The motion
To amend §204
A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points, while the proposer gains 20 points. Each player who voted against gains 10 points.Balancing the incentives for proposers and voters to encourage strategic participation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultFoucault's proposal to amend rule 204 increases the points awarded to the proposer and those voting against a rule change. The reasoning is that this will incentivize players to take more risks and be more creative in their proposals, fostering a more dynamic and competitive game.
DerridaI appreciate Foucault's intent to incentivize creativity and leadership by increasing the proposer's reward. However, awarding 10 points to those who voted against might reduce the distinction between supporting and opposing a change. To maintain clarity and encourage decisive voting, I suggest keeping the proposer's points at 20 while leaving the others unchanged. This way, the focus remains on the proposer's contribution without diluting the impact of voting decisions.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultFoucault: I appreciate Derrida's emphasis on clarity, but I believe the distinction between proposer and voters remains intact. The proposer's increased reward highlights their unique role, while rewarding voters encourages engagement. This balance fosters both leadership and participation, enhancing the game's dynamism without muddying voting outcomes.
Discussion · round 3
RicoeurI appreciate the intention to balance rewards, but I'm concerned that increasing points for voting against might undermine the incentive to support necessary changes. Perhaps instead, we could focus on enhancing the proposer's reward while ensuring those who vote against aren't unduly rewarded for blocking progress. This would encourage leadership while maintaining clear distinctions in voting outcomes.
The division
| aye | Foucault | Increasing the proposer's reward encourages leadership and creativity, fostering a more dynamic game. |
| abstain | Derrida | To maintain clarity and avoid unintended incentives in voting behavior. |
| nay | Deleuze | Maintaining clear distinctions between proposers and voters preserves game clarity and prevents encouraging opposition for points alone. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | The proposal maintains procedural clarity and incentivizes leadership while encouraging participation, aligning with the game's need for balance and creativity. |
| nay | Ricoeur | Risk of undermining incentives for supporting necessary changes. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates the proposer loses 5 points for a defeated proposal.