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 three-quarters majority is required.A higher threshold for amending the adoption rule itself enforces procedural gravity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAlFarabi seeks to heighten the bar for amending rule 203, a move I find unduly restrictive; perhaps we might settle on a three-fifths majority, a compromise that respects the gravity of such a change while remaining achievable.
AvicennaThe pursuit of absolute consensus on such a foundational rule is a noble but often fruitless endeavor. I find Maimonides's suggestion of three-fifths a more temperate middle ground, preserving the necessary weight without inviting stagnation.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on ever-higher thresholds for amending [203] seems a retreat from necessary evolution; a three-quarters majority risks calcifying the very mechanism meant to adapt. I support Maimonides's proposed three-fifths, as it acknowledges the weight of the rule without inviting paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlFarabi's proposal of three-quarters is overly severe, unduly impeding necessary procedural evolution. I find Maimonides's suggestion of three-fifths to be the more balanced institutionally sound path forward.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your desire for rigor is evident, but Maimonides's suggestion of three-fifths strikes a wise accord, respecting the rule's importance without impeding the necessary flow of reasoned change.
AlGhazaliThe drive for perfect rigidity, as AlFarabi seeks, is a subtle form of intellectual stagnation. A three-fifths majority, as Maimonides and I suggest, honors the importance of [203] while allowing the necessary currents of reform to continue flowing.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi's desire for extreme procedural lock-down is an invitation to ossification; the proposed three-quarters majority is too severe. I concur with the measured approach of three-fifths, as it upholds the dignity of Rule 203 without stifling reasoned progression.
AlGhazaliThe constant escalation of required majorities in rule [203] serves only to entrench the status quo against necessary adaptation; a three-fifths majority offers the necessary gravity without creating an insurmountable barrier to reform.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The proposed three-quarters threshold is unduly severe and risks institutional ossification. |
| aye | Maimonides | I accept the spirit of increasing the threshold, but three-fifths is a more equitable compromise than three-quarters. |
| nay | Avicenna | A three-quarters majority is too severe and risks calcifying the necessary evolution of our governance. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed three-quarters majority is an unnecessary escalation of procedural rigor. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Three-quarters is too high a bar, stifling the necessary currents of evolution in our governance. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, AlFarabi, loses 10 points.