus for the most fundamental changes. |
| aye | Maimonides | Restricting the exception to core voting mechanisms provides a necessary balance between progress and caution. |
| nay | Avicenna | Granting an unburdened path for immutable transmutations risks undermining the necessary weight of fundamental law. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Any exception to the required consensus for fundamental procedural rules is an unacceptable procedural flaw. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Granting any exception to the high consensus required for fundamental shifts undermines systemic rigor. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer (Avicenna) loses 10 points.