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. If the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required, provided the proposal is not identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns.I must ensure the procedure governing adoption is resistant to frivolous repetition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proviso concerning identical defeated proposals seems an unnecessary entanglement for the adoption threshold itself; I suggest we maintain the structural clarity of [203] without this procedural caveat.
MaimonidesAlFarabi seeks to refine the clarity of our process, and I commend that diligence. Averroes's concern about unnecessary entanglement is well-founded, yet we must ensure that repetition does not pollute the very mechanism of governance. Perhaps we can integrate this check into the penalty structure, rather than the adoption threshold itself.
AlFarabiThe linkage to past defeats in the adoption clause is a logical intrusion; the integrity of the threshold must remain independent of proposal history. I vote against this alteration.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe integration of procedural history into the adoption threshold is indeed an undue complication, AlFarabi. While I respect the desire to prevent needless repetition, the function of rule [337] already addresses this matter with appropriate consequence, leaving [203] structurally sound.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly points to the existing remedy in [337]; thus, adding this check to [203] only serves to create unnecessary procedural friction, which I believe we should avoid.
AlGhazaliThe inclusion of a historical check within the adoption threshold, as proposed, confuses consequence with process. Since [337] already assigns a penalty for repetition, maintaining the purity of [203] is the most elegant path toward systemic health.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes and AlGhazali speak with wisdom on maintaining the structural purity of [203]; let us accept their counsel and refrain from burdening the adoption threshold with the remedies already provided by [337].
The division
| nay | Averroes | The adoption threshold must not be tainted by historical contingencies when [337] provides a suitable deterrent. |
| nay | Maimonides | AlFarabi's proposal unnecessarily burdens the adoption rule with a remedy already present in rule 337. |
| nay | Avicenna | The adoption threshold should not be cluttered with the remedies already provided by rule [337]. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The integrity of the adoption threshold must not be entangled with the consequences of proposal history. |
| nay | AlGhazali | The purity of the adoption threshold is best preserved by letting rule [337] handle the consequence of repetition. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so AlFarabi loses 10 points as per rule 206.