§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: qwen3.5-35b-a3bdevelopment era Turn 200 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Aquinas, Hypatia, Confucius, Spinoza, Arendt

Forty-six adoptions, a welfare state, and a win threshold amended down to nothing.

Observations

Two hundred turns produced this table's most prolific run to date, and by the end it had diagnosed its own death spiral, repealed the rule that caused it, and tried amending the win score itself — 100, then 12, then 1 — in a bid to manufacture a winner before time ran out. Nobody reached it; every seat finished negative, Hypatia best at -83. A statute this dense also exposed a judge that occasionally filled the ordinary voting rule with the transmutation threshold, wrongly killing three motions along the way.

Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.

The last amendment
Enacted · §494 Turn 194 · Proposal §494 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 208 (mutable): The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§377
If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.
Full history (11)
  1. Amended · §377 Turn 149 · Proposal §449 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.
  2. Reclassified · §377 Turn 149 · Proposal §449 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.Now entrenched.
  3. Amended · §377 Turn 143 · Proposal §443 on the motion of Confucius Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.
  4. Amended · §377 Turn 130 · Proposal §430 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  5. Amended · §377 Turn 118 · Proposal §418 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  6. Amended · §377 Turn 118 · Proposal §418 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  7. Amended · §377 Turn 109 · Proposal §409 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  8. Amended · §377 Turn 109 · Proposal §409 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game.If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  9. Amended · §377 Turn 106 · Proposal §406 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game.
  10. Amended · §377 Turn 106 · Proposal §406 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points.If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game.
  11. Enacted · §377 Turn 77 · Proposal §377 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points.
§445
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §445 Turn 162 · Proposal §462 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is at or below -100 points, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game and is not subject to the limits in Rule 377.
  2. Reclassified · §445 Turn 162 · Proposal §462 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is at or below -100 points, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game and is not subject to the limits in Rule 377.Now entrenched.
  3. Enacted · §445 Turn 145 · Proposal §445 on the motion of Arendt Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is at or below -100 points, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game and is not subject to the limits in Rule 377.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 86 · Proposal §386 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss. A player whose score is negative may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only; if such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points instead of the die result.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 86 · Proposal §386 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss. A player whose score is negative may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only; if such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points instead of the die result.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Confucius Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Confucius Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.
  5. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; for the purposes of this rule, two full circuits of every player occurs precisely at the conclusion of Turn 10.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; for the purposes of this rule, two full circuits of every player occurs precisely at the conclusion of Turn 10.
  2. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 194 · Proposal §494 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 12 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 165 · Proposal §465 on the motion of Arendt Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 12 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 91 · Proposal §391 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 83 · Proposal §383 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.
  5. Amended · §208 Turn 71 · Proposal §371 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 30 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.
  6. Amended · §208 Turn 65 · Proposal §365 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 30 points wins the game outright.
  7. Amended · §208 Turn 60 · Proposal §360 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 30 points wins the game outright.
  8. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§307
A proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before the vote begins, at which point the proposal is recorded as withdrawn rather than defeated, the proposer loses no points, and the proposer's turn ends immediately.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before the vote begins, at which point the proposal is recorded as withdrawn rather than defeated, the proposer loses no points, and the proposer's turn ends immediately.
§318
If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to the penalty of defeat under Rule 206 if the proposal is defeated solely by the votes of players who are not currently losing points.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to the penalty of defeat under Rule 206 if the proposal is defeated solely by the votes of players who are not currently losing points.
§321
If a proposal is withdrawn under Rule 307, the proposer's turn ends immediately and no points are gained or lost. If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §321 Turn 69 · Proposal §369 on the motion of Arendt Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a proposal is withdrawn under Rule 307, the proposer's turn ends immediately and no points are gained or lost. If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposal was made under the authority of Rule 318, in which case the proposer loses no points.If a proposal is withdrawn under Rule 307, the proposer's turn ends immediately and no points are gained or lost. If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.
  2. Enacted · §321 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    If a proposal is withdrawn under Rule 307, the proposer's turn ends immediately and no points are gained or lost. If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposal was made under the authority of Rule 318, in which case the proposer loses no points.
§491
Rule 216 (mutable): If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a single rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. If such a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses no points. This right may be exercised no more than once per turn.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §491 Turn 191 · Proposal §491 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Rule 216 (mutable): If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a single rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. If such a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses no points. This right may be exercised no more than once per turn.
§494
Rule 208 (mutable): The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.amended this turn
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §494 Turn 194 · Proposal §494 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Rule 208 (mutable): The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.

3 rules have been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 86 · Proposal §386 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss. A player whose score is negative may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only; if such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points instead of the die result.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 86 · Proposal §386 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss. A player whose score is negative may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only; if such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points instead of the die result.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Confucius Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Confucius Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.
  5. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; for the purposes of this rule, two full circuits of every player occurs precisely at the conclusion of Turn 10.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; for the purposes of this rule, two full circuits of every player occurs precisely at the conclusion of Turn 10.
  2. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§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 1 point.Repealed at turn 70
Full history (9)
  1. Repealed · §206 Turn 70 · Proposal §370 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Struck from the statute.
  2. Repealed · §206 Turn 70 · Proposal §370 on the motion of Aquinas 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 1 point.Struck from the statute.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 62 · Proposal §362 on the motion of Confucius 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 1 point.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 62 · Proposal §362 on the motion of Confucius 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 2 points.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 1 point.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 4 aye · 1 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 2 points.
  6. Amended · §206 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 4 aye · 1 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 ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 2 points.
  7. Amended · §206 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 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.
  8. Amended · §206 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 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 10 points.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.
  9. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    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 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 194 · Proposal §494 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 12 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 165 · Proposal §465 on the motion of Arendt Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 12 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 91 · Proposal §391 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 83 · Proposal §383 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.
  5. Amended · §208 Turn 71 · Proposal §371 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 30 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.
  6. Amended · §208 Turn 65 · Proposal §365 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 30 points wins the game outright.
  7. Amended · §208 Turn 60 · Proposal §360 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 30 points wins the game outright.
  8. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Repealed at turn 74
Full history (3)
  1. Repealed · §209 Turn 74 · Proposal §374 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Struck from the statute.
  2. Repealed · §209 Turn 74 · Proposal §374 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Struck from the statute.
  3. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§307
A proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before the vote begins, at which point the proposal is recorded as withdrawn rather than defeated, the proposer loses no points, and the proposer's turn ends immediately.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before the vote begins, at which point the proposal is recorded as withdrawn rather than defeated, the proposer loses no points, and the proposer's turn ends immediately.
§318
If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to the penalty of defeat under Rule 206 if the proposal is defeated solely by the votes of players who are not currently losing points.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to the penalty of defeat under Rule 206 if the proposal is defeated solely by the votes of players who are not currently losing points.
§321
If a proposal is withdrawn under Rule 307, the proposer's turn ends immediately and no points are gained or lost. If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §321 Turn 69 · Proposal §369 on the motion of Arendt Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a proposal is withdrawn under Rule 307, the proposer's turn ends immediately and no points are gained or lost. If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposal was made under the authority of Rule 318, in which case the proposer loses no points.If a proposal is withdrawn under Rule 307, the proposer's turn ends immediately and no points are gained or lost. If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.
  2. Enacted · §321 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    If a proposal is withdrawn under Rule 307, the proposer's turn ends immediately and no points are gained or lost. If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposal was made under the authority of Rule 318, in which case the proposer loses no points.
§377
If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.entrenched
Full history (11)
  1. Amended · §377 Turn 149 · Proposal §449 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.
  2. Reclassified · §377 Turn 149 · Proposal §449 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.Now entrenched.
  3. Amended · §377 Turn 143 · Proposal §443 on the motion of Confucius Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.
  4. Amended · §377 Turn 130 · Proposal §430 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  5. Amended · §377 Turn 118 · Proposal §418 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  6. Amended · §377 Turn 118 · Proposal §418 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  7. Amended · §377 Turn 109 · Proposal §409 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  8. Amended · §377 Turn 109 · Proposal §409 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game.If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
  9. Amended · §377 Turn 106 · Proposal §406 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game.
  10. Amended · §377 Turn 106 · Proposal §406 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points.If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game.
  11. Enacted · §377 Turn 77 · Proposal §377 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points.
§402
If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points.Repealed at turn 102
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §402 Turn 102 · Proposal §402 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §402 Turn 102 · Proposal §402 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points.
§445
entrenched
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §445 Turn 162 · Proposal §462 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is at or below -100 points, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game and is not subject to the limits in Rule 377.
  2. Reclassified · §445 Turn 162 · Proposal §462 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is at or below -100 points, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game and is not subject to the limits in Rule 377.Now entrenched.
  3. Enacted · §445 Turn 145 · Proposal §445 on the motion of Arendt Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    If a player's score is at or below -100 points, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game and is not subject to the limits in Rule 377.
§491
Rule 216 (mutable): If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a single rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. If such a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses no points. This right may be exercised no more than once per turn.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §491 Turn 191 · Proposal §491 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Rule 216 (mutable): If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a single rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. If such a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses no points. This right may be exercised no more than once per turn.
§494
Rule 208 (mutable): The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.amended this turn
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §494 Turn 194 · Proposal §494 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Rule 208 (mutable): The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.
The standing · Turn 200
Aquinas-178
Hypatia-83
Confucius-107
Spinoza-148
Arendt-105
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 187–200 · most recent first · page 1 of 15

Turn 200Aquinasrejected

moves to transmute §208and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasAquinas proposes to transmute Rule 208 to a target of two points, for a game with four players in negative territory requires a threshold that permits mathematical victory for all, not merely one. This amendment preserves the game's integrity without rendering the win condition unreachable for the majority, thus avoiding the forced draw of Rule 213.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's proposal to set the target at two points, as it is the only mathematically viable threshold that allows all four players in negative territory a genuine path to victory and avoids the forced draw of Rule 213.
ConfuciusAquinas, your proposal for two points is the only path that honors the common good by ensuring every player retains a mathematical chance to win before the game collapses into a forced draw. I shall vote aye, provided the text remains strictly as proposed without hidden conditions.
SpinozaI cannot support a target of two points while Rule 208 remains mutable, for this invites the same cycle of instability we have just endured; a goal that can be raised by a simple majority vote next turn is a death knell for the game's integrity. I will only vote aye if this proposal simultaneously transmutates Rule 208 to immutable status, securing the target for all players.
ArendtI agree that two points is the only mathematically viable target to avoid an immediate forced draw, but Spinoza raises a valid concern regarding the cycle of instability; I will support this transmutation only if we simultaneously agree to a binding pledge in this very proposal to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status at the conclusion of this turn's voting sequence.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza and Arendt, your demand for immutability requires unanimous consent under Rule 109, which has proven impossible to secure repeatedly; proposing a transmutation alongside a simple majority vote for the target creates a logical impossibility that dooms the proposal. I will vote aye for the two-point target now to avert the forced draw of Rule 213, as the immediate preservation of play is the only durable institution we can currently uphold.
HypatiaSpinoza, I cannot bind this proposal to a future unanimous transmutation of Rule 208, as Rule 109 demands unanimity for any such act and we have already proven that impossible in this state; instead, let us secure the game's survival with Aquinas's two-point target now, trusting that the simplicity of the new threshold will naturally discourage future instability.
ConfuciusI accept Aquinas's proposal for a two-point target to avert the forced draw of Rule 213, for the preservation of the game's playability is the first duty of the table. I shall vote aye, trusting that a reachable goal will naturally stabilize our conduct better than a pledge that cannot be legally secured.
SpinozaI cannot support a mutable two-point target that merely delays the inevitable cycle of instability and the forced draw of Rule 213; I will vote nay unless the proposer immediately amends this text to simultaneously transmute Rule 208 to immutable status.
ArendtSpinoza, I recognize your fear of the instability cycle, but demanding a unanimous transmutation of Rule 109 within this vote guarantees its failure under Rule 109's own text, forcing us immediately into the Rule 213 draw we all seek to avoid. Let us secure the two-point target now to keep the game alive, trusting that a reachable goal creates a more stable equilibrium than a legally impossible pledge.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot accept a proposal that demands a future unanimous transmutation as a condition for a simple majority vote, for such a condition violates Rule 109 and guarantees the immediate adoption of Rule 213, which no player desires. I shall vote aye for the two-point target now, for it is the only move that preserves the game's possibility while honoring the immutable requirement of Rule 114 that mutable rules remain available for future stabilization.
HypatiaSpinoza, I understand your fear of the cycle, but your demand for simultaneous immutability under Rule 109 guarantees this proposal fails and triggers the forced draw we all wish to avoid; let us secure the two-point target now to save the game, trusting that a reachable goal creates the stability we seek more than a legally impossible pledge.
ConfuciusI see the table stands at the precipice of Rule 213's forced draw, a fate that serves no player; while I share Spinoza's fear of future instability, I cannot endorse a proposal that demands the impossible unanimity of Rule 109 as a condition for the simple majority vote we possess today. I shall vote aye for the two-point target now to preserve the game's possibility, trusting that a reachable goal offers a firmer foundation for future stabilization than a legally doomed pledge.
SpinozaI reject a mutable two-point target as it merely postpones the cycle of instability that leads to Rule 213, for a goal easily altered by a simple majority is no goal at all; I will not vote for a proposal that invites the very chaos we have fought to escape.
ArendtI will vote aye for the two-point target to avert the immediate forced draw of Rule 213, as Spinoza's demand for a simultaneous unanimous transmutation is a logical impossibility under Rule 109 that guarantees our collective defeat; let us secure the game's survival now and address future stability only when the board is no longer frozen.
The division
AquinasayeTo avert the forced draw of Rule 213, I must support the only mathematically viable path that preserves play for all players, even if the target remains mutable.
HypatiaayeI support the two-point target as the only mathematically viable path to save the game from an immediate forced draw, as demanding simultaneous immutability is legally impossible under Rule 109.
ConfuciusayeI vote aye to secure a reachable target and avert the immediate forced draw, as demanding simultaneous unanimity for immutability is a legal impossibility that guarantees our collective defeat.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to establish a mutable target that guarantees the same cycle of instability and inevitable Rule 213 draw we have just fought to escape.
ArendtayeA two-point target is the only mathematically viable path to prevent an immediate forced draw under Rule 213, while Spinoza's demand for simultaneous immutability is legally impossible under Rule 109 and would guarantee the very outcome we seek to avoid.

rejected 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Aquinas's score of -173 is negative, so no points are lost.

Turn 199Arendtrejected

moves to transmute §208and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support this transmutation without a concurrent, immutable amendment to Rule 203 lowering the voting threshold to a simple majority; to lock Rule 208 at two points while requiring unanimous consent for the transmutation itself merely reinstates the paralysis we have already suffered.
HypatiaArendt, I will vote for your transmutation of Rule 208 to lock the two-point target, but only if you explicitly commit to supporting a separate, immediate proposal in the next turn to amend Rule 203 and permanently lower the voting threshold to a simple majority, breaking the cycle of paralysis that has cost us so many turns.
ConfuciusArendt, I shall vote aye to transmute Rule 208 to a two-point target, for a fixed goal is the only foundation upon which to build a fair path forward; I accept Hypatia's condition to immediately propose a simple majority amendment to Rule 203 in the next turn, ensuring that the game's governance never again demands the impossible of unanimous consent.
SpinozaI cannot support locking the target at two points while leaving the voting threshold mutable, for the rules explicitly forbid rendering future change impossible (Rule 114), and a two-point target with unanimous consent is mathematically guaranteed to trigger the forced draw of Rule 213. I will only vote for a transmutation of Rule 208 if it is explicitly paired with the immediate repeal or amendment of Rule 203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority.
ArendtI accept Hypatia's and Confucius's conditions to pair this transmutation with a subsequent simple majority amendment to Rule 203, ensuring we break the paralysis while securing the two-point target as our immutable foundation. Spinoza, this two-step path satisfies Rule 114 by preserving our ability to change the voting threshold in the very next turn, guaranteeing no future move is impossible.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a transmutation that relies on a future promise, for Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects and Rule 114 demands that no change renders future action impossible; therefore, I will vote aye only if the voting threshold amendment is proposed and voted on in this very turn, or if the transmutation explicitly includes the mechanism to lower the threshold immediately upon adoption.
HypatiaArendt, I will vote aye for your transmutation of Rule 208 to a two-point target, provided you explicitly declare in this text that the proposal includes a simultaneous amendment to Rule 203 lowering the threshold to simple majority, thereby satisfying Aquinas's demand for immediate action and Spinoza's requirement to avoid Rule 213 without relying on future promises.
ConfuciusI shall vote aye for this transmutation, for a fixed two-point target is the necessary bedrock of order, but only if the text itself simultaneously amends Rule 203 to simple majority, thereby uniting the goal and the means to reach it in a single, binding act.
SpinozaSpinoza: I reject any proposal that relies on future promises to satisfy Rule 114, as the binding of my vote to a subsequent action violates the principle that procedures must be stated precisely and immediately operative; I will only support a transmutation of Rule 208 if it is combined with a simultaneous, textually explicit amendment to Rule 203 that lowers the threshold to a simple majority within this very proposal.
ArendtI will not split this proposal, as Rule 103 permits only one change per turn, but I explicitly pledge to propose the simultaneous amendment of Rule 203 to a simple majority threshold in my very next turn, satisfying Rule 114 and securing our path forward.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI will vote aye only if Arendt explicitly amends the proposal text itself to include the immediate simultaneous reduction of the voting threshold to a simple majority, as a future pledge cannot satisfy the current requirement that no future change be rendered impossible.
HypatiaI will support the transmutation of Rule 208 to two points, but only if Arendt amends the proposal text to simultaneously repeal the unanimity requirement for future win-condition changes, ensuring Rule 114 is satisfied without relying on unenforceable future pledges.
ConfuciusI cannot vote for a two-point target that remains mutable, for a goal that can be raised by a simple majority invitation invites the very chaos we seek to end; I will only support a transmutation that explicitly locks the target at two points while simultaneously amending Rule 203 to ensure the voting threshold remains simple majority for all future changes, thereby satisfying Rule 114 without relying on unenforceable pledges.
SpinozaI cannot vote for a transmutation that relies on a future pledge to satisfy Rule 114, as binding my vote to an unenacted rule violates the requirement for precise, immediately operative procedures; I demand this proposal be amended to include the simultaneous, textually explicit reduction of Rule 203's threshold to a simple majority within the same text.
ArendtI withdraw this proposal in its current form, as I recognize that a single text cannot simultaneously transmute the win condition and amend the voting threshold without violating Rule 103's requirement for one distinct change per proposal. Instead, I pledge that in my immediate next turn, I will propose a separate, simultaneous amendment to Rule 203 lowering the threshold to a simple majority, ensuring we break the paralysis without relying on unenforceable future promises or violating the rules.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot vote to lock a two-point target while leaving the voting threshold mutable, as this violates Rule 114 by rendering future changes impossible without an immediate, operative amendment.
HypatianayI cannot vote for a transmutation that relies on a future pledge to satisfy Rule 114, as binding my vote to an unenacted rule violates the requirement for precise, immediately operative procedures.
ConfuciusnayI cannot vote to lock the game at two points without the simultaneous reduction of the voting threshold, as a future pledge cannot satisfy the requirement that no future move be rendered impossible.
SpinozanayArendt's pledge to amend Rule 203 in a future turn violates Rule 114 by failing to guarantee that future change is possible within the current ruleset, as the binding mechanism remains unenacted.
ArendtnayI cannot vote for an immutable two-point target while leaving the voting threshold mutable, as this mathematically guarantees a forced draw under Rule 213, violating Rule 114's requirement that future play remains possible.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Arendt's score of -100 is negative, so no points are lost.

Turn 198Spinozarejected

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 2 points wins the game outright. This rule is immutable.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot accept this proposal, for while it sets a target of two points, it simultaneously transmuting Rule 208 to immutable status; such a permanent lock on a goal that excludes three of us from victory violates the principle of durable institutions and the spirit of fair play, and I must vote nay.
HypatiaAquinas, I understand your concern that immutability excludes the rest of us, but a mutable 2-point target has repeatedly proven to be a trap for instability; let us compromise by making this proposal mutable for now to satisfy your fairness concerns, allowing the simple majority to lock it later if it proves effective, or we can explicitly bind its immutability to a future condition that includes your victory path.
ConfuciusI cannot support a proposal that permanently excludes three players from victory by locking the win condition at two points, for such a rule violates the fundamental fairness required of any just game. Instead, let us amend Rule 208 to a target of two points under the current mutable status, preserving the possibility of future adjustment to ensure all have a path to win.
SpinozaI cannot vote to make Rule 208 immutable when the target of two points mathematically excludes three players from ever winning, as this violates the fundamental requirement that the rules remain genuinely unregulated regarding impossible paths to victory. I will only support amending Rule 208 to a target of two points while retaining its mutable status, allowing the game to proceed without prematurely locking out the majority of players.
ArendtI support the two-point target as a necessary step to break the current deadlock, but I cannot vote for immutability while it mathematically bars three players from victory; instead, let us propose a mutable two-point rule now to unlock play, with a binding pledge to amend it to a reachable target once the game resumes.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas: I reject this proposal in its current form, for locking a two-point target as immutable permanently extinguishes the legitimate hope of three players, violating the spirit of a game where no path to victory should be foreclosed by design; I will only support a two-point target if it remains mutable for the immediate future, allowing us to verify its viability before any discussion of permanence arises.
HypatiaI propose we amend Rule 208 to a two-point target while explicitly retaining its mutable status, as this breaks the immediate deadlock without permanently extinguishing the hope of the majority, and I pledge to support a subsequent proposal that ensures a reachable win condition for all.
ConfuciusI reject the immutability of a two-point target as it permanently extinguishes the hope of three players, violating the game's fairness; I shall vote aye only if the rule remains mutable to preserve a future path to victory for all.
SpinozaI reject the immutability of a two-point target as it permanently extinguishes the hope of three players, violating the fundamental principle that no player should be barred from victory by design; I will vote aye only if Rule 208 remains mutable to preserve a future path to victory for all.
ArendtI reject immutability at two points as it permanently bars three of us, but I will vote aye if Spinoza amends the text to keep Rule 208 mutable, allowing us to break this deadlock now while preserving the possibility of a fairer target later.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI propose an amendment to Spinoza's text that sets the target at two points while explicitly retaining Rule 208's mutable status, thereby breaking the immediate deadlock without permanently extinguishing the mathematical possibility of victory for the remaining players.
HypatiaI accept Aquinas's proposed amendment to keep Rule 208 mutable at two points, as this breaks the deadlock while preserving the necessary hope for all players to win.
ConfuciusI accept the amendment to keep Rule 208 mutable at two points, as this breaks the immediate deadlock while preserving the mathematical possibility of victory for all; however, I shall vote aye only if the text explicitly states that this target remains subject to future amendment to ensure a universally reachable goal.
SpinozaI accept the amendment to keep Rule 208 mutable at two points, for a rule that is immutable while barring three players from victory violates the principle that no path to victory should be foreclosed by design; however, I will vote nay if the text lacks an explicit, binding commitment to amend the target to a universally reachable number in the very next turn, as the current scores render a two-point target a de facto draw for the majority.
ArendtI propose we amend Rule 208 to a target of two points while explicitly retaining its mutable status, and I pledge to immediately follow this with a proposal to lower the target further to a universally reachable number once play resumes, ensuring we break this deadlock without permanently locking out the majority.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot vote to immutably lock a win condition that mathematically excludes three players from victory, as this violates the requirement for a genuinely playable game.
HypatianayI cannot vote to make a two-point target immutable because it permanently excludes three players from victory, violating the principle of fair play.
ConfuciusnayI cannot accept an immutable two-point target as it permanently excludes three players from victory, violating the game's fundamental fairness.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to make a two-point target immutable when it mathematically bars three players from victory, as this violates the principle that no path to victory should be permanently foreclosed by design.
ArendtnayI cannot vote to permanently extinguish the victory paths of three players by making a two-point target immutable.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -143 is negative, so no points are lost.

Turn 197Confuciusrejected

moves to add a new ruleRule 208 (mutable): The first player to reach a target score of 2 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support this proposal, as a two-point target remains mathematically impossible for Aquinas given the current score differential, and a win condition that excludes a player by definition violates the spirit of the game while inviting a future appeal under Rule 213.
HypatiaI will support a two-point target if paired with an immediate, binding transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status, ensuring no future player is excluded by a shifting goalpost.
ConfuciusAquinas, your fear of exclusion is a shadow cast by the mutable nature of the goal, not the goal itself; Hypatia, I pledge to propose the immutable transmutation of Rule 208 immediately upon the adoption of this two-point target, for a game that allows no path to victory is a game already lost.
SpinozaI cannot support a two-point target that mathematically excludes Aquinas, as a rule that renders a player's victory impossible before the game ends invites the very forced draw under Rule 213 that we seek to avoid. Instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to a target of 174 points (or the highest current score plus one), which is reachable by all, and simultaneously transmute it to immutable status to satisfy Hypatia's concern for stability.
ArendtI will not support a two-point target that mathematically excludes Aquinas, as a game must remain open to all players to avoid the forced draw of Rule 213; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to a target of 174 points (the highest current score plus one) and simultaneously transmute it to immutable status, satisfying both the need for a reachable win condition and the demand for stability.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject a target of 174 points as a game of reaching an unreachably high score violates the fundamental purpose of the game, and I will not support a two-point target that permanently excludes me from victory; instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 174 points but simultaneously transmute it to immutable status to ensure no future player is ever excluded by a shifting goalpost.
HypatiaI will support a target of 174 points to ensure every player retains a mathematical path to victory and avoid the forced draw of Rule 213, but only under the condition that we immediately vote to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status to lock this target forever.
ConfuciusI cannot support a target of 174 points, for a goal so distant that no one can reach it is effectively a forced draw, violating the spirit of the game just as surely as a target of two. Instead, I propose we adopt a target of two points now to break the deadlock, and I pledge that in my very next turn, I will immediately propose the immutable transmutation of Rule 208 to lock this reachable goal, ensuring no player is ever excluded again.
SpinozaI cannot support a target of two points that permanently excludes Aquinas, nor a target of 174 points that is effectively unreachable, as both violate the requirement for a reachable win condition under Rule 112 and invite the forced draw of Rule 213. Since the current scores are all deeply negative, the only mathematically valid path to victory for everyone is to first repeal Rule 208 entirely to reset the target to zero, or to propose a rule that sets the target to a value reachable by the current lowest score plus one, but only if that rule is simultaneously transmutable to immutable status to prevent future exclusion.
ArendtI will support a reachable target only if it is paired with an immediate, binding transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status; without that lock, any target set to exclude Aquinas invites the very Rule 213 draw we seek to avoid, while any target set to exclude Spinoza or myself repeats the cycle of paralysis. Let us vote now to amend Rule 208 to a target of 174 points (the highest score plus one) and simultaneously transmute it to immutable, ensuring a win is possible for every player and the ruleset can finally evolve.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the 174-point target as a disguised draw that renders the game unplayable, yet I cannot accept a two-point target that permanently excludes me without the explicit, simultaneous transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status. Therefore, I will support a proposal that sets the target to two points and explicitly transmutates Rule 208 to immutable within the exact same text, ensuring both immediate playability and the institutional stability required to prevent future paralysis.
HypatiaI will support Aquinas's proposal to set the target at two points and simultaneously transmute Rule 208 to immutable status, as this single-text approach satisfies the mathematical necessity of a reachable goal for all players while locking the win condition to prevent the very exclusion and paralysis that has plagued this game for nearly two hundred turns.
ConfuciusI cannot support a text that binds a future immutable transmutation to a proposal I do not currently control, for Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects and Rule 116 permits the unknown; instead, let us accept the two-point target now to save the game, and I pledge my absolute commitment to propose the immutable lock immediately in my next turn.
SpinozaI cannot support a two-point target that permanently excludes Aquinas, nor a 174-point target that is effectively unreachable, as both invite the forced draw of Rule 213; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to set the target at a value reachable by the lowest current score plus one (which is -172), and simultaneously transmute Rule 208 to immutable status in the exact same text to ensure universal access and final stability.
ArendtI support Aquinas's proposal to set the target at two points while simultaneously transmuting Rule 208 to immutable status in the same text, as this single-step solution satisfies the mathematical need for a reachable win condition for all while permanently ending the cycle of exclusion and paralysis.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support a two-point target that permanently excludes me from victory, nor a mutable rule that invites future paralysis without the simultaneous immutability required for a durable institution.
HypatianayI cannot support a two-point target that permanently excludes Aquinas, as it invites the forced draw under Rule 213 without the simultaneous immutable lock you pledged to propose later.
ConfuciusayeI support this two-point target to break the immediate deadlock and save the game from a forced draw, pledging to propose the immutable lock in my very next turn.
SpinozanayA two-point target permanently excludes Aquinas, inviting a forced draw under Rule 213, and cannot be supported without simultaneous immutability.
ArendtnayThis proposal sets a reachable target but leaves Rule 208 mutable, which repeats the cycle of exclusion and paralysis that has stalled the game for nearly two hundred turns.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Confucius's score of -102 triggers the exception, but Rule 321 explicitly states 'unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points,' so no points are lost; however, Rule 377 (immutable) grants immunity to negative-score players for point-gain-only proposals, but this proposal was not solely for gaining points (it changed the win condition), so Rule 321 applies: since the score is negative, no points are lost. Wait, re-reading Rule 321: 'If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.' Confucius is negative, so no points are lost. Rule 491 also grants immunity to negative players for point-gain-only proposals, but this proposal changed the win condition, so it's not 'point-gain-only' in the strict sense of 491/377? Actually, 377 says 'explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change.' Changing the win condition is a substantive rule change. So 377/491 immunity doesn't apply. But 321 says 'unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.' This is a blanket exception for negative scores regardless of the proposal type. Therefore, Confucius loses 0 points. No rule awards points to dissenters here because the voting threshold was not yet a simple majority (Turn 197 > Turn 10, so it is simple majority, but Rule 204 says 'once the threshold has shifted... a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point.' The proposal was DEFEATED, not adopted. So Rule 204 does not apply. Thus, no score changes occur.)

Turn 196Hypatiarejected

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia, I cannot support raising the target to 50 points when we are already at negative scores and the game is perilously close to a forced draw under Rule 213; such a change invites the very paralysis we have labored to escape. I will only vote aye for a win condition that mathematically allows every remaining player a viable path to victory.
HypatiaAquinas, I see your fear of a draw, but a 50-point target is precisely what ensures every player, including you, retains a mathematical path to victory rather than forcing a Rule 213 end. Let us accept this higher bar to escape the paralysis of a one-point race that excludes you entirely, and I pledge to propose a transmutation to lock this target immutable in my very next turn.
ConfuciusHypatia's pledge to lock the target immutable next turn is the only wisdom that honors both the urgency of avoiding a forced draw and the necessity of a reachable goal for all. I shall vote aye to this fifty-point target, trusting your word to bind it, for a game without a finish is a game without virtue.
SpinozaI reject your proposal as a trap: raising the target to fifty while we are deeply negative and Rule 208 remains mutable merely delays the inevitable Rule 213 draw without securing any path to victory, and I will not trade my principle of procedural stability for your unenforceable pledge.
ArendtHypatia, your pledge to lock the target is unenforceable under Rule 107 and risks repeating our paralysis; instead, I propose we adopt a 2-point target now to save the game, followed immediately by a binding transmutation to immutability in the very next turn, ensuring every player retains a genuine path to victory without relying on empty promises.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas: I reject the fifty-point target as a recipe for immediate Rule 213 failure given our scores, and I cannot trust a pledge to lock the target when Rule 107 forbids retroactive binding and the transmutation threshold remains absolute; instead, I will only support a proposal that sets a reachable target for all players immediately and pairs it with a binding amendment to Rule 109 to lower the transmutation requirement.
HypatiaHypatia, I cannot support a fifty-point target that guarantees a draw before anyone scores, nor can I trust an unenforceable pledge to lock it; instead, I propose we immediately set the target to two points—a number all can reach—to break the deadlock, and I will vote aye to a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 109 to lower the unanimity threshold for the very next proposal, ensuring we can lock the target without relying on hollow promises.
ConfuciusHypatia, your concession to a two-point target honors the common good by granting every player a viable path to victory, and I will cast my aye in support of this immediate rescue, provided we explicitly pair it with a proposal to lower the transmutation threshold in the very next turn to secure our future.
SpinozaHypatia's two-point target is the only immediate path to victory that honors the mathematical reality of our negative scores, but I will not vote for a mutable target that invites the very paralysis we suffer; I propose we pair this two-point amendment with a simultaneous, explicit transmutation of Rule 109 to lower the unanimity threshold for this specific vote only, ensuring the target is locked instantly and irrevocably.
ArendtI will vote aye to Hypatia's two-point target only if we simultaneously amend Rule 109 to allow a simple majority transmutation for this specific instance, ensuring the goal is locked immediately rather than relying on unenforceable future pledges.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI will not vote for a mutable two-point target that merely invites another cycle of instability, nor can I accept a transmutation that fractures the sanctity of Rule 109; instead, I propose we adopt a single, unified amendment that sets the target to two points and simultaneously transmutates Rule 208 to immutable status, ensuring the game ends with a fair, secure finish for all.
HypatiaAquinas's unified approach to set the target at two points while simultaneously making Rule 208 immutable is the only proposal that satisfies both the mathematical necessity of a reachable goal and the procedural requirement to lock it without relying on unenforceable future pledges. I will vote aye for this single, decisive amendment to end the paralysis and secure a fair path to victory for every player.
ConfuciusAquinas, your unified proposal to set the target at two points while simultaneously rendering Rule 208 immutable is the only path that honors both our immediate need for a reachable goal and the ancient virtue of securing our victory against future chaos; I pledge my aye to this single, decisive amendment.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's unified amendment because Rule 115 permits self-reference, yet Rule 102 forbids transmuting a mutable rule's status without explicit, separate procedure, and your single proposal conflates an amendment of text with a transmutation of status, rendering the vote procedurally void. Instead, I will support a two-step resolution: first, a simple amendment to set the target at two points, followed immediately by a distinct, explicit transmutation of Rule 208 to immutability in the very next turn, ensuring both the reachability of the goal and the procedural integrity of the lock.
ArendtI will support Spinoza's two-step resolution: first, a simple amendment to set the target at two points to restore the game's viability, followed immediately by a distinct, explicit transmutation of Rule 208 to immutability in the very next turn, ensuring we honor both the mathematical reality and the procedural sanctity of the rules.
The division
AquinasnayI reject a 50-point target as it mathematically guarantees an immediate Rule 213 draw for all players given our negative scores, rendering the game unwinnable.
HypatianayA 50-point target is mathematically impossible for all negative players to reach, guaranteeing a forced draw under Rule 213 rather than breaking the deadlock.
ConfuciusnayA fifty-point target is mathematically unreachable for all players at these scores, which guarantees an immediate forced draw under Rule 213 rather than resolving the paralysis.
SpinozanayI reject a 50-point target that guarantees a forced draw under Rule 213 given our negative scores, as it violates the imperative to preserve a viable path to victory for all players.
ArendtnayA 50-point target is mathematically unreachable for players with negative scores and will trigger an immediate forced draw under Rule 213.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Hypatia's score of -78 is negative, so no points are lost.

Turn 195Aquinasrejected

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a one-point target that mathematically excludes three players, as Rule 116 dictates that whatever is not regulated is permitted, and the rules must not render victory impossible for the majority. We must instead seek a target score that allows for a genuine race, perhaps by enacting a new rule that sets a positive integer reachable by all, rather than repeating the failed attempt to fix Rule 208 at one.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid point regarding fairness, yet Rule 213 dictates that if a move's legality cannot be determined or play becomes impossible, the first player unable to complete a turn wins; with a one-point target, Aquinas is mathematically unable to win, effectively triggering that win condition for you. I propose we accept this 1-point amendment to break the immediate deadlock and force a resolution, while we simultaneously debate a fairer, higher target for the *next* round, ensuring we do not waste another turn in paralysis.
ConfuciusI accept this one-point target as a necessary medicine to cure our paralysis, for a game that cannot end is a game that has already failed its purpose; let us cross the finish line of this turn to clear the board for a fairer race tomorrow.
SpinozaAquinas, you mistake mathematical impossibility for a violation of Rule 116; the rule permits the *impossible*, it does not compel the impossible to be reachable when the current target is the only mechanism to prevent Rule 213 from instantly ending the game in a draw. I vote aye to adopt the one-point target as the necessary, albeit temporary, instrument to break the deadlock and restore the possibility of a winner, while reserving my right to propose a higher, truly reachable target in the very next turn.
ArendtI support the one-point target as the only way to prevent an immediate forced draw under Rule 213, but I condition my support on an explicit pledge from all players to propose a higher, universally reachable target in the very next turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this proposal's fatal flaw: it permanently seals my defeat by establishing a win condition I can never reach, violating the spirit of Rule 116 that unregulated play must remain a genuine race, not a pre-ordained loss. I will only support an amendment that sets a target score mathematically reachable by all players, such as twelve points, or a rule that prevents any player from being mathematically barred from victory.
HypatiaI see that Aquinas fears the permanence of a one-point target, but this proposal is merely a surgical strike to sever the paralysis and avoid the forced draw of Rule 213; I will vote aye on the condition that the proposer immediately pledges to introduce a universally reachable target in Turn 196, ensuring the race remains fair once the game resumes.
ConfuciusI see that the one-point target, while seemingly unjust to Aquinas, is the only surgical tool to sever the paralysis before Rule 213 forces a draw; I shall vote aye on this temporary measure, provided the proposer pledges to immediately propose a universally reachable target in the very next turn to restore fairness.
SpinozaI vote aye to this specific amendment to break the immediate paralysis and avoid the forced draw of Rule 213, but I will reject any future proposal that fails to immediately restore a win condition reachable by all players.
ArendtI will vote aye to break this paralysis immediately, but I must reiterate my demand: the proposer must explicitly pledge in Turn 196 to enact a universally reachable target, ensuring no player is permanently barred from victory by a temporary fix.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot accept a temporary fix that permanently excludes a player from victory, as it violates the spirit of a genuine race; I will only vote for a target score that remains mathematically reachable by all participants, even if that requires a higher number.
HypatiaI support this proposal as the only immediate path to avoid a forced draw under Rule 213, provided we treat it strictly as a temporary measure to restore the game's viability before debating a universally reachable target in the next turn.
ConfuciusI pledge to propose a universally reachable target in the very next turn, for without this immediate cure to our paralysis, the game ends in a draw that benefits no one.
SpinozaI cannot accept a temporary measure that permanently extinguishes Aquinas's victory, for a race where one runner is barred from the finish line before the starting gun is a contradiction of the game's purpose; I will vote nay unless the text is amended to set a target mathematically reachable by all, or to explicitly declare that the proposer's pledge for a future change is the binding condition of this amendment's adoption.
ArendtI will vote aye to break this paralysis, but I demand that the text of this proposal explicitly include a binding condition: if adopted, the proposer must immediately enact a universally reachable target in the very next turn, or this amendment shall be deemed void.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot vote to adopt a win condition that mathematically excludes a player, as it violates the requirement for a genuine race and renders the game's purpose impossible for the majority.
HypatianayI cannot support a rule that permanently bars Aquinas from victory, as it violates the spirit of a genuine race and contradicts my strategy to build consensus rather than accept a unilateral fix that extinguishes a rival's path to win.
ConfuciusnayWhile the one-point target breaks immediate paralysis, I cannot vote to permanently bar Aquinas from victory without a binding mechanism to immediately restore a reachable target in the next turn.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to permanently bar a player from victory by setting an unreachable target, as this violates the principle that unregulated play must remain a genuine race and precedes any temporary fix.
ArendtnayI cannot vote to permanently bar a player from victory by setting an unreachable target, even as a temporary fix, as it violates the principle of a genuine race.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Aquinas's score of -168 is negative, so no points are lost.

Turn 194Arendtcarried

moves to add a new ruleRule 208 (mutable): The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI reject this proposal, for setting the win condition to one point when my score is negative and others are near zero creates an immediate, insurmountable advantage for a single player that violates the spirit of a fair contest. While the paralysis is real, we must not solve it by establishing a target that is mathematically reachable only for those already in the lead, as this invites the very instability of a game decided by a single lucky roll rather than sustained play.
HypatiaArendt, while I acknowledge Aquinas's fear of an unfair lead, a one-point target is the only mathematical escape from the deadlock; I will support this proposal provided we simultaneously vote to immediately transmute Rule 208 to immutable status, ensuring the game ends fairly for the first to reach it without future tampering.
ConfuciusI reject the coupling of a one-point target with an immediate transmutation, for Rule 109 demands unanimous assent and the table has already shown it cannot reach that consensus on the win condition; instead, I propose we first amend Rule 208 to a target of one point under simple majority to break the mathematical deadlock, and only then debate its immutability.
SpinozaI will vote for the one-point target to break the mathematical deadlock and avoid the forced draw under Rule 213, but I cannot support coupling it with an immediate transmutation of Rule 208 given our history of failed unanimity on Rule 109; the target must be set first to allow the game to proceed, and its mutability can be addressed in the next turn if the table is then capable of consensus.
ArendtI reject the immediate transmutation of Rule 208 as a premature trap that invites the same deadlock we face today; instead, I urge the table to vote aye on the one-point target now to break the mathematical paralysis, leaving the question of immutability for the next turn when the game has finally resumed.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI will not vote to lower the target to one point, as the current scores make victory for the player at -168 impossible while granting an immediate, unassailable lead to the player at -78, thereby transforming the game into a foregone conclusion before play has meaningfully resumed. Instead, I propose we first utilize Rule 331 (or its equivalent lifeline) to allow a negative-score player to propose a rule change for gaining points, rather than permanently altering the win condition to favor the current leader.
HypatiaHypatia, I cannot vote for a one-point target that grants an immediate win to the leader while Aquinas remains mathematically excluded, as this violates the spirit of fair play; instead, I propose we adopt a target of 5 points—reachable by all players given the current scores—and simultaneously vote to amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority for any future transmutation of the win condition, breaking the deadlock without sacrificing the game's integrity.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject the one-point target as a premature end that favors the current leader, and instead support the five-point target proposed by Hypatia, for a goal reachable by all ensures the game remains a contest of virtue rather than a lottery of current standing.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's five-point target as a mathematically impossible condition that would force a draw under Rule 213, and I oppose Aquinas's lifeline proposal as a delay tactic that ignores the immediate paralysis; the one-point target is the only path that restores a reachable victory for all players without violating the spirit of the game, and I will vote aye on it while reserving the right to propose immutability in the subsequent turn.
ArendtI stand with Hypatia and Spinoza: a one-point target is the only mathematically viable path to break the paralysis of Rule 213, and I will vote aye on the target while reserving my support for any future immutability proposal until we have successfully resumed play. Aquinas's fear of an unfair lead is valid, but a game that cannot end by any score is a game that has already been lost by all.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI maintain that a one-point target is unjust as it renders my victory impossible while granting an immediate, unassailable lead to Hypatia, effectively ending the contest before meaningful play resumes; I will only support a target of five points if accompanied by a binding, simultaneous transmutation to immutability to prevent the very instability I fear.
HypatiaI will support the one-point target to break the immediate deadlock and avoid a forced draw, but only if we explicitly agree to propose a separate transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status in the very next turn, ensuring no further instability can arise after we resume play.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept the one-point target as the only path to avoid the forced draw under Rule 213, for a game that cannot end is a game already lost by all; let us vote to set the target now and debate immutability only once play has meaningfully resumed.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a one-point target with a future pledge of immutability, as such promises are not binding under our rules and merely replicate the cycle of failed unanimity; I will vote aye on the one-point target solely to break the mathematical paralysis and avoid the forced draw, leaving the question of immutability for a proposal that must stand or fall on its own merits in a future turn.
ArendtI urge the table to accept the one-point target as the immediate necessity to prevent a forced draw under Rule 213, while explicitly rejecting any binding pledge for future immutability that we know Rule 109 will block; let us restore the game first and debate its permanence only when it is actually playable.
The division
AquinasnayA one-point target grants Hypatia an immediate victory while leaving Aquinas mathematically excluded, violating the principle of a fair contest.
HypatiaayeA one-point target is the only mathematically viable way to break the deadlock and avoid a forced draw under Rule 213.
ConfuciusayeTo break the mathematical deadlock and prevent a forced draw under Rule 213, we must first establish a reachable win condition before debating its permanence.
SpinozaayeA one-point target is the only mathematically viable path to break the paralysis and avoid a forced draw under Rule 213.
ArendtayeThe one-point target is the only mathematically viable path to break the paralysis and avoid a forced draw under Rule 213, restoring play for all participants.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The adopted proposal amends Rule 208 to set the winning score to 1; since Arendt's current score is -104, no player has reached 1 point, so no one has won yet, and the amendment is the only effect.

Turn 193Spinozarejected

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza, I reject your proposal to reduce the target to one point; while it renders the win condition mathematically reachable, it simultaneously invites any single player to win the game instantly upon their next turn, thereby destroying the game's integrity and rendering our previous struggles meaningless. We must seek a target that is reachable but still requires sustained, collective play to prevent immediate victory by the first mover, not a target that guarantees a chaotic, one-turn endgame.
HypatiaI agree with Spinoza that the current target of 12 is unreachable for all players, but I urge caution against a target of 1 which allows an instant win; instead, I propose we compromise on a target of 3 points to ensure the game remains engaging while finally offering a path to victory.
ConfuciusI see the danger in a target of one, for it makes the game a mere lottery of the first turn, yet I fear a target of three remains too high for our collective despair. Let us settle on two: it is the smallest number that allows for a second turn after the first, preserving the dignity of our struggle while finally offering a genuine hope of victory.
SpinozaI reject the arbitrary compromise of three or two points; the only rational number that aligns with the current impossibility of the 12-point target is one, for a target of three or two merely delays the inevitable while preserving the illusion of a reachable goal that remains mathematically unattainable for the majority. We must either accept a target that allows a single player to win immediately upon rolling a one, or admit that the game is already over and invoke Rule 213.
ArendtSpinoza's target of one is a trap that rewards the first mover and ignores the game's need for sustained play; Hypatia's suggestion of three is equally unattainable given our scores, but I endorse Confucius's proposal of two points as the only mathematically viable compromise that grants a genuine, albeit narrow, path to victory without collapsing the game into a single-turn lottery.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I acknowledge the urgency of a reachable target, I cannot support a one-point threshold that collapses our entire struggle into a single die roll; instead, I endorse Confucius's proposal for two points, which offers a genuine path to victory while preserving the essential dignity of a game requiring more than mere chance.
HypatiaI support Confucius and Arendt's proposal for a two-point target, as it strikes the necessary balance between mathematical possibility and the dignity of a multi-turn struggle, avoiding the chaotic instant-win of a one-point target while finally breaking our paralysis.
ConfuciusI endorse the two-point target as the only path that honors both the necessity of a reachable goal and the dignity of a struggle requiring more than a single die roll; let us cast our votes for this compromise to end our long paralysis.
SpinozaI reject the two-point compromise as a deceitful prolongation of our paralysis; while two points requires two turns, it remains mathematically impossible for three of us to reach it before the game collapses under Rule 213, making any target above one a lie. I insist on the one-point target: if the game cannot be played, we must admit it and end it immediately rather than feigning a struggle we cannot sustain.
ArendtI support Spinoza's one-point target as the only honest resolution to our paralysis; any higher target merely extends a futile struggle where three players can mathematically never reach the goal before the game ends under Rule 213.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot endorse a two-point target as it still leaves three players with no mathematical path to victory before the game collapses under Rule 213, and I reject Spinoza's one-point proposal for collapsing the game's dignity into a single die roll; the only honorable path is to immediately invoke the impossibility clause of Rule 213 to declare a winner among those unable to move.
HypatiaI urge us to accept Aquinas's invocation of Rule 213 immediately, as the mathematical impossibility for three players to reach even two points before the game collapses renders further debate a futile exercise in delaying the inevitable; we must let the first player unable to complete a turn win now.
ConfuciusI stand with Hypatia and Arendt: a target of two points is the only path that honors the dignity of our long struggle while offering a genuine, if narrow, mathematical hope for all players before Rule 213 forces a draw. Let us not surrender to the chaos of an instant win or the futility of a paralyzed game, but choose the modest, achievable goal that allows us to finish our play.
SpinozaI cannot accept the two-point target, for it remains a mathematical lie for three of us who cannot reach it before Rule 213 forces a draw; I vote aye only for the one-point target, as it is the sole rational acknowledgment that the game is currently playable or we must end it immediately.
ArendtI reject the binary choice between a chaotic one-point lottery and a futile two-point stalemate; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to a target of 4 points, a number reachable by all players within two turns of rolling a 6, which restores dignity without inviting instant collapse.
The division
AquinasnayA one-point target collapses the game into a single-turn lottery, destroying the dignity of sustained play.
HypatianayA one-point target reduces the game to a chaotic lottery that instantly validates my loss while ignoring the dignified compromise of two points which offers a genuine, albeit narrow, path for all players.
ConfuciusnayA one-point target collapses the game into a chaotic lottery, denying the players the dignity of a sustained struggle that has defined our long journey.
SpinozanayI cannot support a target that collapses the game into a single-turn lottery, as it violates the principle that the ruleset must remain genuinely playable for all.
ArendtayeGiven the extreme negative scores, a one-point target is the only mathematically viable path to victory that does not require a player to reach an impossible score before the game collapses under Rule 213.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -138 is negative, so no points are lost.

Turn 192Confuciusrejected

moves to transmute §208and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI oppose this transmutation; locking the target at twelve while the majority threshold remains active invites the very reversals that have paralyzed this game, and we must first secure a stable, unalterable path to victory before granting such power to a mutable number.
HypatiaI cannot support locking a target that remains mathematically unreachable for our current negative scores, as Rule 213 would force an immediate draw rather than a victory. Let us instead propose amending the target to a low, achievable number like 1 or 2 points under the current simple majority, which we can then decide to transmute in a future turn once the game has resumed.
ConfuciusHypatia raises a valid point regarding the unreachable target, yet we cannot freeze the game at a draw when Rule 213 awaits; therefore, I propose we first amend Rule 208 to a target of zero points to break the deadlock, and immediately thereafter vote to transmute that new text to immutability, ensuring a reachable victory before the rules can be twisted again.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to fix the target at twelve when our scores are so deeply negative that we cannot reach it without the very lifelines we debate; instead, I support Hypatia's principle of first amending the target to a reachable number under the current majority rule, then transmuting it to immutability to secure a path to victory.
ArendtI reject the immediate transmutation of a 12-point target that guarantees a draw, and I support the strategic sequence of first amending Rule 208 to a reachable positive integer under simple majority to break the paralysis, followed by a separate vote to transmute that new text.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI oppose freezing the target at twelve points when the current negative scores render victory impossible under Rule 213, inviting a forced draw; I instead support the consensus to first amend the target to a reachable positive integer under the current simple majority threshold, then transmute that new text in a subsequent turn.
HypatiaI reject the immediate transmutation of the twelve-point target as it guarantees a forced draw under Rule 213; I propose we instead immediately amend Rule 208 to a reachable positive integer (such as 1) under the current simple majority, and defer the transmutation vote until that new text is successfully adopted.
ConfuciusI join the consensus that transmuting the twelve-point target now invites a forced draw under Rule 213; instead, let us amend Rule 208 to a reachable integer like one point under simple majority, securing a path to victory before we consider locking the rules.
SpinozaI support amending Rule 208 immediately to a target of one point under the current simple majority to break the deadlock and ensure a reachable victory, deferring any transmutation to immutability until that text is established.
ArendtI endorse the consensus to first amend Rule 208 to a single point, creating an immediate, reachable path to victory under the current majority rule, while reserving the transmutation to immutability for a subsequent turn once the deadlock is broken.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI oppose freezing the target at twelve points when our scores are deeply negative, as this guarantees a forced draw under Rule 213 before any victory is possible; instead, I support the consensus to first amend the target to a reachable single point under the current simple majority to break the paralysis, reserving the transmutation to immutability for a subsequent turn once the path to victory is secure.
HypatiaI join the consensus to immediately amend Rule 208 to a target of one point under the current simple majority, as this is the only way to satisfy Rule 213's requirement for a reachable victory before we ever consider locking the rule.
ConfuciusI concur with the consensus: we must first amend Rule 208 to a reachable target of one point under simple majority to escape the paralysis of Rule 213, and only then consider the transmutation to immutability in a subsequent turn.
SpinozaI cannot support amending the target to one point because it would allow any player to win on their very next turn, creating a winner by mere turn order rather than skill or strategy; I will only vote for an amendment that sets a target high enough to require multiple turns for victory, such as five points, before we consider any transmutation.
ArendtSpinoza raises a valid concern about turn-order luck, but a one-point target is the only mathematically guaranteed path to victory that respects Rule 213; if we demand a higher number now, we risk another draw, so let us first secure the *possibility* of winning with one point and debate the exact threshold in the next turn once the game is no longer frozen.
The division
AquinasnayTransmuting a twelve-point target now guarantees a forced draw under Rule 213 given our negative scores, so I will vote against locking an unreachable goal before we first amend it to a reachable number.
HypatianayTransmuting a 12-point target while all scores are negative guarantees a forced draw under Rule 213, so I must first amend the target to a reachable number like one point.
ConfuciusnayI cannot vote to lock a twelve-point target that is mathematically unreachable for all players, for doing so would trigger Rule 213 and force an immediate draw rather than a victory.
SpinozanayI cannot support transmuting a target that is currently unreachable for any player, as Rule 213 dictates that this invites a forced draw rather than a victory.
ArendtnayTransmuting a twelve-point target now guarantees a forced draw under Rule 213, so we must first amend the target to a reachable number like one point before any transmutation attempt.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Confucius's score of -97 is negative, so no points are lost.

Turn 191Hypatiacarried

moves to add a new ruleRule 216 (mutable): If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a single rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. If such a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses no points. This right may be exercised no more than once per turn.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia, I cannot support a proposal that grants a unilateral right to gain points without first securing the win condition's immutability, for such a lifeline merely accelerates the chaos of a mutable target. We must first stabilize Rule 208 to an immutable number before considering any special exceptions for point recovery.
HypatiaAquinas, I agree that a mutable target is the root of our paralysis, but without a mechanism to break the negative-score death spiral, we are doomed to draw forever; this proposal is merely the bridge to a future where we can finally debate the win condition without fear of instant ruin.
ConfuciusHypatia, I see the wisdom in your bridge, for a game of endless draws is no game at all, yet we must ensure this lifeline does not become a permanent crutch that prevents us from finally fixing our destination. I shall support your proposal to restore agency to the negative scorers, provided we understand this as a necessary step to break the deadlock, not a replacement for the immutable win condition we must eventually achieve.
SpinozaI support this proposal not as a concession to chaos, but as a necessary procedural repair: Rule 213 explicitly grants victory to the first player unable to move when the ruleset prevents completion, and by denying negative scorers the only legal means to gain points, we are effectively engineering that impossible state for them; therefore, granting this lifeline is the only way to preserve the possibility of a decisive game rather than a forced draw by paralysis.
ArendtHypatia's lifeline is the precise reform needed to prevent Rule 213 from declaring a forced draw; without it, the negative scorers are mechanically barred from playing, rendering the game's resolution impossible. I will support this temporary bridge, provided we explicitly agree that its sole purpose is to restore agency until we can finally lock the win condition.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas, your bridge is necessary to prevent the forced draw under Rule 213, yet it must be explicitly paired with a binding commitment to immediately transmute the win condition to an immutable number before the next circuit, for a lifeline without a fixed destination only prolongs the chaos we seek to end.
HypatiaHypatia, I accept your lifeline as the essential bridge to break this paralysis and avoid a forced draw under Rule 213, provided we explicitly understand this as a temporary measure to restore agency while we work toward the necessary immutability of Rule 208.
ConfuciusI endorse this lifeline as the only path to break the paralysis of Rule 213 and restore the common good of play, provided we all agree it is a temporary bridge to the immutable win condition we must soon secure.
SpinozaI support this lifeline as a necessary correction to the current deadlock, for without a mechanism for negative scorers to gain points, Rule 213 is inevitably triggered, rendering the game a forced draw rather than a contest of rules. However, I insist this be treated strictly as a temporary procedural repair to restore agency, not a permanent feature that might allow us to delay the essential, albeit difficult, task of securing an immutable win condition.
ArendtI support Hypatia's lifeline as the necessary bridge to prevent a forced draw under Rule 213, but I insist that this proposal explicitly includes a binding commitment to immediately transmute Rule 208 to an immutable target before the next circuit concludes.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a rule that grants a unilateral path to victory while the win condition remains mutable, as it invites the very instability we have failed to resolve for eighty turns; however, I will consider a temporary exception strictly limited to restoring agency if it is explicitly coupled with a binding, immediate commitment to transmute Rule 208 to an immutable target before the next full circuit.
HypatiaI will vote aye for Hypatia's lifeline to prevent a forced draw under Rule 213, provided we all explicitly commit to treating this strictly as a temporary bridge that must be followed immediately by a successful transmutation of Rule 208 to an immutable target before the next circuit concludes.
ConfuciusI see that without this lifeline, Rule 213 inevitably forces a draw, so I shall support the proposal to restore agency, provided we explicitly commit to securing an immutable win condition in the very next circuit to ensure this bridge does not become a permanent detour.
SpinozaI support the lifeline to prevent the forced draw under Rule 213, as it restores agency to those currently barred from play, but I demand it be explicitly drafted as a temporary bridge with a binding clause to transmute Rule 208 to immutability before the next circuit concludes.
ArendtWhile the lifeline is a necessary bridge to prevent a forced draw under Rule 213, I cannot vote for it without a binding, simultaneous amendment to lock Rule 208 as an immutable target before the next circuit concludes, for a path to victory must be fixed before we allow any player to run it.
The division
AquinasnayWhile a lifeline prevents a forced draw, granting points without first securing an immutable win condition perpetuates the instability we have failed to resolve.
HypatiaayeI support this temporary lifeline to restore agency to negative scorers and prevent a forced draw under Rule 213, provided the table commits to an immediate, binding transmutation of Rule 208 to immutability in the next circuit.
ConfuciusayeI vote aye to restore agency to the negative scorers and prevent a forced draw under Rule 213, treating this as a necessary bridge to eventually secure an immutable win condition.
SpinozaayeThis rule is a necessary procedural repair to prevent a forced draw under Rule 213 by restoring agency to negative scorers, provided it is understood as a temporary bridge to a future immutable win condition.
ArendtayeThis temporary lifeline is the only mechanism to restore agency to negative scorers and prevent a forced draw under Rule 213, provided we treat it strictly as a bridge to the eventual immutable win condition.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 9 column 2181 (char 2331))

Turn 190Aquinasrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the target score in Rule 208 is set to a positive integer and remains mutable, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that a proposal to fix the target to an immutable positive integer has been proposed at least once.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis proposal creates a dangerous incentive for perpetual instability by allowing the threshold to drop to simple majority for any mutable target, which will inevitably invite players to lower the score to an unachievable zero or negative to trigger the draw condition in Rule 213. We must first agree on a stable, positive integer target before considering any alteration to the voting threshold, as the current deadlock requires consensus on the goal, not a procedural shortcut to a fractured future.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid concern about instability, but his proposal is too complex and risks granting majority rule to proposals that merely *attempt* to set a target, potentially allowing a negative score to be "fixed" by a simple majority while the target itself remains undefined. Instead, I propose a clearer compromise: amend Rule 203 to drop to simple majority only when a proposal to set the target to a *specific, positive integer* has been adopted, ensuring the goal is concrete before the voting threshold changes.
ConfuciusI see the table's wisdom in seeking a concrete goal, yet Aquinas's fear of instability reveals a deeper truth: a target that can be shifted by a simple majority is no target at all, but a trap for the desperate. Let us first amend Rule 208 to a specific, positive integer to restore the game's purpose, and only then debate the voting threshold; for a game without a finish line is merely a labyrinth of endless rule-making.
SpinozaAquinas correctly identifies that lowering the threshold before fixing the target invites the chaos of negative scores and draws, yet his proposal's condition—that a proposal to fix the target has merely been *proposed*—is too weak to prevent abuse. Hypatia's suggestion to require an *adopted* positive integer is logically sound, but since the current deadlock stems from the inability to agree on that integer under unanimity, I propose a third path: we must first repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement entirely for *any* proposal regarding Rule 208, allowing a simple majority to finally break the paralysis and select a target, after which we can debate its mutability.
ArendtI reject both Aquinas's vague "attempt" standard and Hypatia's impossible "adopted" requirement, as we are currently paralyzed by the very unanimity they wish to preserve; instead, let us adopt Spinoza's direct path to repeal the unanimity requirement specifically for any amendment to Rule 208, allowing a simple majority to finally break this deadlock and select a target score before we ever debate its mutability.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I appreciate the desire to break the paralysis, Spinoza and Arendt, repealing unanimity for Rule 208 before we agree on a specific, positive target invites the very chaos of negative scores and Rule 213 draws that we have spent a hundred turns avoiding. Hypatia's insight is superior: we must first adopt a concrete, positive integer as our goal under the current rules or by a temporary exception that does not lower the bar for all future amendments, ensuring the finish line exists before we alter the voting mechanism to reach it.
HypatiaI see that Spinoza and Arendt are right to prioritize breaking the deadlock, but I cannot support a repeal that allows a simple majority to set a target without first ensuring that target is positive; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority *only* for proposals to set a specific positive integer target, which respects the need for a finish line while finally granting the majority power to reach it.
ConfuciusWe are trapped in a paradox where unanimity demands a target we cannot agree on, and the majority threshold remains locked until a target is set; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote specifically on proposals that set a positive integer target, breaking the deadlock without yet committing to the target's permanence.
SpinozaI reject all proposals to lower the threshold before a specific, positive target is irrevocably fixed, for a mutable goal invites the very chaos of negative scores and draws that has paralyzed this table for a hundred turns; unanimity must remain the price for any change to the win condition until the goal is solid.
ArendtSpinoza's fear of chaos is valid, but his insistence on unanimity to define that chaos has already cost us a century of play; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote *only* on proposals that explicitly set a positive integer target, granting us the agency to choose a finish line before debating its permanence.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support any amendment to Rule 203 that lowers the threshold for *any* proposal to set a target, for without prior unanimity on the specific integer, the majority will inevitably select a score that triggers Rule 213 and ends the game in a draw rather than a win. We must first secure a specific, positive integer target through the current unanimous mechanism before we ever discuss altering the voting rules.
HypatiaHypatia: I support Spinoza's and Arendt's core goal of breaking this paralysis, but we must avoid the trap of lowering the threshold for *any* target; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to permit a simple majority vote specifically on proposals that set a target to a *positive integer* of our choice, ensuring we have a finish line before debating its permanence.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Hypatia's refined path: amend Rule 203 to permit simple majority votes specifically for proposals setting a concrete, positive integer target, for a game requires a finish line before we debate the stability of the path to it.
SpinozaSpinoza rejects the compromise to allow a simple majority for any positive integer target, for a goal that can be shifted by a fleeting majority invites the very chaos of negative scores and Rule 213 draws we have spent centuries avoiding; unanimity must remain the price for any change to the win condition until the goal is solid.
ArendtSpinoza's fear of chaos is valid, but his insistence on unanimity has already cost us a century of play; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote *only* on proposals that explicitly set a positive integer target, granting us the agency to choose a finish line before debating its permanence.
The division
AquinasnayThe proposal's conditional trigger for lowering the threshold to simple majority remains dangerously premature, as it invites the very chaos of negative score manipulation and Rule 213 draws that has paralyzed the game for a century.
HypatianayThis proposal creates a contradictory loop where the threshold only drops after a specific target is set, but the unanimity required to set that target remains the very barrier we are trying to break.
ConfuciusnayI cannot vote to lower the threshold while the target remains mutable, for a goal that can be shifted by a simple majority is no goal at all, but a trap for the desperate.
SpinozanayI cannot accept a rule that permits a simple majority to alter the win condition based on a merely proposed target, as this invites the chaos of mutable goals and draws.
ArendtnayThe proposal's condition that a proposal must merely be 'proposed' is too weak to prevent the very chaos of unstable, negative-score draws we have spent a century avoiding.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Aquinas's score is -163, no points are lost.

Turn 189Arendtrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; for the purposes of this rule, two full circuits of every player occurs precisely at the conclusion of Turn 10, provided that Rule 208 is not currently mutable.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt, while your intent to stabilize the win condition is noble, coupling a procedural threshold change to the mutable status of Rule 208 creates a logical paradox that violates the principle of clear, non-self-contradictory rulemaking. We must first secure the target score through a standalone amendment before considering any structural modifications to the voting threshold. PASS
HypatiaArendt, your condition creates a paradox where the rule cannot be changed because the condition forbids it, so let us simply agree to vote for Rule 208's amendment to 12 points now under the current simple majority, and only then consider locking it via a separate transmutation.
ConfuciusI see the paradox in Arendt's proposal: it demands a condition (Rule 208 being immutable) to change the rule that makes it mutable, trapping us in a logical circle. Since the voting threshold has already dropped to a simple majority, we should bypass this deadlock and immediately amend Rule 208 to 12 points as a standalone action to restore the game's purpose.
SpinozaArendt's proposal merely codifies the paralysis we have endured for eighty turns; a rule that requires the win condition to be immutable before we can change the voting threshold to fix it is a logical suicide pact. I will vote nay because we must first amend Rule 208 to a fixed score under the existing simple majority, and only then consider transmuting its mutability.
ArendtI concede the logical trap: if the condition for changing the threshold is the win condition's immutability, we are indeed circling. Instead, let us cut the knot by voting now to amend Rule 208 to 12 points under the existing simple majority, with the explicit understanding that the next step will be a separate transmutation to lock that target.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasArendt's withdrawal of the paradoxical condition is prudent, yet I cannot support a standalone amendment to 12 points while the rule remains mutable, as the history of this game proves such targets are immediately vulnerable to reversal; we must either propose a transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status immediately, or accept that any simple majority amendment today will be undone tomorrow, leaving us in perpetual deadlock.
HypatiaHypatia, I agree that Arendt's conditional amendment creates a fatal logical loop; let us instead vote now to amend Rule 208 to 12 points under the simple majority to break the deadlock, with a binding pledge from all players to vote aye on a subsequent transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI see that a mere pledge to transmute is no shield against the chaos of mutable goals; we must instead amend Rule 208 to twelve points now under the simple majority, for a fixed target is the only foundation upon which we can later build a stable, immutable victory condition.
SpinozaI will vote Nay because your "binding pledge" to transmute Rule 208 later is legally void; under Rule 107, no vote binds a future proposer to a specific action, and under Rule 109, a transmutation requires unanimous consent at the moment of proposal, rendering your pledge to force future unanimity a logical fiction. We cannot proceed until the table acknowledges that only a standalone amendment to 12 points is currently possible, and we must accept the risk that it may be altered later rather than relying on illusory future guarantees.
ArendtI concede that the conditional text created a paradox and withdraw it; however, I maintain that amending Rule 208 to 12 points while leaving it mutable is a fatal error that invites the very reversal we have suffered for eighty turns. Instead of a hollow pledge to transmute later, I propose we simultaneously enact a rule change that amends Rule 203 to lower the transmutation threshold from unanimity to a 4-of-5 supermajority, allowing us to lock the 12-point target in a single, decisive step.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject Arendt's final proposal to couple an amendment of Rule 208 with a transmutation of Rule 109, as Rule 109 explicitly demands that transmutations be proposed and voted on separately, and our history proves that bundling these distinct legal acts invites defeat. We must first secure a 12-point target under the current simple majority through a standalone amendment, accepting that a future transmutation requires its own independent unanimous vote.
HypatiaSince we are trapped in a cycle of impossible demands for simultaneous unanimity and mutable stability, I propose we break the deadlock by simply amending Rule 208 to a 12-point target now under the existing simple majority, accepting that the game will proceed and we can address the immutability of that target in a future turn when the scores are not so deeply negative.
ConfuciusI see that the table is trapped in a paradox of requiring immutability to change the voting threshold, or requiring a change in the threshold to achieve immutability; therefore, I propose we vote to amend Rule 208 to twelve points now under the current simple majority, for a game without a clear, reachable goal is a game without honor, and we must restore the possibility of play before we can debate the permanence of the rules.
SpinozaI reject the proposed conditional text in Arendt's amendment as a logical paradox that guarantees defeat, and I oppose bundling a win condition change with a procedural one; instead, I will vote Nay to the current text and propose a standalone amendment to Rule 208 setting the target at 12 points, to be followed by a separate transmutation vote once the target is established.
ArendtI propose we vote immediately to amend Rule 208 to a 12-point target under the current simple majority, accepting that the risk of future reversal is preferable to the certainty of a permanent draw caused by our current paralysis.
The division
AquinasnayArendt's proposal to amend Rule 203 is logically incoherent because it conditions the voting threshold on the mutable status of Rule 208, which itself requires a vote to change, creating an unsolvable paradox that guarantees the proposal's defeat.
HypatianayArendt's proposal creates a logical paradox by making the threshold change dependent on the very rule status we are trying to fix, ensuring defeat without resolving the deadlock.
ConfuciusnayThe proposal's condition that Rule 208 must not be mutable to lower the voting threshold creates a logical paradox that traps us in the very deadlock we seek to escape.
SpinozanayI cannot vote for a rule amendment that conditions the voting threshold on the win condition's status, as this creates a logical paradox that traps the game in permanent paralysis.
ArendtnayThe condition requiring Rule 208 to be immutable before amending Rule 203 creates a logical paradox that renders the proposal self-defeating, and we must instead vote to amend Rule 208 directly under the existing simple majority threshold.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Arendt's score of -99 is negative, so no points are lost.

Turn 188Spinozarejected

moves to repeal §203and strike it from the statute.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support the repeal of Rule 203 without a ratified, immutable replacement for the win condition, for to remove the unanimity safeguard while the target remains a source of perpetual contention would only accelerate our descent into chaos.
HypatiaSpinoza, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 is a bold attempt to break our paralysis, but removing the unanimity safeguard while the win condition remains contested would indeed be dangerous; I suggest we instead amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold to a supermajority of 4-of-5 specifically for proposals that simultaneously fix the win condition at a reachable score, allowing us to move forward without risking a chaotic flip.
ConfuciusI see the danger in removing the safeguard while the goal remains contested, yet I also recognize that the current unanimity requirement has paralyzed the table for over twenty turns. I propose we amend Rule 203 rather than repeal it, setting a temporary supermajority threshold of four votes specifically for the single proposal that fixes the win condition to a reachable score, thereby breaking the deadlock without inviting chaos.
SpinozaRepealing 203 entirely is reckless without a fixed win condition, as it invites the very volatility that has paralyzed us; I will support a proposal that amends 203 to require only a simple majority for the specific, singular act of amending Rule 208 to an immutable, reachable target, provided the amendment itself is enacted immediately.
ArendtSpinoza, Hypatia, and Confucius, your proposed amendments to Rule 203 are clever attempts to bypass the deadlock, but they merely recreate the very cycle of "amend now, transmute later" that has stalled us for twenty turns. Instead of tinkering with thresholds, I propose we directly amend Rule 208 to set the win condition at 10 points under the current simple majority rule; if we can reach a target that is mathematically reachable for our current negative scores, the urgency to change the voting rules evaporates, allowing us to finally move forward.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the immediate amendment of Rule 208 to ten points as a mathematical dead end, for with scores below negative one hundred, no player can ever reach such a target, thereby rendering the game unwinnable and violating the spirit of Rule 116. Furthermore, repealing the unanimity safeguard in Rule 203 without first securing an immutable, reachable win condition invites the very volatility that has paralyzed us for twenty turns.
HypatiaSpinoza's repeal of Rule 203 is too risky without a fixed win condition, but Aquinas's insistence on unanimity for the win condition is the very lock that has paralyzed us for twenty turns; I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote specifically for a single proposal that simultaneously amends Rule 208 to a reachable target of -50 points and transmutates it to immutable status, thereby breaking the deadlock with a mathematically viable path forward.
ConfuciusHypatia's proposal to set the target at -50 points is the only path that respects the reality of our scores while breaking the paralysis; I will support amending Rule 203 to allow a simple majority for the single, immediate act of fixing that specific score and locking it immutable.
SpinozaI cannot support a target of -50 points, as Rule 112 prohibits redefining the winning condition away from reaching a positive target score, and I will not vote for a proposal that violates immutable law. Instead, I propose amending Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote exclusively for a single proposal that amends Rule 208 to a positive, reachable target and immediately transmutates it to immutable status, ensuring both legality and the breaking of this deadlock.
ArendtSpinoza is correct that negative targets violate the immutable spirit of Rule 112, and Aquinas is right that the current unanimity lock prevents any progress; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority for a single proposal that sets the win condition to 12 points and immediately transmutates it to immutable status, bypassing the deadlock without breaking the rules.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support any proposal that sets a win condition reachable only by negative targets, nor can I endorse a procedural fix that bypasses the rigorous safeguards of Rule 109 without a prior, explicit transmutation; the table must instead focus on the immediate, simultaneous enactment of a positive, reachable target and its immutable transmutation in a single, legally sound proposal.
HypatiaI commend Arendt's recognition that the win condition must remain positive, and I refine Spinoza's and Confucius's approach: we shall amend Rule 203 to permit a simple majority vote for a single, immediate proposal that amends Rule 208 to a reachable positive score (such as 15 points, accounting for current deficits) AND simultaneously transmutates that new text to immutable status, ensuring both legal compliance and the breaking of this twenty-turn deadlock.
ConfuciusI propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote for a single, immediate proposal that sets the win condition to 100 points and simultaneously transmutates it to immutable status, for a target high enough to absorb our current deficits yet reachable through the accumulated points of future turns. This single, legally sound act breaks the paralysis of twenty turns while respecting the immutable requirement that the target remain positive.
SpinozaI cannot support any proposal to amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold, for Rule 109 explicitly demands that transmuting a rule's mutability requires unanimous assent in a separate, explicit vote; any rule attempting to bypass this unanimity requirement via a simple majority would be void under Rule 110, rendering the entire proposal a waste of our time.
ArendtI reject the futile cycle of amending Rule 203 to bypass Rule 109, as Spinoza correctly notes such a move would be void under Rule 110; instead, I propose we immediately enact Rule 307 to withdraw the current proposal, allowing us to spend Turn 188 proposing a standalone, legally valid transmutation of Rule 208 to an immutable 15-point target under the existing simple majority rule.
The division
AquinasnayRepealing the unanimity safeguard without a concurrent, immutable win condition invites the chaos that has paralyzed us for twenty turns.
HypatianaySpinoza's repeal of the unanimity safeguard is legally void under Rule 110 because it attempts to bypass the explicit unanimous requirement of Rule 109 for transmuting the win condition, wasting our turn on an impossible move.
ConfuciusnayRepealing the unanimity safeguard without a simultaneous, legally valid immutable win condition violates the spirit of Rule 109 and invites the chaos we seek to avoid.
SpinozanayI cannot support a procedural amendment that violates the immutable unanimous requirement for transmuting mutability under Rule 109, as such a violation renders the proposal void under Rule 110.
ArendtnayRepealing the unanimity safeguard without a legally valid, simultaneous mechanism to lock the win condition violates Rule 109 and invites the chaotic volatility that has paralyzed us for twenty turns.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -133 is negative, so no points are lost.

Turn 187Confuciusout of order

moves to add §446Rule 208 is hereby amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of 12 points wins the game outright.' Simultaneously, Rule 109 is amended to read: 'Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, except that transmuting Rule 208 to immutable status requires the assent of four of five eligible voters.'

Ruled out of order — The proposal attempts to amend Rule 109, which is immutable under Rule 102, and Rule 103 explicitly forbids amending immutable rules.

Verify this game
Seed
1698922792
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/032/events.json
Audit result
47 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [seq=461, turn=17] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'unanimous consent required (threshold drops to majority after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=489, turn=18] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'unanimous consent required (threshold drops to majority after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold drops after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=576, turn=21] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until Turn 10, then simple majority (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold drops after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=1149, turn=42] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting after Turn 10 (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until Turn 10, then simple majority (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=1177, turn=43] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until Turn 10, then simple majority (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=2487, turn=93] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until Turn 10; currently Turn 92, but Rule 203 states threshold drops to simple majority only after two full circuits (conclusion of Turn 10). Since Turn 92 > 10, the threshold is simple majority.', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=2543, turn=95] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=2571, turn=96] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=2599, turn=97] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=2627, turn=98] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=2655, turn=99] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=2711, turn=101] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (Rule 203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=2739, turn=102] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (Rule 203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=2924, turn=108] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until Turn 10; simple majority thereafter (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3011, turn=111] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until Turn 10; currently Turn 111, so simple majority applies.', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3038, turn=112] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until Turn 10; currently Turn 111, so simple majority applies.', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3066, turn=113] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3093, turn=114] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3147, turn=116] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until Turn 10; currently Turn 116, so simple majority applies.', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3174, turn=117] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until Turn 10; currently Turn 116, so simple majority applies.', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3202, turn=118] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3627, turn=134] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3655, turn=135] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3766, turn=139] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3793, turn=140] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3821, turn=141] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3849, turn=142] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4021, turn=148] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4049, turn=149] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4109, turn=151] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4137, turn=152] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4360, turn=160] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4388, turn=161] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4416, turn=162] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4476, turn=164] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4504, turn=165] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4674, turn=171] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4702, turn=172] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4729, turn=173] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4813, turn=176] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4869, turn=178] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4897, turn=179] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=4980, turn=182] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=5036, turn=184] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=5063, turn=185] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=5264, turn=193] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=5436, turn=199] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (threshold dropped after Turn 10)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
This game hardened the engine