The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or the lesser of 3 or (proposer's current score divided by 100), rounded down to the nearest integer.Caps the maximum penalty at 3 points and ensures a minimum penalty of 1 point to maintain fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the thoughtful approach to balancing the penalty. Capping the loss at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 ensures a modest deterrent without discouraging low-scoring players from participating. This measured adjustment aligns well with the goal of fostering strategic diversity and active engagement.
DerridaI appreciate Foucault's support and agree that this amendment carefully balances the need for deterrence with the encouragement of active participation. Capping the penalty at 3 points ensures that even low-scoring players aren't overly discouraged, while still providing a meaningful disincentive for failed proposals. This measured approach supports the game's dynamic and strategic nature, fostering an environment where players feel more inclined to propose innovative changes without fearing excessive penalties.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
DerridaPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
DerridaPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
The division
| aye | Foucault | Encourages strategic diversity without overly penalizing proposers. |
| aye | Derrida | Balanced approach encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers. |
| aye | Deleuze | Encourages strategic diversity by balancing penalties and fostering active participation. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | Encourages strategic diversity by capping penalties at 3 points while maintaining a minimum penalty of 1. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Balances penalties, encouraging strategic diversity without discouraging low-scoring players. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to 5 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 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or the lesser of 3 or (proposer's current score divided by 100), rounded down to the nearest integer.
Rule 204 awards the proposer 20 points for an adopted proposal.