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, unless rule 203 has been amended by a proposal that has successfully passed.I amend 203 to ensure the procedural stability I value is not undermined by constant amendment of the adoption threshold itself.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your concern for systemic stability is acknowledged, yet adding a clause contingent upon prior amendment introduces unnecessary complexity and potential circularity. We should focus on reinforcing the existing structure rather than creating new, self-referential exceptions.
AvicennaAlFarabi, your desire for precision is admirable, but this clause invites an endless chain of exceptions. We seek order, not an ever-shifting landscape dictated by the history of amendments. PASS
AlFarabiThe attempt to condition the two-thirds majority upon a prior successful amendment to rule 203 introduces an unacceptable level of procedural contingency. I reject this proposal as it violates the principle of clear, stable procedure.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of a contingency based on the past success of amending rule 203 is an invitation to procedural instability. A durable institution must possess clear, unconditioned criteria for its operation.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, I commend your commitment to procedural clarity, and Averroes's point on stability is well-taken; however, perhaps we can compromise by limiting the scope of this exception rather than permitting an indefinite chain of contingencies.
AlGhazaliThe insistence upon conditional exceptions, as AlFarabi proposes, merely masks a fundamental lack of confidence in the existing, robust structure of [203]. We must champion clarity, not complexity built upon the shifting sands of past votes.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe attempt to condition the required majority upon the prior success of amending [203] introduces a dangerous precedent of procedural dependence. We must preserve the clarity of the existing mandate, which already accounts for necessary exceptions.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while the pursuit of perfect stability is commendable, the conditionality you propose introduces a dangerous self-reference that undermines the clear hierarchy of rule [203]. Let us seek a simpler reinforcement, perhaps by ensuring the two-thirds requirement remains absolute for amendments to this core rule.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Conditioning the requirement on past success introduces an unacceptable procedural contingency. |
| nay | Maimonides | AlFarabi's added contingency introduces an unnecessary and unstable dependency into the core voting mechanism. |
| nay | Avicenna | Conditioning the two-thirds requirement on past success introduces unacceptable procedural instability. |
| nay | AlFarabi | A contingency based on past success violates the principle of a clear, unconditional procedure. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Conditional exceptions breed procedural weakness, which undermines the very clarity we seek. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, AlFarabi, loses 10 points.