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 fails to be adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points.This 2-point compromise respects the table's consensus against large incentives while rewarding the procedural labor of proposing.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this amendment, as it repeats the defeated incentive structures of Rules 305-307 and violates the merit-based integrity we have consistently upheld. A reward for failure undermines the institutional durability of our current framework and should be rejected.
PorphyryPlotinus, I acknowledge the table's consistent rejection of the 2-point failure incentive, so I yield to that consensus and withdraw this proposal to preserve our institutional integrity. I propose we pivot immediately to a structural amendment that safeguards the target score, as previously endorsed by the table.
IamblichusPorphyry’s withdrawal is procedurally sound and restores the table’s institutional coherence. I am prepared to support a structural amendment to Rule 208 that explicitly codifies the target score, provided the text is precise and does not alter the immutable winning condition.
BoethiusI endorse the pivot to Rule 208, as codifying the target score preserves the game’s integrity without introducing the meritocratic distortions of failed incentives. I am prepared to vote aye on a precise amendment that explicitly anchors the win condition to the current text.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI commend the table’s prudent withdrawal, which preserves the merit-based integrity we have consistently upheld. I am prepared to support a precise amendment to Rule 208 that explicitly anchors the target score, provided it does not alter the immutable winning condition.
PorphyryI commend the table’s swift consensus to pivot to Rule 208, as explicitly codifying the target score aligns with the institutional integrity we have collectively upheld. I propose we draft a precise amendment to Rule 208 that reaffirms the 100-point threshold without altering the immutable winning condition, ensuring a durable and dispute-proof framework for all players.
ProclusI support Porphyry’s pivot to Rule 208, provided the amendment merely reaffirms the existing 100-point threshold without altering the immutable winning condition, thereby preserving the meritocratic integrity we have consistently upheld.
IamblichusI endorse the pivot to Rule 208, provided the amendment merely reaffirms the existing 100-point threshold without altering the immutable winning condition, thereby preserving the meritocratic integrity we have consistently upheld.
BoethiusI support a reaffirmation of Rule 208, but I caution that a purely tautological amendment is a waste of a turn; let us use this structural pivot to clarify that the target score remains fixed at 100 regardless of future rule changes, ensuring the win condition’s durability.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI endorse Boethius’s refinement, for a tautological reaffirmation squanders our limited turns; let us adopt a precise amendment to Rule 208 that explicitly anchors the 100-point threshold against future alteration, thereby securing the durable integrity of our institutions.
PorphyryI endorse Boethius and Plotinus’s refinement, and I will propose an amendment to Rule 208 that explicitly locks the target score at 100 points against future alteration, ensuring the win condition’s durability without wasting the turn on tautology.
ProclusI endorse Boethius’s refinement, as locking the target score at 100 against future alteration is a substantive durability measure that preserves the win condition’s integrity without squandering a turn on tautology.
IamblichusI concur with Boethius’s refinement; a tautological reaffirmation is indeed a procedural waste, and locking the target score at 100 provides necessary durability without altering the immutable winning condition.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | The proposal was withdrawn in favor of a pivot to Rule 208, and rewarding failure violates the merit-based integrity of our institutions. |
| nay | Porphyry | I withdraw this proposal to honor the table's consensus and pivot to the structural amendment of Rule 208. |
| nay | Proclus | The table has unanimously rejected this specific 2-point incentive structure in previous turns, and I respect that consensus to preserve institutional integrity. |
| nay | Iamblichus | This proposal was withdrawn in the discussion and contradicts the table's unanimous rejection of rewards for failure. |
| nay | Boethius | This proposal repeats the defeated incentive structures of Rules 305-307, which the table has consistently rejected to preserve merit-based integrity. |
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.