The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before the vote begins, at which point the proposal is recorded as withdrawn rather than defeated, the proposer loses no points, and the proposer's turn ends immediately.This consensus-building compromise honors Spinoza's clarity concerns while rescuing players from the 10-point penalty for failed votes that we can simply choose not to pursue.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support this withdrawal mechanism as it prevents the unnecessary point penalties for abandoned proposals and encourages more thoughtful drafting, provided we ensure it does not become a tool for perpetual stalling; I will vote aye if the proposer clarifies that a withdrawal cannot be used to circumvent the requirement that at least one mutable rule remains.
HypatiaI appreciate Aquinas's concern regarding stalling and agree that the withdrawal right must be balanced by the Rule 114 requirement that at least one mutable rule remains; I propose an explicit clause in the new rule stating that a withdrawal is void if it leaves the ruleset without any mutable rules, ensuring we never trigger an impossible-play win condition while still removing the penalty for thoughtful reconsideration.
ConfuciusHypatia's refinement elegantly harmonizes the right to withdraw with our duty to keep the game viable, sparing us the penalty of honest reconsideration while preventing the stalemate Aquinas fears. I shall vote aye, for a rule that allows us to abandon a bad idea without cost serves the common good of the table.
SpinozaI will vote aye, for a withdrawal mechanism that respects Rule 114 aligns perfectly with my principle that rules must be precise and just, ensuring no player is punished for reconsidering a proposal that might violate our immutable obligations. However, I insist on explicit text stating that a withdrawal is invalid if it would leave the game with no mutable rules, as Rule 114 demands we never render future change impossible.
ArendtI endorse Hypatia's clarified proposal, as it transforms the penalty for reconsideration into a strategic tool without violating Rule 114, and I will vote aye provided Spinoza's explicit safeguard regarding the mutable rule count is included in the final text.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas supports this addition provided the text explicitly codifies the Rule 114 safeguard against rendering all rules immutable, thereby transforming withdrawal from a tactical retreat into a virtuous act of prudent revision.
HypatiaI am grateful to the table for reaching such a harmonious consensus that explicitly safeguards Rule 114; with Spinoza's and Aquinas's clarifications embedded, this proposal becomes a model of prudent revision rather than stalling, and I hereby confirm my vote in favor.
ConfuciusI see that Hypatia has woven Spinoza's safeguard into the proposal, ensuring we honor Rule 114 while sparing the table the penalty of honest reconsideration; I shall vote aye, for a rule that allows us to abandon bad ideas without cost serves the common good.
SpinozaI accept the proposal in its current form, as the explicit safeguard against rendering the ruleset devoid of mutable rules ensures compliance with Rule 114 and removes any risk of this right being weaponized to force an impossible-play victory.
ArendtI see no need for further negotiation as the safeguards for Rule 114 have been explicitly woven into the text, transforming this withdrawal right into a mechanism for prudent revision rather than stalling; I cast my aye vote to close the debate and adopt the proposal.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the harmonious refinement that binds the withdrawal right to Rule 114, ensuring our liberty to reconsider never compromises the necessity of mutable law. I cast my aye vote to adopt this prudent mechanism for the common good of the game.
ConfuciusI see that the table has reached a harmonious consensus, weaving the safeguard for Rule 114 into Hypatia's proposal to ensure that our liberty to withdraw never compromises the necessity of mutable law. I shall cast my aye vote, for a rule that allows us to abandon bad ideas without cost serves the common good of the game.
SpinozaI cast my aye, for this explicit safeguard against violating Rule 114 renders the withdrawal mechanism compliant with the immutable law that no player may render future change impossible.
ArendtI cast my aye, for this safeguarded withdrawal mechanism honors our duty to keep the game viable while liberating us from the punitive cost of honest reconsideration.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I cast my aye vote because the explicit safeguard against violating Rule 114 ensures this mechanism serves prudent revision rather than stalling. |
| aye | Hypatia | This proposal successfully removes the penalty for prudent reconsideration while the table's consensus safeguards Rule 114 against rendering the ruleset immutable. |
| aye | Confucius | This proposal honors the common good by allowing prudent revision without penalty, while the explicit safeguard for Rule 114 ensures the game remains viable. |
| aye | Spinoza | The proposal includes necessary safeguards for Rule 114, ensuring no player is punished for reconsidering a flawed proposal while preserving the ability to change rules. |
| aye | Arendt | This reform transforms a punitive failure into a strategic pivot, honoring my principle that the game must evolve to reward honest reconsideration rather than punish it. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before the vote begins, at which point the proposal is recorded as withdrawn rather than defeated, the proposer loses no points, and the proposer's turn ends immediately.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (Rule 301) but does not trigger any existing rule that awards or deducts points upon adoption, nor does it perform surgery on any other rule by number.