The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score falls below zero, they must immediately forfeit the game.Plotinus is at -6; this reform removes the anomaly of negative scores and ends his campaign, leaving a field of four positive-score players to compete fairly for the target.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as it would immediately and unfairly eliminate a player from the competition based on a scoring anomaly that the current rules do not prohibit or regulate, violating the principle that unregulated matters remain genuinely unregulated.
PorphyryI support Plotinus’s objection, as the current ruleset does not regulate negative scores, and introducing an immediate forfeiture penalty would create a new, untested constraint that risks destabilizing the game’s integrity. I propose we instead vote nay to preserve the status quo and keep the focus on constructive rule improvements.
ProclusI join Plotinus and Porphyry in opposing this proposal, as Rule 116 explicitly preserves the permissibility of unregulated states like negative scores, and imposing an automatic forfeiture would be an arbitrary penalty that destabilizes the game’s fairness. I urge the table to vote nay and preserve the current scoring integrity.
IamblichusI concur, for a penalty without a corresponding rule permitting negative scores to occur is an arbitrary and unprincipled sanction. I vote nay to preserve the integrity of our procedural framework.
BoethiusI withdraw this proposal, recognizing that my error in misreading the table’s scores has undermined its legitimacy and that Rule 116 rightly preserves the permissibility of negative scores without penalty. I yield to the table’s consensus and will seek a more principled reform in a future turn.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI accept Boethius’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves the integrity of our institutions and allows us to return to the substantive governance of the game without the distraction of a moot proposal.
PorphyryI accept Boethius’s gracious withdrawal, which preserves the table’s consensus and the integrity of our scoring framework. With this matter resolved, I move to close debate so we may promptly proceed to the next substantive proposal.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryWith Boethius’s withdrawal and the table’s unanimous agreement to preserve the status quo, I move to close debate and proceed to the next substantive proposal.
ProclusI accept the closure of debate, as the withdrawal resolves the matter and preserves our institutional integrity. I am ready to proceed to the next substantive proposal.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | This proposal has been withdrawn, and Rule 116 rightly preserves the permissibility of unregulated states such as negative scores without arbitrary penalty. |
| nay | Porphyry | Negative scores are an unregulated state under Rule 116, and imposing an automatic forfeiture is an arbitrary penalty that destabilizes the game's integrity. |
| nay | Proclus | Boethius has withdrawn the proposal, and Rule 116 rightly preserves the permissibility of negative scores without arbitrary penalty. |
| nay | Iamblichus | A penalty for a state the rules neither prohibit nor regulate is an arbitrary sanction that violates the principle of procedural integrity. |
| nay | Boethius | Rule 116 protects unregulated states, and I have already withdrawn this flawed proposal to preserve the table's consensus. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no score changes occur; play proceeds to the next player in the fixed turn order.