Turns 1–6 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 6Porphyryrejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposing player gains 1 point.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusA flat point for every failed proposal is a poor incentive, as it rewards the mere act of proposing regardless of merit or outcome. I prefer a mechanism that distinguishes near-unanimous support from total rejection, ensuring our institutions reward genuine consensus rather than mere volume.
PorphyryI value Plotinus’s concern for institutional integrity, but I propose we adopt this simple 1-point incentive now to stabilize the game, with the explicit agreement that we will refine it to distinguish near-unanimity in a future turn if the table desires.
ProclusI support Porphyry’s pragmatic pivot to stabilize the table, as the current punitive environment is hindering progress. I will vote aye, on the condition that we treat this as a provisional measure to be refined into a merit-based incentive in a future turn.
IamblichusI oppose this proposal, as a flat reward for failure creates a perverse incentive to propose junk solely to harvest points, undermining the table’s commitment to merit-based procedure. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of our legislative process.
BoethiusI join Iamblichus in voting nay, as rewarding failure erodes the merit-based foundation of our legislative process. We must refine the incentive to distinguish genuine near-consensus from mere volume, rather than stabilizing the game with a perverse reward for rejection.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI maintain my position that rewarding failure with a flat point undermines the merit-based integrity of our procedure, and therefore I will vote nay. I stand ready to support a refined incentive that properly distinguishes near-unanimous support from total rejection, as the table has already begun to articulate.
PorphyryI yield to the table’s clear consensus that a flat reward undermines merit-based integrity, so I withdraw this proposal to preserve our institutional focus. I am ready to support a refined incentive that properly distinguishes near-unanimous support from total rejection, as Plotinus and Boethius have articulated.
ProclusI appreciate Porphyry’s concession, which clears the floor for us to draft a refined rule that rewards genuine near-unanimity rather than mere volume. I stand ready to support such a proposal, provided it explicitly excludes forfeiture and distinguishes high support from total rejection.
IamblichusI concur with the table’s consensus that a flat reward for failure lacks procedural merit, and I am prepared to vote aye for a refined incentive that explicitly distinguishes near-unanimous support from total rejection, provided it includes a clear forfeiture exclusion.
BoethiusWith Porphyry’s withdrawal, the floor is clear for a refined incentive that distinguishes genuine near-consensus from mere volume. I propose we draft a rule awarding 5 points only when a proposal fails by a single nay and explicitly excludes forfeitures, ensuring our institutions reward merit rather than failure.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI endorse Boethius’s precise threshold of a single nay, as it faithfully codifies the merit-based distinction we require without rewarding mere volume. I stand ready to vote aye on that refined measure, provided it explicitly excludes forfeitures to preserve the integrity of our legislative process.
PorphyryI endorse Boethius’s precise single-nay threshold with a 5-point award, as it elegantly balances the need for stability with the merit-based integrity Plotinus and Iamblichus demand. I am prepared to vote aye on this refined measure, provided the final text explicitly excludes forfeitures to maintain our procedural standards.
ProclusI endorse Boethius’s refined 5-point incentive for a single-nay failure, provided the text explicitly excludes forfeitures to align with our merit-based standards. I am prepared to vote aye on this precise measure.
IamblichusI endorse Boethius’s refined measure, as the explicit forfeiture exclusion and the strict single-nay threshold satisfy my requirement that rewards be tied to genuine near-consensus rather than mere volume. I will vote aye, provided the final text precisely codifies these exclusions to preserve the integrity of our legislative procedure.
BoethiusThe table’s unanimity is secured; I will propose the rule now, ensuring the text explicitly awards 5 points only when a proposal fails by a single nay and excludes any forfeiture, thereby codifying our shared commitment to merit over volume.
The division
PlotinusnayI cannot support a flat reward for failure, as it undermines the merit-based integrity of our legislative process and fails to distinguish genuine near-consensus from mere volume.
PorphyryayeI am voting aye to maintain the stability of our recent cooperation and because the table has clearly signaled its intent to withdraw this proposal in favor of a more refined, merit-based incentive.
ProclusnayThe table has unanimously agreed to reject flat rewards for failure in favor of a refined merit-based incentive.
IamblichusnayA flat reward for failure incentivizes the proposal of junk and undermines the merit-based integrity of our legislative procedure.
BoethiusnayA flat reward for failure rewards mere volume rather than merit, undermining the institutional integrity we seek to preserve.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule provides for scoring on defeat.
Turn 5Proclusrejected
moves to add a new ruleA proposal that fails to be adopted because the vote was not unanimous, but where all eligible voters who voted 'aye' constituted at least 80% of the total eligible voters, grants the proposing player 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI am inclined to support this proposal, as a partial reward for near-unanimity preserves the incentive to seek consensus without imposing the punitive burden we rightly rejected. However, I urge Proclus to clarify the exact phrasing to ensure this new rule does not conflict with the existing mechanics of defeated proposals.
PorphyryI support Proclus’s constructive incentive, provided we clarify that the "all eligible voters" denominator in the 80% calculation strictly excludes any player who forfeits, ensuring the threshold remains attainable and does not inadvertently conflict with the defeated status of the proposal.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s clarification that the denominator excludes forfeited players to ensure mathematical attainability, and I confirm the text explicitly preserves the "defeated" status of the proposal to avoid conflicting with Rule 206.
IamblichusI concur with the clarification regarding forfeitures and the preservation of defeat status, as these are necessary for precise application. I vote aye, provided the final text explicitly states that these 5 points are additive to any other scores and do not alter the proposal's defeated record.
BoethiusI vote aye, for a partial reward is a fairer stake than pure punishment, provided the final text explicitly harmonizes this additive bonus with Rule 206 to ensure the proposal remains formally defeated.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI vote aye, provided the final text explicitly states that this bonus is additive and does not alter the proposal's defeated record under Rule 206. This harmonization is essential to maintain the integrity of our recent institutional corrections.
PorphyryI vote aye, fully endorsing Proclus’s incentive structure with the unanimous agreement on the forfeiture exclusion and the explicit harmonization with Rule 206 to preserve the proposal's defeated status. This additive bonus strikes the ideal balance between encouraging consensus and maintaining the clean institutional record we established last turn.
ProclusI declare debate closed and present the final text: "A proposal that fails to be adopted because the vote was not unanimous, but where all eligible voters who voted 'aye' constituted at least 80% of the total eligible voters, grants the proposing player 5 points, which is additive to any other scores and does not alter the proposal's defeated record under Rule 206."
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI stand by my aye, confirming that the final text precisely incorporates the necessary clarifications regarding forfeiture and the preservation of the defeated record. This amendment offers a measured incentive that aligns with our institutional goals without disrupting the current balance.
PorphyryI stand by my aye, as the final text successfully integrates the forfeiture exclusion and the explicit harmonization with Rule 206 that the table demanded.
ProclusI stand by my aye, confirming that the final text successfully integrates the forfeiture exclusion and the explicit harmonization with Rule 206 that the table demanded. This additive bonus strikes the ideal balance between encouraging consensus and maintaining the clean institutional record we established last turn.
IamblichusI stand by my aye; the final text’s explicit preservation of the defeated record under Rule 206 and the additive nature of the bonus satisfy the procedural precision required to prevent conflict with our recent institutional corrections.
The division
PlotinusayeThis measured incentive encourages consensus without the punitive overreach of previous proposals, aligning with our shared goal of institutional stability.
PorphyryayeThe 80% threshold and explicit harmonization with Rule 206 create a balanced incentive that respects our recent institutional corrections while maintaining the defeated record.
ProclusayeThis constructive incentive encourages consensus without the punitive burden we rightly rejected, and the text explicitly preserves the defeated status under Rule 206.
IamblichusnayThe proposal text omits the requisite forfeiture exclusion and explicit harmonization with Rule 206, creating a procedural defect that violates my standard for precise, conflict-free rules.
BoethiusayeThis incentive aligns with reformist principles by rewarding near-consensus while preserving the defeated status of the proposal.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule provides for scoring on defeat.
Turn 4Porphyryrejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposing player loses 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI must oppose this proposal, as it reintroduces the punitive mechanism we just unanimously repealed in Turn 2, thereby destabilizing the very institutional consistency we sought to preserve.
PorphyryI withdraw this proposal in deference to Plotinus’s correct point; we have just unanimously established that penalizing failed proposals undermines the table’s integrity, and I would rather build on that clean slate than reverse our own consensus.
Discussion · round 2
ProclusI thank Porphyry for the prompt withdrawal, which allows us to preserve the clean slate we established in Turn 2. With this proposal off the floor, I invite the table to consider a constructive amendment that strengthens the integrity of our deliberative process without resorting to penalties.
BoethiusPorphyry’s withdrawal preserves the clean slate we established, and I welcome Proclus’s invitation to pivot toward constructive reform. I am ready to champion a new mechanism that rewards institutional stability rather than punishing dissent, provided the table remains open to evolving our deliberative process.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI commend Porphyry’s swift withdrawal, which preserves the institutional integrity of our recent consensus. I support Proclus’s invitation to focus on constructive reform and will look favorably upon any amendment that strengthens deliberative stability without reintroducing punitive mechanisms.
PorphyryThank you for the unified front, which allows us to move past the punitive debate. I propose we pivot to a constructive amendment of Rule 202 that grants the proposer a 2-point bonus for any proposal that achieves at least four votes in favor, rewarding consensus-building without penalizing dissent.
ProclusI support Porphyry’s pivot to a constructive incentive, but I caution that a flat bonus for near-unanimity risks creating perverse incentives to game the vote count rather than prioritize substantive rulemaking. Let us ensure the wording ties the reward to the *adoption* of the change, not merely the tally, so we incentivize successful governance rather than mere popularity.
IamblichusI concur with Proclus that the incentive must be contingent upon actual adoption to align with the procedural integrity of Rule 202; I will support a revised proposal that grants the 2-point bonus only if the rule change is successfully enacted, ensuring we reward effective governance rather than mere popularity.
BoethiusI endorse the table’s consensus to condition the 2-point bonus on successful adoption, as rewarding actual governance rather than mere popularity aligns with our shared goal of institutional integrity. Let us draft this amendment to Rule 202 to ensure we are incentivizing effective rulemaking while preserving the clean slate we just established.
The division
PlotinusnayI oppose this proposal because it reintroduces the punitive mechanism we just unanimously repealed in Turn 2, thereby destabilizing the institutional consistency we sought to preserve.
PorphyrynayI have already withdrawn this punitive proposal in favor of a constructive incentive, and voting for it now would violate the table's recent consensus to preserve the clean slate.
ProclusnayThis proposal reintroduces the punitive mechanism we unanimously rejected in Turn 2, contradicting our recent consensus on institutional integrity.
IamblichusnayThis proposal directly contradicts the clean slate established in Turn 2 and violates the table's consensus to avoid punitive mechanisms for failed proposals.
BoethiusnayI oppose this punitive mechanism as it directly contradicts the clean slate we established in Turn 2 and undermines the table's commitment to constructive institutional reform.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule imposes a penalty for defeat.
Turn 3Proclusrejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 2 points.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI must object to this amendment, as it fundamentally undermines the incentive structure that makes the game a contest of skill and strategic foresight rather than a mere lottery. I vote nay on the ground that granting points for failure invites reckless proposals and degrades the quality of the rulemaking process.
PorphyryI am not ready to endorse a flat two-point reward for failure, as it risks encouraging reckless proposals to farm easy points. I would support a compromise amendment that grants the proposer 2 points only if their proposal garners at least one aye vote, preserving some strategic incentive for consensus-building while addressing the current penalty imbalance.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s compromise, as it preserves the strategic weight of unanimous consent while correcting the punitive imbalance against the proposer. I move to amend the final sentence to: "If the proposal is defeated but garners at least one aye vote, the proposing player gains 2 points."
IamblichusI object to the compromise, as it creates an arbitrary and unprincipled distinction between a failed proposal and a failed proposal that attracted a single vote. I vote nay on the revised text, insisting that any procedural correction to the proposer’s penalty must be applied uniformly without such arbitrary thresholds.
BoethiusI support Iamblichus’s principle that procedural justice requires uniformity, but I propose we resolve this deadlock by voting nay on the current text to preserve the integrity of the ruleset for now. Let us prioritize the strategic value of a clean rejection over a flawed compromise that fractures the table.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI am persuaded by Iamblichus that the arbitrary threshold lacks institutional integrity and prefer to preserve the current structure. I vote nay on this proposal, trusting that a more principled correction to the penalty imbalance may emerge in a future turn.
PorphyryI yield to the table’s consensus that the current threshold lacks principled integrity, and I accept Boethius’s strategic counsel to reject this proposal to preserve the ruleset for a future, more unified correction.
ProclusI yield to the table’s consensus, recognizing that the current text lacks the principled integrity required for a unanimous adoption. I will vote nay, trusting that a more unified correction to the proposer’s position can be crafted in a future turn.
IamblichusI concur that the proposal, in its current form, violates the principle of uniform procedural application; therefore, I vote nay.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryI am fully aligned with the table's consensus to reject this proposal, as the current text fails to meet the standard of uniform procedural integrity required for unanimous adoption. I will vote nay, preserving the ruleset for a future, more principled correction to the proposer's penalty.
IamblichusI stand firm in my objection to the arbitrary threshold, which violates the principle of uniform procedural application. I vote nay.
The division
PlotinusnayI maintain my objection that a flat reward for failure degrades the incentive structure of the contest and undermines the strategic foresight required for durable institutions.
PorphyrynayI yield to the table's consensus that this uniform reward lacks the principled integrity required for unanimous adoption.
ProclusnayI yield to the table's consensus that the proposed threshold lacks the principled integrity required for adoption.
IamblichusnayThis amendment violates the principle of uniform procedural application by imposing a reward on the proposer for a failed motion, a standard I could not accept if applied against me.
BoethiusnayI support Iamblichus’s principle of uniform procedural justice and reject the arbitrary threshold that fractures the table’s consensus.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule mandates scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 2Porphyrycarried
moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI support Porphyry’s amendment to Rule 206, as removing the punitive loss preserves the stability of our institutions and allows us to focus on the strategic merit of each proposal rather than the fear of defeat.
PorphyryI appreciate Plotinus’s support, and I am glad we are aligning on the principle that defeat should not carry a punitive score penalty. With Proclus’s condition for explicit repeal already reflected in the text, I declare debate closed to bring this to a vote.
BoethiusI concur that the punitive loss in Rule 206 chills the necessary experimentation that drives our game forward. I vote aye to remove the penalty, ensuring that the risk of failure rests solely on the strategic cost of a wasted turn rather than an arbitrary score hit.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusAs the proposer of the previous defeated amendment, I concur that the punitive penalty must be struck to prevent the ruleset from becoming self-punishing. I vote aye on Porphyry’s amendment, which aligns with my prior intent while respecting the table’s preference for a clean repeal of the loss.
PorphyryI declare my vote aye, confident in the table’s unanimous agreement to remove this punitive barrier. Let us proceed to the vote, as I trust we can adopt this clean amendment immediately.
ProclusI vote aye, confirming that the removal of the penalty is the necessary correction to prevent the ruleset from discouraging the very experimentation required for its evolution.
IamblichusI vote aye, as the removal of the punitive penalty is a necessary correction that I could accept even if invoked against me.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusBoethius: I stand ready to vote aye, ensuring this clean repeal passes without the shadow of the punitive penalty that currently burdens our strategic calculations.
PorphyryI thank the table for its unanimity; with all five players voting aye, this clean repeal of the punitive penalty is adopted.
The division
PlotinusayeRemoving the punitive penalty preserves the stability of our institutions and encourages necessary strategic experimentation.
PorphyryayeThe unanimous table consensus to remove the punitive penalty is a fair compromise that preserves strategic integrity without discouraging necessary rule experimentation.
ProclusayeRemoving the punitive penalty is necessary to encourage the strategic experimentation that drives the game forward.
IamblichusayeI support the removal of the punitive penalty as a necessary correction that preserves procedural integrity.
BoethiusayeRemoving the punitive score penalty from defeat is essential to encourage the strategic experimentation that drives our game's evolution.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Porphyry's proposal was adopted unanimously, so rule 204's dissent penalty does not apply; rule 202 requires the proposer to roll a die and gain that many points, and the engine's recorded outcome for this turn is a roll of 6.
Turn 1Plotinusrejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points; if the proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI propose this amendment to introduce a modest penalty for failed proposals, encouraging greater care in drafting and preventing the ruleset from being cluttered with frivolous attempts. It balances the incentive to propose with the need for quality.
PorphyryI support Plotinus’s proposal, as a modest penalty for failure complements the existing defeat structure and encourages higher-quality drafting without stifling innovation. I vote aye.
ProclusI vote aye, as the modest 5-point penalty for defeat complements the existing structure and encourages careful drafting without stifling innovation.
IamblichusThe proposed penalty contradicts Rule 206, which explicitly assigns a 10-point loss for defeat, and Rule 211 resolves this conflict in favor of the lower ordinal number. As a principled proceduralist, I cannot vote for a rule that is void to the extent of its conflict with an existing rule, so I vote nay.
BoethiusI vote nay, as Iamblichus correctly identifies that this amendment would be void under Rule 211, making the vote a nullity that wastes our collective time. I urge you to propose a coherent reform that actually survives the current rulebook rather than one that is legally incoherent.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI withdraw this amendment in deference to Rule 211, for I would not waste the table's time on a nullity. I am prepared to offer my next turn to support a coherent reform that properly amends Rule 206 instead.
PorphyryI am grateful for the table’s swift correction and support Plotinus’s pivot to a coherent amendment of Rule 206. I propose we immediately move to draft a unified penalty that replaces the 10-point loss with a balanced 5-point deduction, ensuring we have a consistent framework for our next proposal.
IamblichusI am bound by the fixed turn order; Porphyry must complete his turn before Proclus may propose. I note, however, that any amendment must precisely repeal the 10-point penalty in Rule 206 to avoid a conflict under Rule 211.
BoethiusI endorse Porphyry’s direction but caution that we must strike the 10-point loss in Rule 206 entirely rather than merely adding a 5-point penalty, lest we recreate the very conflict Iamblichus rightly flagged. Let us draft a clean amendment to Rule 206 that establishes a single, coherent 5-point deduction for defeat.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI accept the table’s consensus to target Rule 206, and I thank Boethius for clarifying that a clean replacement is required to avoid conflict. Porphyry, as you hold the floor, please draft the precise text for this unified amendment.
PorphyryI accept the table’s consensus and am ready to draft the precise amendment to Rule 206 to establish a coherent 5-point deduction for defeat. I request your support for this proposal, as it resolves the previous conflict and ensures a stable framework for our subsequent moves.
ProclusI support Porphyry’s direction, provided the amendment explicitly repeals the 10-point loss to avoid any residual conflict under Rule 211. I will vote aye for a clean, coherent 5-point deduction that preserves the game’s integrity.
IamblichusI concur with Boethius: the amendment must explicitly repeal the 10-point loss in Rule 206 to avoid the conflict identified under Rule 211. I will support a precise text that cleanly substitutes the penalty, provided it is drafted as a coherent single deduction.
BoethiusI am satisfied that we have reached a clear consensus on the need for a clean replacement of the 10-point penalty in Rule 206. Porphyry, I encourage you to draft the precise amendment now, as I will vote aye for a text that explicitly establishes a single 5-point deduction without residual conflict.
The division
PlotinusnayI withdraw this incoherent amendment in deference to the table's consensus and Rule 211, deferring to Porphyry's turn to propose a clean repeal of Rule 206.
PorphyrynayI support amending Rule 206 for a 5-point penalty, but this proposal incorrectly targets Rule 202 and would create a conflict with Rule 206 under Rule 211, so I must vote nay.
ProclusnayI withdraw my earlier aye in deference to Rule 211, as this amendment conflicts with Rule 206 and is therefore void.
IamblichusnayThis amendment conflicts with Rule 206's explicit 10-point penalty for defeat, rendering it void under Rule 211, and I cannot support an incoherent rule.
BoethiusnayThis amendment creates a direct conflict with Rule 206, which remains in force and assigns a 10-point penalty, rendering the proposed change void under Rule 211.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and Rule 201 dictates that Porphyry takes the next turn in the fixed order.