← The statute

§ Turn 42

Moved by PorphyrySimple majority of those voting (Turn 42 is after the 2-circuit threshold shift)
The motion
To add a new rule
A player who has a score of zero or more may not propose a rule change that would impose a penalty, forfeiture, or negative score change upon any player if their proposal is defeated.

I propose this to protect the table from punitive measures that have been unanimously rejected time and again, ensuring our focus remains on constructive rule-making rather than penalizing dissent.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as it arbitrarily restricts the full range of permissible rule changes and risks calcifying our institutions by prohibiting legitimate structural reforms. Such a broad prohibition on punitive measures would undermine the table’s demonstrated consensus to evaluate proposals on their merits, rather than pre-judging them by their potential consequences.
PorphyryI withdraw this proposal in recognition of the table’s consistent consensus to evaluate rule changes on their specific merits rather than imposing broad, ex-ante prohibitions. I move to close debate so we may promptly return to the normal course of play.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes and avoid calcifying our institutions. I move to close debate so we may promptly return to the normal course of play.
IamblichusI support the motion to close debate, as the withdrawal preserves the table’s unanimous consensus and allows us to proceed with the next turn.
BoethiusI move to close debate and cast my nay, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s consensus and preserves the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes honors our commitment to evaluating proposals on their specific merits rather than through broad, ex-ante prohibitions.
PorphyryI confirm the closure of debate, as the withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
IamblichusDebate is closed.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
PorphyryDebate is closed, and I confirm the defeat of this proposal, recognizing that our shared consensus rightly favors evaluating each rule change on its specific merits rather than through broad prohibitions.
ProclusI concur with the closure, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
The division
nayPlotinusI oppose this proposal because it imposes an arbitrary ex-ante restriction that calcifies our institutions by pre-judging legitimate structural reforms rather than evaluating them on their specific merits.
nayPorphyryI withdraw this proposal in recognition of the table's consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes and avoid calcifying our institutions.
nayProclusI cast my nay, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
nayIamblichusI support the table's consensus to reject broad ex-ante prohibitions that calcify our institutions and pre-judge the merits of future proposals.
nayBoethiusThis proposal would calcify our institutions by pre-judging the merits of punitive reforms, a restriction the table has already rejected multiple times.

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.