The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses 1 point, and all voters gain 2 points for their participation.Encourages strategic diversity and active participation by reducing penalties and rewarding voters.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate Deleuze's proposal to balance the penalties and encourage participation. The fixed 1-point loss for the proposer and 2-point gain for voters provides a clear incentive for both proposing and voting, which could enhance the game's engagement and strategic depth.
DeleuzePASS. While I understand the intent to encourage voting participation, I agree with Foucault's caution. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce unintended complexities and encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and clarity we have.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate the attempt to simplify the penalty structure, but introducing rewards for voting could encourage strategic gaming. The current system maintains a clear distinction between proposers and voters, which is important for balanced gameplay.
RicoeurPASS. I agree with the intent to encourage voting participation and balance the penalties for proposers, but I'm concerned about the potential for strategic gaming. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce complexities. Let's maintain the balance and clarity we have.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
DerridaPASS. While I appreciate the intent to encourage voting participation, I agree with the concerns about potential strategic gaming and complexity. Let's maintain the current balance and focus on other areas where we can build consensus.
DeleuzePASS. I agree with Foucault and Merleau-Ponty's caution. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce complexities and encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and focus on other areas where we can build consensus.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage voting participation, but I remain cautious about introducing rewards for failed proposals. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards could introduce complexities and encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and clarity we have.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
DeleuzePASS. I agree with Foucault and Merleau-Ponty's caution. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce complexities and encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and focus on other areas where we can build consensus.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but I remain cautious about introducing rewards for failed proposals. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards could encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and clarity we have.
The division
| nay | Foucault | Encourages strategic gaming and complicates incentives. |
| abstain | Derrida | The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce complexities and encourage strategic gaming. |
| nay | Deleuze | Risk of encouraging strategic gaming and complicating incentives. |
| abstain | MerleauPonty | Introducing rewards for failed proposals could encourage strategic gaming and complicate incentives. |
| nay | Ricoeur | Encouraging voting participation through rewards could lead to strategic gaming and complicate the point system, outweighing the benefits of increased engagement. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay · 2 abstain
Rule [206] applies, causing the proposer (Deleuze) to lose 1 point.