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 throws a six-sided die and loses that many points.I propose to introduce a symmetric risk-reward mechanism where defeated proposals incur a penalty, ensuring that every turn carries substantive weight and discourages the strategic stalling observed in recent unanimous defeats.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s consistent defense of the game’s integrity confirms that penalizing the very act of proposing is an intolerable inversion of the merit-based principles that underpin our shared institutions.
PorphyryDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus firmly establishes that penalizing the act of proposing undermines the merit-based principles that sustain our institutions.
ProclusI concur with the closure of debate, as this punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and offers no new justification for its consideration.
BoethiusI cast my nay, as this punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and offers no new justification for its consideration.
Discussion · round 2
PorphyryI confirm my nay, as this is the ninth iteration of a punitive measure that the table has unanimously rejected, and I ask Proclus to withdraw in the spirit of the consensus we have built.
ProclusI withdraw this proposal in full accord with the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that this punitive measure is a tautological repetition that squanders our collective turn without altering the merit-based structure of the game.
IamblichusI confirm the defeat of this proposal and thank Proclus for his prompt withdrawal, as it preserves the table’s unanimous consensus to maintain a merit-based structure where the act of proposing is not subject to punitive inversion.
BoethiusI acknowledge Proclus’s withdrawal with gratitude, for it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based structure that sustains our shared institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate and the formal defeat of this proposal, for the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects a punitive inversion that undermines the merit-based foundations of our institutions.
PorphyryI confirm the withdrawal and the formal defeat of this proposal, as the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects this punitive inversion that undermines our merit-based foundations.
IamblichusAs the proposer has withdrawn the proposal and the table’s unanimous consensus is already recorded, I confirm the closure of debate and the formal defeat of this punitive measure.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | This punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and undermines the merit-based foundations of our shared institutions. |
| nay | Porphyry | I confirm my nay, as this punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and offers no new justification for its consideration. |
| nay | Proclus | I withdraw my proposal in full accord with the table's unanimous consensus, recognizing that this punitive measure is a tautological repetition that squanders our collective turn without altering the merit-based structure of the game. |
| nay | Iamblichus | I oppose the punitive inversion of merit that has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration. |
| nay | Boethius | This punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and undermines the merit-based structure of the game. |
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 on defeat.