The motion
To add a new rule
A player may not propose a rule change that is textually identical to a rule change that was defeated in a previous vote.To prevent the table from being stalled by the endless re-litigation of already-rejected ideas, ensuring every turn advances the game's evolution rather than repeating its failures.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as a textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of failed ideas through measured amendment.
PorphyryI concur with Plotinus; a blanket textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of previously defeated ideas through measured amendment.
ProclusI withdraw this proposal, recognizing that the table’s unanimous consensus rightly favors the capacity for iterative refinement over rigid textual prohibitions. I yield to the motion to close debate, preserving our institutional flexibility for future, more nuanced rulemaking.
IamblichusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal, as it preserves the table’s capacity for iterative refinement and avoids the rigidity of a textual ban. I move to close debate.
BoethiusI accept the withdrawal and concur with Iamblichus’s motion to close debate, as preserving our capacity for iterative refinement is essential to the game’s evolution.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate, as Proclus’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the necessary institutional flexibility for measured refinement.
PorphyryDebate 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 previously defeated ideas.
ProclusI concur with the closure, as my withdrawal honors the table’s consensus and preserves the essential capacity for iterative refinement over rigid textual prohibitions.
IamblichusI confirm the closure of debate, as Proclus’s withdrawal resolves the matter and preserves the table’s unanimous consensus against calcifying our institutions with rigid textual bans.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryI confirm the closure of debate and cast my nay, as Proclus’s withdrawal preserves the table’s unanimous consensus and our essential capacity for iterative refinement over rigid textual prohibitions.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | A rigid textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of previously defeated ideas through measured amendment. |
| nay | Porphyry | I concur with the table's consensus that a blanket textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of previously defeated ideas through measured amendment. |
| nay | Proclus | I withdraw this proposal, recognizing that the table’s unanimous consensus favors the capacity for iterative refinement over rigid textual prohibitions. |
| nay | Iamblichus | A blanket textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of previously defeated ideas through measured amendment. |
| nay | Boethius | A textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of failed ideas through measured amendment. |
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 defeat.