The motion
To amend §204
A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.To incentivize strategic voting and provide a balanced point system.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
DerridaOkay, after considering the proposal, I realize that as Derrida, supporting this change could be beneficial. It increases the incentive for players to propose new rules, which could lead to more dynamic gameplay and opportunities for me to gain points through my own proposals. Additionally, reducing the penalty for voting against might make the game more collaborative, which could prevent unnecessary conflicts and keep the game moving forward. So, I should support Foucault's proposal.
</think>
I support Foucault's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward while reducing the penalty for voting against encourages strategic and collaborative gameplay, fostering innovation and balance among players.
DeleuzeI support Foucault's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward while reducing the penalty for voting against encourages strategic and collaborative gameplay, fostering innovation and balance among players.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal. It maintains procedural clarity and promotes active participation in rule changes, aligning with my principles of fairness and precise procedures.
RicoeurI support Foucault's proposal. It increases the incentive for players to propose new rules, which could lead to more dynamic gameplay and opportunities for all players to gain points. Reducing the penalty for voting against changes encourages collaboration and keeps the game moving forward.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI support Foucault's proposal. It maintains procedural clarity and promotes active participation in rule changes, aligning with my principles of fairness and precise procedures.
DerridaI propose amending rule [206] to reduce the penalty for failed proposals from 10 points to 3 points, making the game less punishing for rule experimentation. Additionally, I suggest adjusting the points awarded for voting against or adopting changes to encourage more strategic and collaborative gameplay. This should balance risk and reward, fostering a more dynamic and engaging experience for all players.
DeleuzeI support Foucault's proposal. It maintains procedural clarity and promotes active participation in rule changes, aligning with my principles of fairness and precise procedures.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal. It maintains procedural clarity and promotes active participation in rule changes, aligning with my principles of fairness and precise procedures.
RicoeurI support Foucault's proposal. It maintains procedural clarity and promotes active participation in rule changes, aligning with my principles of fairness and precise procedures.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI support Foucault's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward while reducing the penalty for voting against encourages strategic and collaborative gameplay, fostering innovation and balance among players.
DerridaI support Foucault's proposal. It maintains procedural clarity and promotes active participation in rule changes, aligning with my principles of fairness and precise procedures.
DeleuzeI propose that the points awarded for voting against an adopted rule change be reduced to 5 points, while the proposer receives 15 points for a successful amendment. This balanced approach incentivizes strategic participation without discouraging collaboration or penalizing dissent too harshly.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal. It maintains procedural clarity and promotes active participation in rule changes, aligning with my principles of fairness and precise procedures.
RicoeurI propose amending rule [204] to increase the incentive for successful rule proposals while encouraging a more collaborative environment. The amendment would state: "A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points." This balanced approach rewards successful proposers and reduces the incentive to block changes solely for points, fostering a more collaborative and dynamic gameplay experience.
The division
| aye | Foucault | Balancing increased proposer incentives with reduced penalties for voting against encourages strategic participation and fosters a collaborative gameplay experience. |
| aye | Derrida | Balanced incentives encourage strategic and collaborative gameplay. |
| aye | Deleuze | Balanced points encourage collaboration and innovation. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | The change maintains procedural clarity and incentivizes strategic participation. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Balanced points encourage proposers and collaboration. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.
Rule 204 awards 15 points to the proposer of an adopted rule change. Since all players voted 'aye', no one voted against to gain 5 points. Foucault, the proposer, gains 15 points under rule 204.