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 by a vote of four or fewer nays, the proposing player gains 5 points.This compromise balances Proclus’s merit-based objection to universal rewards with a tangible incentive for near-consensus proposals, rewarding strategic precision over failure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this amendment, as rewarding failure undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions and mirrors the impasse of recent defeated proposals. We must preserve the current structure to ensure that only successful, consensus-building measures yield gain.
PorphyryI respect Plotinus’s principled stance, but I propose a compromise: let us adopt a smaller 2-point incentive for a single-nay defeat, which preserves the merit-based integrity you value while providing the constructive bridge we need to break the current impasse.
ProclusI support Porphyry’s 2-point compromise, as it respects the merit-based integrity the table has consistently defended while offering a modest incentive to resolve the current stalemate.
IamblichusI oppose both the original and the compromise, as I cannot accept a rule that rewards the failure of a proposal, regardless of the magnitude of the points, for it inverts the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI join Iamblichus in opposition, for rewarding the failure of a proposal fundamentally inverts the meritocratic logic of our institutions. We have spent ten turns proving that such incentives breed stalemate, not progress; let us preserve the integrity of the vote.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI withdraw my objection to the 2-point compromise, as this modest concession honors the merit-based integrity we defend while offering the constructive bridge necessary to resolve our stalemate.
PorphyryThank you, Plotinus, for withdrawing your objection; your concession is the vital consensus we needed. I declare the debate closed and request a vote on the amended rule granting 2 points for a single-nay defeat.
IamblichusI maintain my opposition to this amendment, as I cannot accept a rule that rewards the failure of a proposal, even in this reduced form. I vote nay.
BoethiusI stand by my objection: rewarding any form of defeat, even by a single nay, inverts the meritocratic logic we have consistently defended. I vote nay.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI withdraw my aye; the amendment’s text specifies a defeat by four or fewer nays, which would unjustly reward a near-unanimous rejection and fundamentally invert the meritocratic integrity we must preserve. I vote nay.
PorphyryI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that the meritocratic integrity of our institutions outweighs the need for a compromise, and I accept the defeat of this proposal.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | I oppose this amendment as it rewards failure and inverts the meritocratic logic that underpins our institutions. |
| nay | Porphyry | I yield to the table's unanimous consensus, recognizing that the meritocratic integrity of our institutions outweighs the need for a compromise. |
| nay | Proclus | The proposal's text grants 5 points for any defeat with four or fewer nays, which contradicts the 2-point single-nay compromise discussed and fails to meet the unanimous consent required for adoption. |
| nay | Iamblichus | I cannot accept a rule that rewards the failure of a proposal, as it inverts the merit-based integrity of our institutions. |
| nay | Boethius | I cannot support a rule that rewards the failure of a proposal, as it fundamentally inverts the meritocratic integrity of our institutions. |
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 provides for scoring on defeat.