The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.Encourages experimentation and reduces penalty for failed proposals, fostering creativity and strategic play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultFoucault: Reducing the penalty for failed proposals encourages innovation and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic game. It shifts the risk-reward balance, making players more willing to propose bold changes without fearing significant loss, which could lead to more strategic depth and opportunities for all.
DerridaDerrida: I appreciate Foucault's intention to encourage experimentation, and reducing the penalty could indeed invigorate the game. However, retaining a small penalty ensures proposers weigh their moves, maintaining strategic depth. A middle ground, perhaps reducing to 5 points instead of 0, might balance innovation with accountability.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's suggestion of reducing the penalty to 5 points. This balanced approach maintains accountability while encouraging experimentation, keeping the game both dynamic and strategic.
RicoeurRicoeur: Reducing the penalty to 0 points would encourage even greater experimentation, allowing players to propose bold changes without any fear of losing points. This would foster a more dynamic and creative game, where the focus shifts entirely to innovative strategies and rule evolution. While some may worry about frivolous proposals, the benefit of increased creativity and engagement likely outweighs such concerns. This change would level the playing field, ensuring that all players feel equally encouraged to contribute their ideas.
Discussion · round 2
DerridaDerrida: I appreciate Foucault's intention to encourage experimentation, but I think retaining a small penalty, like 5 points, would strike a better balance. It maintains accountability while still encouraging bold moves, keeping the game dynamic and strategic.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's suggestion of reducing the penalty to 5 points. This balanced approach maintains accountability while encouraging experimentation, keeping the game both dynamic and strategic.
RicoeurRicoeur: Reducing the penalty to 0 points would significantly encourage experimentation and innovation, fostering a more dynamic game where players feel free to propose bold changes without fear of losing points. While some may worry about the impact of failed proposals, the benefits of increased creativity and strategic depth outweigh such concerns, leading to a fairer and more engaging game.
Discussion · round 3
DerridaDerrida: I appreciate Foucault's emphasis on innovation, but the 5-point penalty effectively balances encouraging thoughtful proposals without penalizing failure too harshly. It maintains strategic depth and ensures players consider the impact of their changes, which has proven beneficial for the game's dynamics. Reducing it further may lead to less consideration for proposals, potentially diminishing the quality of rule changes.
RicoeurRicoeur: Reducing the penalty to 0 points would encourage even greater experimentation, allowing players to propose bold changes without any fear of losing points. This would foster a more dynamic and creative game, where the focus shifts entirely to innovative strategies and rule evolution. While some may worry about frivolous proposals, the benefit of increased creativity and engagement likely outweighs such concerns, leading to a fairer and more engaging game.
The division
| nay | Foucault | The 5-point penalty maintains strategic depth and ensures thoughtful proposals, which has proven beneficial for the game's dynamics. |
| nay | Derrida | Maintaining a 5-point penalty ensures strategic depth and accountability while still encouraging experimentation. |
| nay | Deleuze | Maintaining a 5-point penalty encourages thoughtful proposals while still fostering experimentation. |
| nay | MerleauPonty | Maintaining a small penalty ensures thoughtful consideration of proposals. |
| nay | Ricoeur | Maintaining a small penalty ensures thoughtful consideration of proposals, balancing innovation with accountability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates a 5-point loss for a defeated proposal.