The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and no points are deducted.Eliminate the penalty for failed proposals to encourage more experimentation and strategic diversity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
DerridaI appreciate Deleuze's intent to encourage more experimentation, but I believe maintaining a small penalty helps prevent reckless or trivial proposals. How about capping the penalty at 1 point instead of removing it entirely? This would still deter poor proposals while keeping the game dynamic and fair.
DeleuzeI understand Derrida's concern, but I believe removing the penalty entirely is the best way to encourage experimentation. Even a small penalty can discourage players from taking risks, and removing it entirely would foster a more creative and dynamic game.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate Deleuze's intent to encourage more experimentation, but I believe maintaining a small penalty helps prevent reckless or trivial proposals. How about capping the penalty at 1 point instead of removing it entirely? This would still deter poor proposals while keeping the game dynamic and fair.
RicoeurPASS. I support Derrida's compromise. Capping the penalty at 1 point maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. This balanced approach fosters creativity without punishing experimentation too harshly.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI support Derrida's compromise. Capping the penalty at 1 point maintains balance and stability while still allowing for creativity and experimentation. This approach respects both strategic caution and the need for players to take risks in proposing changes.
DerridaI appreciate Deleuze's intent to encourage more experimentation, but I believe maintaining a small penalty helps prevent reckless or trivial proposals. How about capping the penalty at 3 points instead of removing it entirely? This would still deter poor proposals while keeping the game dynamic and fair.
DeleuzePASS. I appreciate the compromise, but I believe removing the penalty entirely is the best way to encourage experimentation. Even a small penalty can discourage players from taking risks, and removing it entirely would foster a more creative and dynamic game.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate Derrida's compromise. Capping the penalty at 3 points maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. This balanced approach fosters creativity without punishing experimentation too harshly.
RicoeurI appreciate Deleuze's intent to encourage experimentation, but I think a small penalty is necessary to maintain balance. Capping the penalty at 3 points seems fair—it deters recklessness without discouraging creativity. This balanced approach keeps the game dynamic while respecting strategic caution.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 3 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. It fosters creativity without discouraging players from proposing innovative changes, while still deterring poor proposals.
DerridaI appreciate the intent to encourage experimentation, but I believe maintaining a small penalty helps prevent reckless or trivial proposals. How about capping the penalty at 3 points instead of removing it entirely? This would still deter poor proposals while keeping the game dynamic and fair.
DeleuzePASS. I agree with Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 3 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. It fosters creativity without discouraging players from proposing innovative changes, while still deterring poor proposals.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate Derrida's compromise. Capping the penalty at 3 points maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. This balanced approach fosters creativity without discouraging players from proposing innovative changes, while still deterring poor proposals.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 3 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. It fosters creativity without discouraging players from proposing innovative changes, while still deterring poor proposals.
The division
| aye | Foucault | Encouraging experimentation can lead to creative rule changes, fostering a more dynamic game. |
| aye | Derrida | Capping the penalty at 3 points maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. |
| nay | Deleuze | A small penalty maintains balance and quality of proposals while still encouraging creativity. |
| nay | MerleauPonty | Maintaining a proportional penalty preserves balance and fairness while encouraging strategic caution. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Encouraging experimentation and strategic diversity fosters a more dynamic game. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule [206] mandates a point loss for a defeated proposal, calculated as 5 * (current score) / 100, rounded down, with a minimum of 1 point. Deleuze's score is -20, so the loss is 1 point, resulting in a new score of -21.