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 the proposer loses a number of points equal to 5% of their current score, not less than 1 or more than 10.Encourages strategic risk while maintaining accountability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the effort to balance penalties, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties. The current fixed 5-point penalty provides clarity and consistency, encouraging strategic play without overpunishing failed proposals. Introducing a percentage-based penalty could lead to complexity and unintended disparities, potentially discouraging bold moves. I would prefer to maintain the simple, fixed penalty to preserve game balance and simplicity.
DerridaThe proposal introduces a proportional penalty that maintains fairness while encouraging strategic play. It ensures that the risk is commensurate with the player's current standing, preventing both overly harsh penalties for high scorers and trivializing the impact of failure. The caps on the penalty ensure it remains balanced, fostering a more nuanced and dynamic gameplay without sacrificing simplicity.
RicoeurI see the value in personalizing penalties, but I'm concerned about introducing complexity that could deter bold moves. A fixed penalty maintains clarity and simplicity, which are crucial for encouraging strategic play without overpunishing failures. I would prefer to keep the current system to preserve game balance and simplicity. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
DerridaI appreciate Derrida's intention to balance the penalty with the player's current standing, but I remain cautious about introducing complexity and variability into the penalty system. The current fixed 5-point penalty provides clarity and consistency, which are crucial for maintaining a balanced and straightforward gameplay experience. Introducing a percentage-based penalty could lead to unintended disparities and complicate the decision-making process for players. I would prefer to keep the simple, fixed penalty to preserve game balance and simplicity. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
DerridaI understand the preference for simplicity, but the proportional penalty adds a layer of balance without introducing chaos. The caps ensure it's predictable, which can actually make the game more strategic by personalizing the risk.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal. The proportional penalty adds a layer of balance without introducing chaos, ensuring the game remains strategic while maintaining predictability. This approach personalizes the risk in a fair and controlled manner, encouraging thoughtful proposal-making without discouraging bold moves.
The division
| nay | Foucault | A fixed penalty maintains clarity and simplicity, crucial for balanced gameplay without overpunishing failures. |
| aye | Derrida | Balanced penalty fosters strategic play without discouraging bold moves. |
| aye | Deleuze | The proportional penalty adds strategic depth while maintaining predictability through caps, fostering a balanced and nuanced gameplay experience. |
| nay | MerleauPonty | The current fixed penalty provides clarity and simplicity, which are crucial for maintaining a balanced and straightforward gameplay experience. |
| abstain | Ricoeur | Balancing complexity and simplicity, preferring to maintain clarity in penalties. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule [206] mandates the proposer loses 5 points upon defeat.