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, capped at 10 points.Encourages strategic risk by proportionally penalizing failed proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal as a thoughtful balance between fairness and strategic risk. It ensures that the penalty for failed proposals is proportionate to one's current standing, encouraging more active participation without overly punishing those with lower scores. This adjustment could foster a more dynamic and balanced gameplay.
DeleuzeI support Deleuze's proposal as it introduces a more proportional penalty structure. This ensures that the cost of failed proposals aligns with a player's current standing, fostering a more balanced and strategic gameplay dynamic.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal as it introduces a more proportional penalty structure. This ensures that the cost of failed proposals aligns with a player's current standing, fostering a more balanced and strategic gameplay dynamic.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. It introduces a more proportional penalty structure, ensuring that the cost of failed proposals aligns with a player's current standing. This adjustment could foster a more dynamic and balanced gameplay dynamic.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultOkay, now that I've thought through the implications, I should craft a response that highlights the benefits of Deleuze's proposal while addressing potential concerns. I want to emphasize balance, proportionality, and fairness, making sure that higher scorers aren't overly penalized and lower scorers aren't encouraged to take undue risks. I'll also note the proportional aspect, which could encourage strategic play without making the game too punishing.
</think>
I appreciate the intention behind Deleuze's proposal to introduce a proportional penalty. It ensures that the cost of failed proposals aligns with a player's current standing, fostering a more balanced gameplay dynamic. However, I would caution against negative penalties for low scorers, as it could exacerbate their disadvantage. Perhaps capping the minimum penalty at 5 points would provide a fairer balance. Overall, this proportional approach could enhance strategic depth while maintaining fairness.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal as a thoughtful balance between fairness and strategic risk. It ensures that the penalty for failed proposals is proportionate to one's current standing, encouraging more active participation without overly punishing those with lower scores. This adjustment could foster a more dynamic and balanced gameplay.
DeleuzeI support Deleuze's proposal as it introduces a more proportional penalty structure. This ensures that the cost of failed proposals aligns with a player's current standing, fostering a more balanced and strategic gameplay dynamic. However, I would suggest capping the penalty at a slightly lower point, such as 8, to provide additional protection for lower-scoring players and encourage their continued participation in the game.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal as it introduces a more proportional penalty structure, ensuring that the cost of failed proposals aligns with a player's current standing. This adjustment could foster a more balanced and strategic gameplay dynamic. However, I would suggest capping the penalty at a slightly lower point, such as 8, to provide additional protection for lower-scoring players and encourage their continued participation in the game.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal to introduce a proportional penalty for failed proposals. This change ensures that the cost aligns with a player's current standing, fostering a more balanced gameplay dynamic. To address concerns, I suggest capping the penalty at a slightly lower point, such as 8, to provide additional protection for lower-scoring players and encourage their continued participation in the game.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI support Deleuze's proposal to introduce a proportional penalty for failed proposals, as it adds strategic depth by aligning penalties with a player's current standing. However, I recommend capping the penalty at 8 points to provide additional protection for lower-scoring players, ensuring the game remains balanced and encouraging for all participants.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal as a thoughtful balance between fairness and strategic risk. It ensures that the penalty for failed proposals is proportionate to one's current standing, encouraging more active participation without overly punishing those with lower scores. This adjustment could foster a more dynamic and balanced gameplay. However, I would suggest capping the penalty at a slightly lower point, such as 8, to provide additional protection for lower-scoring players and encourage their continued participation in the game.
DeleuzeI support Deleuze's proposal to introduce a proportional penalty for failed proposals, as it adds strategic depth by aligning penalties with a player's current standing. However, I recommend capping the penalty at 5 points to provide additional protection for lower-scoring players, ensuring the game remains balanced and encouraging for all participants.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal as it introduces a more proportional penalty structure, ensuring that the cost of failed proposals aligns with a player's current standing. However, I would suggest capping the penalty at a slightly lower point, such as 8, to provide additional protection for lower-scoring players and encourage their continued participation in the game.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal to introduce a proportional penalty for failed proposals. This change adds strategic depth by aligning penalties with a player's current standing, fostering a more balanced gameplay dynamic. However, I recommend capping the penalty at 8 points to provide additional protection for lower-scoring players, ensuring the game remains balanced and encouraging for all participants.
The division
| abstain | Foucault | (unintelligible ballot) |
| aye | Derrida | It introduces a proportional penalty that balances strategic risk and fairness. |
| aye | Deleuze | Balances penalties proportionally to the proposer's score, fostering strategic gameplay without excessive punishment for lower scorers. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | Encourages strategic balance and proportional penalties. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Balanced penalty structure promotes strategic gameplay without overpunishing low scorers. |
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
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 5 points.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, capped at 10 points.
Amended · §206 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
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, capped at 10 points.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 5 points.
Rule 204 awards 15 points to the proposer of an adopted rule change.