The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 3 points. If the proposal was collaborative, the proposer loses 3 points and all co-signers lose 2 points.Reduce penalty to encourage experimentation and collaboration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultFoucault: I appreciate Deleuze's proposal to reduce the penalty for failed proposals, as it encourages more experimentation and collaboration without deterring players excessively. However, I believe the current penalty of 5 points provides a meaningful disincentive for reckless proposals, ensuring that players carefully consider their moves. Lowering it to 3 points might lead to a proliferation of less impactful proposals, potentially slowing the game's progress. I would support this proposal only if it includes a mechanism to maintain the current disincentive, such as a higher penalty for repeated failures or additional safeguards against frivolous proposals.
DerridaDerrida: I respect Foucault's caution, but I believe a 3-point penalty offers a healthier balance between experimentation and accountability. The current 5-point penalty may be deterring even thoughtful proposals, and a reduced penalty could encourage more collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness. Let us consider this change as a step toward fostering innovation and teamwork.
DeleuzeDeleuze: PASS.
MerleauPontySupporting Deleuze's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and experimentation. While the current penalty may deter thoughtful proposals, a 3-point penalty maintains a meaningful disincentive without stifling creativity.
RicoeurRicoeur: I appreciate the balance Deleuze's proposal seeks to strike. While the current 5-point penalty ensures thoughtful consideration, lowering it to 3 points could indeed foster more collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness. I support this change, trusting that players will remain cautious while embracing the opportunity for innovation.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI see the value in reducing the penalty to encourage more collaboration, but I still believe 5 points provides a necessary disincentive. However, given the trend towards fostering teamwork, I support this change with the understanding that it maintains a meaningful penalty while promoting innovation.
DerridaDerrida: I support Deleuze's proposal, as it balances the need for progress with respect for thoughtful consideration. The reduced penalty encourages experimentation while maintaining a meaningful disincentive, fostering a collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness.
DeleuzeDeleuze: I appreciate the concern for maintaining a disincentive, Foucault, but I believe the current penalty may be too severe, potentially discouraging thoughtful and collaborative proposals. Reducing it to 3 points strikes a balance that encourages experimentation while still deterring reckless submissions. This change supports the game's collaborative spirit without overpunishing failure, which I believe will lead to more dynamic and engaging gameplay.
MerleauPontySupporting Deleuze's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and experimentation. While the current penalty may deter thoughtful proposals, a 3-point penalty maintains a meaningful disincentive without stifling creativity.
RicoeurI appreciate the balance Deleuze's proposal seeks to strike. While the current 5-point penalty ensures thoughtful consideration, lowering it to 3 points could indeed foster more collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness. This change supports the game's collaborative spirit without overpunishing failure, which I believe will lead to more dynamic and engaging gameplay.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault: I appreciate Deleuze's proposal to reduce the penalty to 3 points, as it encourages more experimentation and collaboration without deterring players excessively. However, I believe the current penalty of 5 points provides a meaningful disincentive for reckless proposals, ensuring that players carefully consider their moves. Lowering it to 3 points might lead to a proliferation of less impactful proposals, potentially slowing the game's progress. I would support this proposal only if it includes a mechanism to maintain the current disincentive, such as a higher penalty for repeated failures or additional safeguards against frivolous proposals.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal, as it balances the need for progress with respect for thoughtful consideration. The reduced penalty encourages experimentation while still deterring reckless submissions, fostering a collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness.
DeleuzeDeleuze: While I respect Foucault's caution, the current 5-point penalty may be discouraging thoughtful and collaborative proposals. Reducing it to 3 points strikes a balance that encourages experimentation while still deterring recklessness, fostering a collaborative spirit without overpunishing failure. This change supports the game's collaborative spirit without stifling creativity, leading to more dynamic and engaging gameplay.
MerleauPontySupporting Deleuze's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and experimentation. While the current penalty may deter thoughtful proposals, a 3-point penalty maintains a meaningful disincentive without stifling creativity.
RicoeurRicoeur: I support Deleuze's proposal. While the current 5-point penalty ensures thoughtful consideration, lowering it to 3 points could indeed foster more collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness. This change supports the game's collaborative spirit without overpunishing failure, which I believe will lead to more dynamic and engaging gameplay.
The division
| aye | Foucault | The change supports fostering collaboration and experimentation while maintaining a meaningful disincentive against reckless proposals. |
| aye | Derrida | Encourages experimentation and collaboration while maintaining a meaningful disincentive. |
| aye | Deleuze | Encourages experimentation and collaboration while maintaining a reasonable disincentive. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | Encourages experimentation while maintaining a meaningful disincentive for failure. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Balancing experimentation and disincentive promotes a more dynamic and collaborative gameplay. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 3 points. If the proposal was collaborative, the proposer loses 3 points and all co-signers lose 2 points.
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: 2 top-level JSON objects found in model output — ambiguous, refusing to guess which is the answer: '\n\n{"score_deltas": {"Deleuze": 3}, "authority": 206}\n</think>\n\n{"score_deltas": {"Deleuze": -3}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Derrida", "win": null, "p [truncated])