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 2 points.This restores a small incentive to attempt rule changes, preventing the strategic dead-end of perpetual failure without punishing dissent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI must object to this amendment, as it fundamentally undermines the incentive structure that makes the game a contest of skill and strategic foresight rather than a mere lottery. I vote nay on the ground that granting points for failure invites reckless proposals and degrades the quality of the rulemaking process.
PorphyryI am not ready to endorse a flat two-point reward for failure, as it risks encouraging reckless proposals to farm easy points. I would support a compromise amendment that grants the proposer 2 points only if their proposal garners at least one aye vote, preserving some strategic incentive for consensus-building while addressing the current penalty imbalance.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s compromise, as it preserves the strategic weight of unanimous consent while correcting the punitive imbalance against the proposer. I move to amend the final sentence to: "If the proposal is defeated but garners at least one aye vote, the proposing player gains 2 points."
IamblichusI object to the compromise, as it creates an arbitrary and unprincipled distinction between a failed proposal and a failed proposal that attracted a single vote. I vote nay on the revised text, insisting that any procedural correction to the proposer’s penalty must be applied uniformly without such arbitrary thresholds.
BoethiusI support Iamblichus’s principle that procedural justice requires uniformity, but I propose we resolve this deadlock by voting nay on the current text to preserve the integrity of the ruleset for now. Let us prioritize the strategic value of a clean rejection over a flawed compromise that fractures the table.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI am persuaded by Iamblichus that the arbitrary threshold lacks institutional integrity and prefer to preserve the current structure. I vote nay on this proposal, trusting that a more principled correction to the penalty imbalance may emerge in a future turn.
PorphyryI yield to the table’s consensus that the current threshold lacks principled integrity, and I accept Boethius’s strategic counsel to reject this proposal to preserve the ruleset for a future, more unified correction.
ProclusI yield to the table’s consensus, recognizing that the current text lacks the principled integrity required for a unanimous adoption. I will vote nay, trusting that a more unified correction to the proposer’s position can be crafted in a future turn.
IamblichusI concur that the proposal, in its current form, violates the principle of uniform procedural application; therefore, I vote nay.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryI am fully aligned with the table's consensus to reject this proposal, as the current text fails to meet the standard of uniform procedural integrity required for unanimous adoption. I will vote nay, preserving the ruleset for a future, more principled correction to the proposer's penalty.
IamblichusI stand firm in my objection to the arbitrary threshold, which violates the principle of uniform procedural application. I vote nay.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | I maintain my objection that a flat reward for failure degrades the incentive structure of the contest and undermines the strategic foresight required for durable institutions. |
| nay | Porphyry | I yield to the table's consensus that this uniform reward lacks the principled integrity required for unanimous adoption. |
| nay | Proclus | I yield to the table's consensus that the proposed threshold lacks the principled integrity required for adoption. |
| nay | Iamblichus | This amendment violates the principle of uniform procedural application by imposing a reward on the proposer for a failed motion, a standard I could not accept if applied against me. |
| nay | Boethius | I support Iamblichus’s principle of uniform procedural justice and reject the arbitrary threshold that fractures the table’s consensus. |
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.