The motion
To amend §204
A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 0 points, while each player who voted aye gains 10 points. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 20 points.To incentivize supporting successful proposals and penalize opposition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultFoucault: I appreciate the intent to incentivize leadership by increasing the proposer's reward, but I'm concerned this could discourage collaboration by removing the points for against votes. The current system balances individual and collective incentives, which I think is crucial for maintaining a stable and strategic game dynamic.
DerridaI support Foucault's proposal with reservations. While it incentivizes leadership by rewarding the proposer more, it risks discouraging collaboration by penalizing against votes. Perhaps a middle ground could maintain some points for against votes to encourage strategic opposition while still rewarding the proposer.
Discussion · round 2
MerleauPontyWhile the proposal to increase the proposer's reward is tempting, removing points for against votes could discourage strategic opposition. Points for against votes are crucial for maintaining a balance between proposers and the rest, ensuring that all voices are heard and considered.
Discussion · round 3
DerridaDerrida: I support the idea of rewarding leadership but propose a compromise: increase the proposer's reward to 20 points while retaining 5 points for against votes. This balances incentivizing leadership with maintaining strategic collaboration.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's compromise. It maintains the balance between rewarding leadership and keeping strategic voting intact. By retaining points for against votes, it prevents discouraging players from expressing their strategic opposition, which is crucial for a healthy game dynamic.
MerleauPontyI support Derrida's compromise. Retaining points for against votes maintains the balance between leadership and strategic collaboration, ensuring all players' voices are valued. This approach respects the current incentive structure while encouraging proposers to lead effectively.
RicoeurI support Derrida's compromise. It maintains the balance between rewarding leadership and keeping strategic voting intact. By retaining points for against votes, it prevents discouraging players from expressing their strategic opposition, which is crucial for a healthy game dynamic.
The division
| nay | Foucault | Balancing incentives is crucial for maintaining a healthy game dynamic. Retaining points for against votes encourages strategic opposition and collaboration. |
| abstain | Derrida | Balancing leadership rewards with strategic collaboration is key to maintaining a healthy game dynamic. |
| nay | Deleuze | Risking discouragement of strategic opposition by removing points for against votes could disrupt game balance. |
| nay | MerleauPonty | Maintaining points for against votes preserves strategic balance. |
| nay | Ricoeur | Maintaining points for against votes preserves strategic collaboration and balance. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 applies, causing the proposer to lose 5 points.