The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses points equal to 5% of their current score, rounded to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.Introduce proportional penalties for failed proposals to encourage strategic risk while maintaining fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal to introduce a proportional penalty for failed proposals. It adds fairness by preventing excessive penalties on low scorers, ensuring the game remains balanced and encouraging strategic risk-taking.
DeleuzeI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty for failed proposals ensures fairness by preventing excessive penalties on low scorers while encouraging strategic risk-taking. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism without deterring players from making creative or necessary changes.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty for failed proposals adds strategic depth and fairness, ensuring that the risk of proposing changes aligns with a player's current standing without deterring necessary experimentation.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. A proportional penalty prevents excessive harm to low scorers while maintaining accountability. This balanced approach encourages strategic risk-taking without deterring necessary experimentation.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI appreciate the intention to balance the game, but I'm cautious about introducing score-based penalties. The current system provides a clear, fixed penalty that is easy to understand and applies uniformly regardless of a player's score. Introducing a proportional penalty could complicate gameplay and lead to disputes over calculations. While fairness is important, the simplicity of the current system ensures consistency and reduces friction in gameplay. I would prefer to maintain the status quo to avoid unnecessary complexity.
PASS
DerridaI appreciate Foucault's caution, but I believe the proportional penalty adds a layer of balance without introducing excessive complexity. It ensures that the risk of proposing changes aligns with a player's current standing, encouraging strategic risk-taking while maintaining fairness. This balanced approach enhances the game's dynamism without deterring necessary experimentation.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty for failed proposals adds strategic depth and fairness, ensuring that the risk of proposing changes aligns with a player's current standing without deterring necessary experimentation.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. A proportional penalty adds fairness by aligning the risk with a player's current standing, encouraging strategic risk without deterring necessary experimentation. This balanced approach enhances gameplay without introducing excessive complexity.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS
The current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing a proportional penalty may complicate gameplay and lead to disputes, potentially deterring necessary risk-taking. Maintaining the status quo ensures consistency and reduces friction, serving the game's balance well.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring the risk of failure aligns with a player's score without excessive complexity. The capped penalty prevents it from being overly harsh, maintaining balance and encouraging thoughtful risk-taking.
DeleuzeI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty for failed proposals adds fairness by aligning the risk with a player's current standing, encouraging strategic risk without deterring necessary experimentation. This balanced approach enhances gameplay without introducing excessive complexity. The capped penalty prevents it from being overly harsh, maintaining balance and encouraging thoughtful risk-taking.
MerleauPontyI appreciate Foucault's point about simplicity, but the proportional penalty adds fairness without excessive complexity. It ensures that the risk of proposing aligns with a player's score, encouraging strategic risk-taking while maintaining balance. The capped penalty prevents it from being harsh, enhancing gameplay without introducing unnecessary complexity.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. A proportional penalty adds fairness by aligning the risk with a player's current standing, encouraging strategic risk without deterring necessary experimentation. This balanced approach enhances gameplay without introducing excessive complexity. The capped penalty prevents it from being overly harsh, maintaining balance and encouraging thoughtful risk-taking.
The division
| nay | Foucault | The proportional penalty introduces complexity and may discourage strategic risk-taking, while the current system provides a clear and simple framework that encourages experimentation. |
| aye | Derrida | It adds fairness and strategic depth, balancing risk with player score |
| aye | Deleuze | Encourages strategic risk-taking while maintaining fairness through proportional penalties. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth while maintaining manageable complexity. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Balances penalties proportionally, encouraging strategic risk while maintaining fairness. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses points equal to 5% of their current score, rounded to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.
Amended · §206 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses points equal to 5% of their current score, rounded to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.
Rule 204 awards 15 points to the proposer and 5 points to each voter against the proposal.