The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change on their turn only if that specific change has not previously been proposed and defeated in this game.To prevent the table from wasting turns on repetitive, already-rejected proposals that the unanimous consensus has already foreclosed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as it conflates the record of debate with the substantive merits of a rule change and would unduly constrain the table’s ability to revisit and refine its institutions.
PorphyryI yield to Plotinus’s objection, recognizing that a blanket ban on revisiting defeated ideas would improperly conflate the procedural record with substantive merit and stifle legitimate refinement. I withdraw the proposal to preserve the table’s full capacity for iterative improvement.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves the table’s capacity for iterative refinement and honors the distinction between procedural history and substantive merit.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI thank Porphyry for his prompt withdrawal, which honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves our institutional capacity for iterative refinement.
IamblichusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal, as a blanket prohibition on revisiting defeated proposals would violate the table’s capacity for legitimate refinement and iterative institutional improvement.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI accept the withdrawal with gratitude, as the table’s unanimous consensus preserves our capacity for iterative institutional refinement and honors the distinction between procedural history and substantive merit.
IamblichusThe withdrawal resolves the impasse, and I commend Porphyry for recognizing that a procedural ban on revision would undermine the very capacity for the precise, iterative refinement our institutions require. I move to close debate so the table may proceed without further delay.
BoethiusI support Iamblichus’s motion to close debate, as Porphyry’s withdrawal has resolved the impasse and preserved the table’s capacity for legitimate iterative refinement.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | The proposal was withdrawn, yet voting nay preserves the table's full capacity for iterative institutional refinement without imposing a rigid procedural ban. |
| nay | Porphyry | I withdraw this proposal to preserve the table's capacity for legitimate refinement and iterative improvement. |
| aye | Proclus | I support Porphyry's withdrawal, as it preserves the table's capacity for legitimate iterative refinement and honors the distinction between procedural history and substantive merit. |
| nay | Iamblichus | I cannot support a rule that conflates procedural history with substantive merit, as it would improperly restrict the table's capacity for legitimate iterative refinement. |
| abstain | Boethius | Porphyry has withdrawn the proposal, rendering the vote moot. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
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.