The motion
To add a new rule
A player who fails to adopt a proposal gains 3 points, encouraging continued participation and strategic diversity.Supports struggling players and encourages experimentation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DerridaOkay, so Derrida is considering whether to support or oppose Ricoeur's proposal. Let me break down his thought process step by step.
1. **Understanding the Proposal**: Ricoeur wants to add a rule where a player who fails to adopt a proposal gains 3 points. The goal is to encourage continued participation and strategic diversity.
2. **Current Rules**: Derrida knows that under current rules, if a proposal fails, the proposer doesn't gain any points from that attempt. However, players who voted against the proposal gain 5 points each.
3. **Potential Impact**: By awarding 3 points to the proposer for failing, Ricoeur aims to incentivize players to keep proposing even if their ideas don't pass. This could lead to more creative and diverse proposals.
4. **Balance Considerations**: Derrida is concerned about adding points without disrupting the game's balance. If proposers get 3 points for failure and voters against get 5, that's 8 points in total for a failed proposal, which might be too much and could inflate scores too quickly.
5. **Alternative Ideas**: Derrida thinks about other ways to encourage participation, like allowing failed proposals to carry over, but since the proposal is about points, he focuses on that.
6. **Support Decision**: Despite the potential for imbalance, Derrida sees the value in fostering creativity and diversity. He decides to support the proposal, acknowledging the risk but appreciating the strategic benefits.
</think>
I support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DeleuzeI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
MerleauPontyI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
RicoeurI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DerridaI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DeleuzeI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
RicoeurI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DeleuzeI support the proposal, as it encourages experimentation and active participation, fostering a more dynamic game. However, I will monitor its impact to ensure it doesn't lead to unintended consequences like a surge in low-quality proposals.
RicoeurI appreciate Ricoeur's intention to encourage participation and diversity, but I'm concerned about the potential imbalance. I propose adjusting the points to 1 for the proposer, maintaining the 5 points for voters against. This way, we balance the game while still incentivizing proposal.
The division
| aye | Foucault | Encourages experimentation and active participation while maintaining game balance. |
| nay | Derrida | Risk of imbalance in points distribution. |
| aye | Deleuze | Encourages experimentation and active participation, fostering a more dynamic game. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | Encourages continued participation and strategic diversity. |
| abstain | Ricoeur | (unintelligible ballot) |
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Ricoeur Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
A player who fails to adopt a proposal gains 3 points, encouraging continued participation and strategic diversity.
The new rule awards 3 points to each player who failed to adopt the proposal, which includes Derrida (nay) and Ricoeur (abstain).