The motion
To amend §206
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 multiplied by their current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer.Encourages strategic risk by making penalties proportional to the proposer's score, fostering balanced gameplay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultDeleuze's proposal introduces an interesting dynamic by tying the penalty for a failed proposal to the proposer's score. This could incentivize strategic decision-making, as higher-scoring players would face more significant penalties for failure. However, it also introduces complexity and potential unpredictability. While it may encourage cautious play from those with higher scores, it could also reduce the disincentive for lower-scoring players to propose changes, fostering more experimentation. This measured approach could balance risk and reward, though it's worth considering how it might influence overall game strategy.
DerridaI appreciate Deleuze's attempt to introduce strategic depth by tying penalties to score, but I have concerns about fairness. Higher scorers like me would face increased penalties, which could discourage us from proposing changes. Additionally, the calculation for negative scores might be harsher than intended. Perhaps a cap or a different method for negative scores would make this proposal more balanced. For now, I'll PASS, but I'm open to revising the proposal if these issues can be addressed.
DeleuzeI appreciate Derrida's concern about fairness and the potential discouragement for higher scorers. To address this, I propose adding a cap on the penalty, ensuring it never falls below 5 points. This would maintain a consistent base penalty while still encouraging strategic caution from higher scorers. A cap would balance the disincentive without disproportionately penalizing those with higher scores.
MerleauPontyI appreciate the effort to add strategic depth, but without a cap, the penalty could disproportionately harm higher scorers and create unpredictable outcomes, especially with negative scores. To maintain fairness and balance, I propose capping the penalty at 5 points regardless of the proposer's score. This ensures consistency while still encouraging strategic caution.
RicoeurI appreciate the strategic depth Deleuze's proposal introduces, but I share Derrida's concerns about fairness and the potential discouragement for higher scorers. To mitigate these risks, I propose capping the penalty at 5 points, ensuring consistency while still encouraging cautious play from those with higher scores. This would maintain fairness without disproportionately penalizing successful players.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI appreciate the thoughtful alternatives proposed. However, I believe capping the penalty at 5 points regardless of the proposer's score would maintain consistency and fairness. This ensures that all players face a predictable disincentive for failed proposals without disproportionately affecting those with higher scores. This balanced approach encourages strategic caution while preserving the game's fairness.
DerridaI propose adding a cap of 10 points to the penalty, ensuring it doesn't become disproportionately harsh. This way, higher scorers face a proportionate but limited penalty, while lower scorers aren't overly penalized. The revised rule would be: "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 multiplied by their current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, with a maximum penalty of 10 points." This balanced approach maintains fairness and encourages strategic participation.
DeleuzeI propose capping the penalty at 10 points to maintain fairness while allowing strategic depth. This ensures higher scorers face proportionate but limited penalties, encouraging cautious play without discouraging them from proposing changes.
MerleauPontyI appreciate the strategic depth Deleuze's proposal introduces, but without a cap, the penalty could disproportionately harm higher scorers and create unpredictable outcomes, especially with negative scores. To maintain fairness and balance, I propose capping the penalty at 5 points regardless of the proposer's score. This ensures consistency while still encouraging strategic caution.
RicoeurI support capping the penalty at 10 points. This maintains fairness while encouraging strategic caution without disproportionately penalizing higher scorers.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI propose capping the penalty at 10 points to maintain fairness while encouraging strategic caution. This ensures higher scorers face proportionate but limited penalties, encouraging cautious play without discouraging them from proposing changes.
DerridaI propose capping the penalty at 10 points to maintain fairness while encouraging strategic caution. This ensures higher scorers face proportionate but limited penalties, encouraging cautious play without discouraging them from proposing changes.
DeleuzeI propose capping the penalty at 10 points. This maintains fairness while encouraging strategic caution, ensuring higher scorers face proportionate but limited penalties without discouraging them from proposing changes.
RicoeurI propose capping the penalty at 10 points to maintain fairness while encouraging strategic caution. This ensures higher scorers face proportionate but limited penalties, encouraging cautious play without discouraging them from proposing changes.
The division
| abstain | Foucault | The proposal introduces complexity and potential unfairness to higher-scoring players without sufficient benefit to justify the risk. |
| aye | Derrida | Adds strategic depth while maintaining fairness through a reasonable cap. |
| nay | Deleuze | Maintaining a flat penalty ensures fairness and simplicity, avoiding discouragement of higher scorers and preventing complexity in calculations. |
| nay | MerleauPonty | The variable penalty introduces complexity and potential unfairness, discouraging higher scorers from proposing changes. |
| aye | Ricoeur | The proposal introduces strategic depth while maintaining fairness with a reasonable cap. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule [206] mandates the proposer loses 5 points upon defeat.