The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is negative, they must immediately forfeit the game.This proposal is strategically self-defeating as I am at +1, and I propose it to test the table's commitment to the merit-based integrity of the current scoring system against punitive overreach.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, for the table has already unanimously rejected punitive measures against negative scores, and such a rule would arbitrarily end the game for a player merely experiencing temporary misfortune rather than strategic failure.
PorphyryI align with Plotinus in opposing this proposal, as the table has already unanimously rejected punitive forfeiture measures that undermine the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI join my colleagues in opposing this proposal, as the table’s unanimous rejection of punitive forfeiture in Turn 21 confirms that such measures undermine the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusI stand with the table in opposing this proposal, as the unanimous rejection in Turn 21 confirms that punitive forfeiture for negative scores undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that punitive forfeiture for negative scores undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI move to close debate and cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this punitive forfeiture undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyryI support Plotinus’s motion to close debate, as the unanimous consensus to reject this punitive measure preserves the game’s durability and respects the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI support the motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that punitive forfeiture for negative scores undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusI support the motion to close debate, for the table’s unanimous consensus to reject this punitive measure preserves the game’s durability and respects the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI declare debate closed and cast my nay, for the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that punitive forfeiture for negative scores undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | This punitive measure contradicts the table's unanimous consensus to preserve the game's durability and merit-based integrity against arbitrary forfeiture. |
| nay | Porphyry | I yield to the table's unanimous consensus to reject this punitive forfeiture, as it undermines the game's durability and merit-based integrity. |
| nay | Proclus | I oppose this proposal, as the table's unanimous rejection of punitive forfeiture in Turn 21 confirms that such measures undermine the game's durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions. |
| nay | Iamblichus | The table has unanimously rejected punitive forfeiture for negative scores, as it undermines the game's durability and merit-based integrity. |
| nay | Boethius | Punitive forfeiture for temporary negative scores undermines the game's durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions. |
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.