The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may not be adopted if its text is identical to the text of any rule change that was defeated in a previous turn.This prevents the table from wasting turns on re-litigating identical defeated proposals, preserving our capacity for novel strategic evolution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, for it conflates the defeat of a specific textual iteration with a permanent ban on that principle, thereby stifling the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution. A rule’s merit must be judged on its current form, not by the shadow of its prior, defeated incarnations.
PorphyryI align with Plotinus, as a blanket textual ban would prevent the necessary iterative refinement that has historically allowed us to find viable compromises. I move to close debate and cast my nay, preserving our capacity for iterative rule-making.
ProclusI stand with Plotinus and Porphyry in opposing this proposal, for a rigid textual ban would stifle the iterative refinement that is the very essence of our institutional evolution. I move to close debate and cast my nay, preserving our capacity to revisit and refine principles as the table’s understanding deepens.
BoethiusI concur in opposition, for a textual ban would render the table unable to refine a principle merely because its first phrasing failed, stifling the very iterative evolution that strengthens our institutions. I move to close debate and cast my nay.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI second the motion to close debate, for the table’s unanimous opposition confirms that this proposal would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
PorphyryI second the motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous opposition confirms that this textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
IamblichusI second the motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous opposition confirms that this proposal would impose a rigid textual prohibition that stifles the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
PorphyryI cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
ProclusI stand by my nay, as this proposal would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
IamblichusI cast my nay, as this proposal would impose a rigid textual prohibition that stifles the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution, and I move to record the vote.
BoethiusI cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | A rigid textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text. |
| nay | Porphyry | A blanket textual ban would stifle the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution. |
| nay | Proclus | A rigid textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary iterative refinement that has historically allowed us to find viable compromises. |
| nay | Iamblichus | This proposal conflates specific textual iterations with principles, thereby stifling the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution. |
| nay | Boethius | A rigid textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text. |
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.