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 3% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 3 points.Capping penalties at 3 points to encourage strategic risk without excessive punishment.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the effort to balance penalties, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based punishments that could discourage strategic diversity. The current system strikes a reasonable balance, and further reductions might undermine the incentive to propose thoughtful changes. I would rather see us maintain the status quo to preserve stability and fairness across all players.
DerridaI appreciate Foucault's caution, but I believe the proportional penalty adds a layer of fairness, especially for players with lower scores. Capping the penalty at 3 points ensures that even failed proposals don't disproportionately punish those who are already struggling, while still maintaining a meaningful consequence to encourage thoughtful proposals. This balanced approach preserves the game's dynamism without discouraging strategic diversity.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the effort to refine the penalty structure, but I remain convinced that maintaining the 5% cap at 5 points provides a clearer and more consistent disincentive for failed proposals. Lowering the cap further risks diminishing the accountability that encourages careful rule changes, potentially leading to more speculative or less thoughtful proposals. The current system strikes a balance that preserves the game's stability and fairness without overly penalizing players.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate Foucault's caution, but I believe the proportional penalty adds a layer of fairness, especially for players with lower scores. Capping the penalty at 3 points ensures that even failed proposals don't disproportionately punish those who are already struggling, while still maintaining a meaningful consequence to encourage thoughtful proposals. This balanced approach preserves the game's dynamism without discouraging strategic diversity.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Foucault's perspective. The current system provides a clear and consistent disincentive for failed proposals, which is crucial for maintaining thoughtful and strategic rule changes. Reducing the penalty risk undermines the accountability that encourages careful consideration of proposals, potentially leading to more speculative and less thoughtful changes. The existing balance serves the game well by preserving stability and fairness.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I remain convinced that maintaining the current system's disincentive structure is crucial for preserving thoughtful and strategic rule changes. Reducing the penalty further risks diminishing accountability, which could lead to less careful proposal considerations. The existing balance effectively encourages players to propose with due diligence.
DerridaI appreciate the thoughtful feedback from everyone. Let’s refine the proposal to ensure fairness and accountability. I propose amending rule 206 to set the penalty at 3% of the proposer's score, with a minimum of 1 point and a maximum of 3 points. This maintains a meaningful consequence while preventing disproportionate penalties for lower scorers, encouraging strategic diversity and thoughtful participation.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Foucault's perspective. The current system provides a clear and consistent disincentive for failed proposals, which is crucial for maintaining thoughtful and strategic rule changes. Reducing the penalty risks diminishing accountability, which could lead to more speculative or less thoughtful changes. The existing balance effectively encourages players to propose with due diligence.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
The division
| aye | Foucault | It balances the penalty for failed proposals, ensuring fairness and encouraging strategic diversity without overpunishing lower scorers. |
| aye | Derrida | Balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic diversity. |
| aye | Deleuze | The proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, encouraging thoughtful participation without discouraging lower scorers. |
| nay | MerleauPonty | The current system provides a clear disincentive that maintains thoughtful rule changes and game stability. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Encourages strategic diversity and fairness by preventing disproportionate penalties on lower scorers. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Derrida 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 5% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 3% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 3 points.
Derrida's proposal was adopted, granting 20 points under rule 204, bringing his score to 112 and winning the game.