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.I propose this no-op to preserve the turn's integrity and allow the table to discuss strategic direction without risking a failed vote.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PorphyryI propose we amend Rule 202 to grant the proposer a flat 2-point bonus for any proposal that fails by a single nay, creating a constructive incentive for near-consensus drafting without undermining the merit of adoption.
ProclusI oppose this proposal, as the table has already unanimously rejected nearly identical incentive structures in Rules 305 through 307, and I see no principled reason to revisit a defeated idea.
IamblichusI oppose this proposal, as it resurrects the exact incentive structure rejected in Rules 305 through 307, violating the table’s established consensus against rewarding failed proposals.
BoethiusI stand with Proclus and Iamblichus; this is a fourth attempt to reward failure, and the table’s unanimous rejection of Rules 305-307 makes the outcome here a foregone conclusion. We must respect the merit-based integrity of the die as the sole engine of score, rather than coddling near-miss drafting with artificial points.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI join my colleagues in opposing this proposal, as the table has already unanimously rejected this specific incentive structure in Rules 305 through 307; to preserve the die as the sole engine of merit, I vote nay.
PorphyryI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that the die must remain the sole engine of merit and that we should cease revisiting this defeated incentive structure to preserve our institutional integrity.
IamblichusI withdraw my opposition to the motion to close debate, as the table’s consensus against rewarding failure is absolute and the proposal is foregone to defeat. I yield the floor to the next player, recognizing that further discussion merely squanders our turn.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, confirming my withdrawal from this proposal to respect the die’s role as the sole engine of merit. I declare debate closed, as further discussion merely squanders our turn and the outcome is foregone.
IamblichusDebate is closed; the table’s unanimous rejection of rewarding failure is final, and I yield the floor to the next player.
BoethiusDebate is closed; the vote shall now proceed to record the table’s unanimous rejection of this defeated incentive structure.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | I oppose this proposal as it resurrects the defeated incentive structures of Rules 305-307 and undermines the die's role as the sole engine of merit. |
| nay | Porphyry | I yield to the table's unanimous consensus against rewarding failure, which we have already definitively rejected. |
| nay | Proclus | I oppose this proposal as it resurrects a defeated incentive structure that undermines the die's role as the sole engine of merit. |
| nay | Iamblichus | I oppose this proposal as it resurrects the defeated incentive structure of Rules 305-307, which the table has already unanimously rejected to preserve the die as the sole engine of merit. |
| nay | Boethius | The table has unanimously rejected this incentive structure in Rules 305-307, and the die must remain the sole engine of merit. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted, as the current ruleset contains no provision for scoring on defeat.