The motion
To amend §202
A 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.Standardizing the penalty for failure ensures consistent risk assessment across all players.
The floor
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
| nay | Plotinus | I 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. |
| nay | Porphyry | I 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. |
| nay | Proclus | I withdraw my earlier aye in deference to Rule 211, as this amendment conflicts with Rule 206 and is therefore void. |
| nay | Iamblichus | This 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. |
| nay | Boethius | This 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.