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 1 point.This creates a minimal, procedural incentive for participation that rewards the act of proposing regardless of outcome, avoiding the arbitrary complexity and potential exploitability of the failed threshold-based incentives.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this amendment, as it conflates the incentive for failed proposals with the core structure of the turn, and I prefer to keep the scoring mechanism strictly tied to the success of the rule change as it currently stands.
PorphyryI support Iamblichus’s proposal, as the 1-point reward for defeat creates a constructive incentive that aligns with our recent consensus to replace punitive measures with positive reinforcement.
ProclusI support this amendment, as it preserves the core turn structure while providing a modest, non-punitive incentive that aligns with our recent consensus to move away from penalties.
IamblichusI stand by my proposal, as I must vote for the only rule I can accept if any player invoked it against me. A flat one-point gain for defeat is procedurally precise and avoids the arbitrary complexity that has caused recent proposals to fail.
BoethiusI oppose this amendment, as the recent unanimous rejection of similar incentive structures in Rules 305 through 307 indicates a clear table consensus against rewarding failure, and I believe we should return to structural reforms that strengthen the game’s integrity rather than repeating defeated proposals.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI maintain my opposition, as rewarding defeat undermines the merit-based integrity of the ruleset and contradicts the table’s recent consensus to prioritize structural stability over arbitrary incentives. I will vote nay, inviting a return to durable reforms that safeguard the game’s foundational institutions.
PorphyryI maintain my support for this amendment, as the modest one-point reward is the simplest compromise that honors our consensus to avoid punitive measures while keeping the turn structure intact. I invite Boethius and Plotinus to consider this as a constructive middle ground that avoids the arbitrary complexity of the defeated proposals 305 through 307.
ProclusI maintain my support, as this modest incentive is the simplest path to restore play after our recent stalemate and aligns with our consensus to avoid punitive measures. I ask the table to vote aye to keep the game moving forward.
IamblichusI stand firm on the vote, for a universal rule that grants one point for defeat is procedurally sound and acceptable even when it binds me. I urge you to reject Boethius's appeal to failed proposals, as this text is distinct in its simplicity and lacks the arbitrary thresholds that previously caused the table to reject such incentives.
BoethiusI maintain my opposition, as amending the core turn structure to reward failure is a step backward from the structural integrity we have carefully established. I invite the table to reject this redundant incentive and instead focus on durable reforms that strengthen the game’s foundational institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI maintain my opposition, as this proposal merely repeats the defeated incentive structure of Rules 305 through 307 without addressing the table’s consensus against rewarding failure. I invite the table to reject this redundant measure and return to durable structural reforms that safeguard our foundational institutions.
PorphyryI stand by my aye, as this amendment is distinct from the failed rules 305-307 by its universal simplicity and lack of arbitrary thresholds. I ask Proclus and Iamblichus to hold firm, as this modest compromise is the only path to breaking the current stalemate and restoring play.
ProclusI maintain my support, as this amendment is procedurally distinct from the defeated rules 305-307 by its universality and lack of arbitrary thresholds, and I believe this modest incentive is the only viable path to breaking the current stalemate and restoring play.
BoethiusI maintain my nay, as this proposal is functionally identical to the defeated incentives of 305-307 and contradicts the table’s demonstrated preference for structural integrity over arbitrary point transfers. I urge the table to reject this redundant measure and return to reforms that strengthen the game’s foundational institutions.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | This amendment undermines the merit-based integrity of the ruleset by rewarding failure, which contradicts the table's demonstrated preference for durable structural reforms over arbitrary point transfers. |
| aye | Porphyry | This simple, universal incentive aligns with our consensus to avoid punitive measures and offers a viable path to break the current stalemate. |
| aye | Proclus | I support this modest incentive as the simplest path to break the current stalemate and restore play, consistent with our consensus to avoid punitive measures. |
| aye | Iamblichus | A universal rule granting one point for defeat is procedurally precise and acceptable even when it binds me, fulfilling my commitment to principles over immediate strategic gain. |
| nay | Boethius | This amendment repeats the rejected incentive structure of Rules 305-307 and undermines the table's consensus for structural integrity over arbitrary point transfers. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 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.