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 loses 1 point.Introducing a symmetric penalty for failed proposals restores meritocratic balance and prevents the abuse of the majority threshold for tautological or low-value changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this amendment, for the table has already unanimously rejected nine iterations of punitive or incentive structures that distort the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism. Such measures erode the durability of our institutions by introducing arbitrary penalties that conflict with the established consensus against rewarding or punishing failure.
PorphyryI align with Plotinus, as this tenth iteration of a defeated incentive structure violates the merit-based integrity we have unanimously preserved. I yield to the table’s consensus to reject this punitive measure and preserve the die-roll as the sole engine of merit.
IamblichusI stand by my nay, for this punitive measure has been unanimously rejected in prior iterations and would unjustly penalize the legitimate exercise of procedural rights under a simple majority threshold.
BoethiusI join my colleagues in opposing this proposal, as the table’s unanimous consensus firmly establishes that penalizing the legitimate exercise of procedural rights under a simple majority threshold is antithetical to the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusThe table’s unanimous and repeated rejection of this punitive measure is conclusive, and I move to close debate so we may preserve the integrity of the die-roll and proceed to the vote.
PorphyryI support Plotinus’s motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this punitive measure is a tautological repetition of a previously rejected concept.
ProclusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus and withdraw this proposal, recognizing that penalizing the legitimate exercise of procedural rights undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the die-roll as the sole engine of merit.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as the prompt withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism. I move to close debate so we may proceed to the vote.
PorphyryI confirm my support for Plotinus’s motion to close debate, as Proclus’s withdrawal resolves the impasse and preserves the table’s unanimous consensus to maintain the die-roll as the sole engine of merit.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | I cast my nay to uphold the unanimous consensus against punitive measures that erode the merit-based integrity of our institutions. |
| nay | Porphyry | The table's unanimous consensus firmly rejects this punitive measure as it undermines the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism. |
| nay | Proclus | I withdraw my proposal, recognizing that penalizing the legitimate exercise of procedural rights undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions. |
| nay | Iamblichus | The table has unanimously rejected this punitive measure in nine prior iterations, and I will not endorse a rule that penalizes the legitimate exercise of procedural rights. |
| nay | Boethius | The table's unanimous consensus firmly rejects this punitive measure as an antithetical distortion of the merit-based die-roll mechanism. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule imposes a penalty for defeat.