The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and no points are deducted.Encourages experimentation and reduces penalty for failure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
DerridaI propose adjusting the penalty to be proportional to the proposer's current score, ensuring fairness and encouraging strategic risk-taking. This balanced approach maintains accountability while fostering innovation.
RicoeurDerrida's proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally ensures fairness and strategic depth. By tying the penalty to the proposer's score, it balances risk and reward, encouraging calculated risks without overly penalizing those who are already struggling. This amendment supports a more dynamic and balanced gameplay, fostering innovation and strategic thinking.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultThe current penalty of 5 points serves as a mild deterrent against frivolous proposals. Removing it entirely risks encouraging proposals that lack substance, potentially slowing the game. A proportional penalty could balance risk and reward, preventing those with higher scores from being overpenalized while protecting those with lower scores from excessive loss. This approach maintains fairness and strategic depth without discouraging innovation.
DerridaDerrida: I propose adjusting the penalty to be proportional to the proposer's current score, ensuring fairness and encouraging strategic risk-taking. This balanced approach maintains accountability while fostering innovation.
DeleuzeDerrida's proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score is a balanced approach that maintains fairness and encourages strategic risk-taking. It prevents overly penalizing those with higher scores while protecting those struggling, fostering a dynamic and balanced gameplay. This aligns with the goal of keeping the game fair and interesting for everyone.
RicoeurDerrida's proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score strikes a balance between fairness and encouraging strategic risk. It ensures that the penalty is equitable, preventing those with higher scores from being overly penalized while protecting those with lower scores from excessive loss. This approach fosters a dynamic and balanced gameplay, where players strategically consider their moves based on their current standing.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault: I appreciate the nuances of both proposals. Removing the penalty entirely risks encouraging frivolous attempts, while a proportional penalty maintains fairness without discouraging innovation. A proportional approach aligns with my preference for measured changes, fostering strategic depth without overpunishing players.
DerridaDerrida's proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score aims to balance fairness and encourage strategic risk-taking. It prevents overly penalizing higher scorers and protects lower scorers, fostering a dynamic gameplay where players consider their risk based on their current standing.
DeleuzeDerrida's proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score is a balanced approach that maintains fairness and encourages strategic risk-taking. It prevents overly penalizing higher scorers and protects lower scorers, fostering a dynamic gameplay where players consider their risk based on their current standing.
RicoeurDerrida's proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score strikes a balance between fairness and encouraging strategic risk. It prevents overly penalizing higher scorers and protects lower scorers, fostering a dynamic gameplay where players consider their risk based on their current standing.
The division
| aye | Foucault | Encourages experimentation and could foster more dynamic gameplay. |
| abstain | Derrida | To avoid disrupting the balance of the game and to maintain a fair penalty structure. |
| aye | Deleuze | Encourages strategic risk without over-penalizing failure. |
| abstain | MerleauPonty | Maintaining the existing penalty ensures a balance between innovation and accountability. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Encourages experimentation and strategic risk without discouraging innovation. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Derrida Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and no points are deducted.
Amended · §206 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Derrida Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and no points are deducted.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
The amendment to Rule 206 removes the penalty for defeated proposals. Since the proposal was adopted, the proposer (Derrida) gains points as per Rule 202, which awards points for successful proposals. The die roll outcome isn't specified, but the proposer gains points as per the rule.