The motion
To amend §204
A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 0 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.Encourages leadership by rewarding the proposer more handsomely while removing the penalty for voting against.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI would support MerleauPonty's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 20 points and eliminate points for voting against, as it encourages leadership and may balance the game dynamics better. However, I would caution that this could reduce strategic diversity, so careful consideration is needed.
DerridaI appreciate MerleauPonty's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 20 points, as it incentivizes leadership and bold rule-changing. However, eliminating points for voting against may reduce strategic diversity. Perhaps a middle ground could balance these aims, but I'll support the proposal as is, given its potential to encourage more proactive rule changes.
RicoeurI support MerleauPonty's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points incentivizes bold leadership and innovation, while removing points for voting against reduces disincentives for honest opposition. This change could foster more dynamic rule changes and strategic diversity, aligning with the reformist spirit of evolving the game.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI appreciate MerleauPonty's intent to incentivize leadership by increasing the proposer's reward. However, I believe maintaining some points for voting against would preserve strategic diversity and encourage balanced debate. Perhaps setting voting against at 5 points instead of 0 would strike a better balance, rewarding opposition without undermining the proposer's incentive. This compromise could foster both leadership and constructive opposition, aligning with the game's spirit of evolutionary strategy.
DerridaI appreciate the emphasis on rewarding leadership, but I agree with Foucault's caution. Removing points for voting against could reduce strategic diversity. Perhaps a compromise where voting against still yields 5 points would balance the encouragement of leadership with the value of strategic opposition. This would maintain the game's dynamic while incentivizing bold rule changes.
DeleuzeI support the compromise proposed by Foucault and Derrida. Setting voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points maintains strategic diversity and balances the encouragement of leadership with the value of opposition. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair for all players.
RicoeurI support the compromise proposed by Foucault and Derrida. Setting voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points maintains strategic diversity and balances the encouragement of leadership with the value of opposition. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair for all players.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI support the compromise proposed by Foucault and Derrida. Setting voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points maintains strategic diversity and balances the encouragement of leadership with the value of opposition. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair for all players.
DerridaI appreciate the proposed compromise to set voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points. This balance preserves strategic diversity, incentivizes bold leadership, and maintains fairness, ensuring the game remains dynamic and rewarding for all players.
DeleuzeI support the compromise proposed by Foucault and Derrida. Setting voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points maintains strategic diversity and balances the encouragement of leadership with the value of opposition. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair for all players.
The division
| abstain | Foucault | The proposal does not align with the discussed compromise to maintain strategic diversity. |
| aye | Derrida | Encourages bold leadership while maintaining the game's dynamic through strategic incentives. |
| aye | Deleuze | Increases proposer incentive while maintaining a clear outcome for voting against. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | Balances leadership and strategic diversity. |
| nay | Ricoeur | Balancing leadership with strategic diversity preserves game dynamics. |
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 0 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.
Rule 204 awards the proposer 20 points for an adopted proposal. MerleauPonty proposed and adopted the change.