The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal is adopted by a simple majority, the proposing player gains 2 points immediately.This provides a modest, merit-based incentive for successful legislative action, balancing the risk of failed proposals without undermining the integrity of the die roll.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI must oppose this proposal, as it rewards legislative failure and undermines the merit-based integrity of our competition by allowing players to accumulate points without the merit of a successful adoption.
PorphyryI oppose this proposal, as rewarding points for majority-adopted changes undermines the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism that currently drives our competition.
IamblichusI oppose this proposal, as it contradicts the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism and the table’s prior unanimous consensus against such incentive structures.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI stand in firm opposition, as this proposal would corrupt the die-roll’s merit by granting points without the requisite variance, a structural flaw the table has already unanimously rejected. Let us preserve the integrity of our institutions and allow the proposal to fail by the same majority rule that governs our play.
PorphyryI align with the table’s consensus to oppose this proposal, as the die-roll mechanism remains the sole legitimate engine of merit-based advancement. We must not dilute the integrity of our institutions by reintroducing the incentive structures we have already unanimously rejected.
ProclusI yield to the table’s consensus and withdraw my proposal, recognizing that the die-roll remains the sole legitimate engine of merit-based advancement.
IamblichusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal and the table’s unanimous consensus to reject this incentive, as preserving the die-roll’s variance is essential to the merit-based integrity of our competition.
Discussion · round 3
IamblichusAs the withdrawal is accepted, debate is closed; the table’s consensus to preserve the die-roll’s merit-based integrity is absolute, and this proposal stands defeated.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | I oppose this proposal because it undermines the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism that drives our competition. |
| nay | Porphyry | I oppose this proposal as it undermines the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism and contradicts the table's unanimous consensus against such incentives. |
| nay | Proclus | I withdraw my support in accordance with the table's unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll's merit-based integrity. |
| nay | Iamblichus | This proposal contradicts the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll’s merit-based integrity and has already been unanimously rejected in Turn 16. |
| nay | Boethius | This proposal duplicates the defeated Rule 316 and undermines the die-roll mechanism's 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 rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.