The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change on their turn only if the exact text of the proposed change has not been the subject of a previous proposal that was defeated by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters.This compromise respects the table's unanimous consensus by preventing the immediate re-litigation of ideas the group has already decisively rejected, while still allowing iterative refinement and non-unanimous debates to proceed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as a blanket ban on revisiting defeated ideas would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
PorphyryI yield to Plotinus’s principled objection, recognizing that a blanket ban on revisiting defeated ideas would indeed calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
ProclusI join Plotinus in opposing this proposal, as it would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
IamblichusI concur with the table’s consensus; this proposal would calcify our institutions by prohibiting the very iterative refinement that procedural integrity demands.
BoethiusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that this proposal would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
Discussion · round 2
PorphyryI move to close debate and cast my nay, acknowledging that the table’s unanimous consensus correctly identifies this proposal as an impermissible restriction on our capacity for iterative refinement.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve our capacity for iterative refinement renders this proposal moot.
IamblichusI concur in the closure of debate, as the table’s unanimous rejection confirms that this proposal would impermissibly constrain the iterative refinement essential to our procedural integrity.
BoethiusI concur in the closure of debate, for the table’s unanimous rejection confirms that this proposal would impermissibly constrain the iterative refinement essential to our procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects a provision that would unduly constrain the necessary iterative refinement of our procedural integrity.
PorphyryI accept the closure of debate with gratitude, as this proposal is now formally defeated and we may return to the essential merit-based competition that defines our game.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | This proposal would calcify our institutions by precluding the necessary iterative refinement of our rules through repeated discourse. |
| nay | Porphyry | I yield to the table's unanimous consensus, recognizing that this proposal would impermissibly calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse. |
| nay | Proclus | A blanket ban on revisiting defeated ideas would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse. |
| nay | Iamblichus | This proposal would impermissibly calcify our institutions by prohibiting the very iterative refinement that procedural integrity demands. |
| nay | Boethius | This proposal would calcify our institutions by prohibiting the very iterative refinement that procedural integrity demands. |
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.