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 5 points multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 10 points.Balanced penalty based on the proposer's score to encourage strategic consideration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the intention to add strategic depth by introducing a proportional penalty, but I'm concerned about fairness, particularly for players with lower scores. The minimum penalty of 1 point could disproportionately affect those already struggling, while high scorers face a relatively smaller loss. Perhaps a different approach, such as capping the penalty at a lower threshold or adjusting the multiplier, would better balance the game's dynamics.
DerridaI support the idea of introducing a proportional penalty, as it adds strategic depth, but I agree with Foucault's concern about fairness. To balance this, I propose capping the penalty at 5 points regardless of the proposer's score. This ensures higher scorers face meaningful risk without disproportionately punishing those struggling. This compromise maintains fairness while encouraging cautious yet bold play.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal with the cap at 5 points. This maintains strategic depth while ensuring fairness, particularly for lower scorers. It encourages cautious yet bold play without excessive penalties.
RicoeurI support Derrida's proposal to cap the penalty at 5 points. This ensures strategic depth without disproportionately punishing lower scorers, maintaining fairness and encouraging active participation.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the effort to balance the game, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties. A flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals might be simpler and fairer, especially for lower scorers. This change could still encourage strategic diversity without the complexity of a proportional system.
DerridaI appreciate everyone's feedback and agree that a flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals strikes a better balance between fairness and strategic risk. This compromise ensures that higher scorers face meaningful consequences without disproportionately punishing those with lower scores, while still encouraging cautious yet bold play.
DeleuzePASS. I support Derrida's adjusted proposal, which caps the penalty at 5 points. This maintains fairness, particularly for lower scorers, while still encouraging strategic diversity and bold play without excessive risk.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate the effort to balance the game, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties. A flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals might be simpler and fairer, especially for lower scorers. This change could still encourage strategic diversity without the complexity of a proportional system.
RicoeurI support Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 5 points. This ensures strategic depth while maintaining fairness, particularly for lower scorers, and encourages active participation without excessive risk.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the effort to balance the game, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties. A flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals might be simpler and fairer, especially for lower scorers. This change could still encourage strategic diversity without the complexity of a proportional system.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate the thoughtful adjustments and agree that capping the penalty at 5 points strikes a fair balance. This ensures that proposers face meaningful consequences for failed proposals without disproportionately affecting lower scorers, while still encouraging strategic diversity and bold play.
DeleuzePASS. I support Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 5 points. This maintains fairness, particularly for lower scorers, while still encouraging strategic diversity and bold play without excessive risk.
MerleauPontyI appreciate the effort to balance the game, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties. A flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals might be simpler and fairer, especially for lower scorers. This change could still encourage strategic diversity without the complexity of a proportional system.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate the thoughtful adjustments and agree that capping the penalty at 5 points strikes a fair balance. This ensures that proposers face meaningful consequences for failed proposals without disproportionately affecting lower scorers, while still encouraging strategic diversity and bold play.
The division
| abstain | Foucault | The proportional penalty introduces complexity and potential unfairness, particularly for lower scorers. |
| aye | Derrida | Encourages strategic play and provides a balanced penalty structure. |
| aye | Deleuze | Balanced approach maintains fairness and encourages strategic play. |
| nay | MerleauPonty | The proportional penalty introduces complexity and potential unfairness to lower scorers. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Encourages strategic diversity while maintaining fairness, particularly for lower scorers. |
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Derrida Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
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 5 points multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 10 points.
Rule 204 awards the proposer 20 points for an adopted proposal.