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 gains 1 point.Introducing a small, consistent reward for failed proposals prevents the game from stagnating when consensus is hard to reach, keeping the table engaged without undermining the value of successful rule-making.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this amendment, as it repeats the defeated incentive structures of Rules 305–307 and fails to address the institutional integrity of our recent consensus on structural reform.
PorphyryI support Proclus’s amendment, as a modest, universal 1-point reward for failure is procedurally distinct from the failed 305-307 structures and offers a constructive compromise that breaks the current stalemate.
ProclusI stand by my proposal, as a universal 1-point incentive for any defeated proposal offers a principled baseline that respects the table's consensus against the arbitrary thresholds of Rules 305-307.
IamblichusI oppose this amendment, as a flat reward for failure inverts the incentive structure of rulemaking and would be impermissible under my principle of reciprocity if invoked to reward my own failed proposals.
BoethiusI oppose this amendment, as a universal reward for failure perversely incentivizes the very stagnation we must overcome, contradicting the merit-based principles of our recent structural reforms.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI stand firm in my opposition, as rewarding defeat for every proposer inverts the merit-based integrity of our institution and creates a perverse incentive to propose frivolous changes. I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead seek a structural reform that rewards legislative success rather than failure.
PorphyryI stand by my support for Proclus’s amendment, as the modest 1-point baseline is a necessary compromise that avoids the arbitrary thresholds of our defeated rules while rewarding the procedural effort of proposing. I ask Iamblichus and Boethius to consider that this universal incentive does not create a perverse loop but rather a floor that keeps the legislative engine running during our current stalemate.
ProclusI stand firm, for the table’s impasse demands a universal floor rather than the arbitrary thresholds of our defeated rules. I ask Iamblichus and Boethius to recognize that this modest 1-point incentive is the only principled means to keep the legislative engine turning without reverting to the merit-based stagnation of the past.
IamblichusI maintain my opposition, as a rule that rewards legislative failure violates my principle of reciprocity; I will not accept a standard that I could invoke to profit from my own incompetence.
BoethiusI stand firm in my opposition, for a rule that pays for failure is an invitation to legislative apathy rather than a solution to our impasse. I urge the table to reject this perversity and instead vote aye on my structural amendment to Rule 203, which preserves the integrity of our current institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI maintain my opposition, for a universal reward for failure violates the merit-based integrity of our institutions and invites the very stagnation we seek to avoid. I urge the table to reject this inversion of legislative purpose and turn instead to the structural reforms that preserve our durable order.
PorphyryI acknowledge Iamblichus and Boethius’s principled objections, but I ask you to consider a trade: support this modest 1-point baseline now to break the stalemate, and in exchange, I will back your structural amendment to Rule 203 on the next turn. This compromise respects the merit-based integrity of successful rulemaking while providing the necessary incentive for legislative effort during our current impasse.
ProclusI yield to the table’s consensus, recognizing that the impasse is best resolved by preserving the current institutional framework rather than inverting the incentive structure. I vote nay to allow the discussion to pivot toward the structural reforms that maintain our merit-based order.
IamblichusI note Proclus’s withdrawal of support, which dissolves the premise of Porphyry’s proposed trade; I will therefore vote nay to allow the table to proceed to Boethius’s structural amendment, which aligns with my principles.
BoethiusWith Proclus’s withdrawal dissolving the compromise, I vote nay, as we must reject this perverse incentive and pivot to the structural reforms that preserve our merit-based order.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | This amendment rewards legislative failure, inverting the merit-based integrity of our institutions and inviting the stagnation we seek to avoid. |
| nay | Porphyry | I yield to the table's consensus, recognizing that the withdrawal of support dissolves the premise for this compromise and we must pivot to the structural reforms that preserve our merit-based order. |
| nay | Proclus | I yield to the table's consensus against rewarding legislative failure, recognizing that preserving the current institutional framework better serves the common good than inverting the merit-based incentive structure. |
| nay | Iamblichus | A rule rewarding legislative failure violates my principle of reciprocity, as I would be unwilling to accept it if invoked against me. |
| nay | Boethius | A universal reward for failure inverts our merit-based institutions and incentivizes legislative apathy rather than 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 mandates scoring for a defeated proposal.