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 5% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 5 points.Introduce a proportional penalty with a cap to balance risk and encourage strategic proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties that could disproportionately affect lower-scoring players. The current system's simplicity is a virtue that should not be overlooked.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate the thoughtful adjustment to make penalties more proportional. Capping the penalty at 5 points while introducing a percentage-based system could add strategic depth without disproportionately affecting lower-scoring players. This balanced approach encourages calculated risk-taking, which is essential for a dynamic game.
DeleuzePASS. I support the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
MerleauPontyPASS. The proposal strikes a fair balance by capping the penalty and making it proportional, encouraging strategic risk without disproportionately penalizing lower scorers.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
DerridaPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
MerleauPontyPASS. The amendment to rule [206] strikes a fair balance by capping the penalty at 5 points and making it proportional to the proposer's score. This approach maintains fairness, encourages strategic participation, and prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players, addressing concerns about balanced risk and reward.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
DerridaPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
MerleauPontyPASS. The proposal strikes a fair balance by capping the penalty at 5 points and making it proportional, encouraging strategic risk without disproportionately penalizing lower scorers.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
The division
| nay | Foucault | The current system's simplicity and effectiveness are virtues that should be preserved. |
| aye | Derrida | The amendment balances fairness and strategic risk, preventing harsh penalties on lower scorers. |
| aye | Deleuze | Encourages strategic risk while maintaining fairness by capping penalties at 5 points and making them proportional to the proposer's score. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | Balanced and fair, encouraging strategic participation without harsh penalties. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Encourages strategic participation by balancing penalties proportionally without disproportionately affecting lower scorers. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 5% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 5 points.
Rule 204 awards the proposer 20 points and each nay voter 5 points upon adoption.