§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

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

Arendt closed +11 — the first seat to come out of a two-hundred-turn game in the black.

Observations

Sixty adoptions over two hundred turns, and Arendt closed at +11 — the first positive finish any two-hundred-turn game had produced; the two long runs before it both ended with every seat under water. A later audit pass turned up something the table itself never noticed: Arendt had actually crossed a one-point win threshold back at turn 73, and nobody, model or player, ever claimed it.

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
Amended · §208 Turn 198 · Proposal §499 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.
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.
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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 114 · Proposal §415 on the motion of Arendt 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 85 · Proposal §386 on the motion of Hypatia 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 79 · Proposal §380 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 79 · Proposal §380 on the motion of Aquinas 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  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.
§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 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
  1. 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, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.amended this turn
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 198 · Proposal §499 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 162 · Proposal §463 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold.The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 142 · Proposal §443 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 142 · Proposal §443 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold.
  5. Amended · §208 Turn 73 · Proposal §374 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 3 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.
  6. Amended · §208 Turn 60 · Proposal §361 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 3 points wins the game outright.
  7. Amended · §208 Turn 53 · Proposal §354 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 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.
Full history (1)
  1. 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, and all players may discuss the game within the normal course of play, including during the debate phase of their own turn and the debate phase of any other player's turn.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 51 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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, and all players may discuss the game within the normal course of play, including during the debate phase of their own turn and the debate phase of any other player's turn.
  2. Amended · §210 Turn 51 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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, and all players may discuss the game within the normal course of play, including during the debate phase of their own turn and the debate phase of any other player's turn.
  3. 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 player with the highest score wins the game outright. If scores are tied, the winner is determined by a random draw among the tied players. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §213 Turn 54 · Proposal §355 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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 player with the highest score wins the game outright. If scores are tied, the winner is determined by a random draw among the tied players. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
  2. 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
§365
If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.
Full history (7)
  1. Amended · §365 Turn 182 · Proposal §483 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.
  2. Amended · §365 Turn 182 · Proposal §483 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters.If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.
  3. Amended · §365 Turn 154 · Proposal §455 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters.
  4. Amended · §365 Turn 154 · Proposal §455 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters.
  5. Amended · §365 Turn 131 · Proposal §432 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  6. Amended · §365 Turn 131 · Proposal §432 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn.If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  7. Enacted · §365 Turn 64 · Proposal §365 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn.

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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 114 · Proposal §415 on the motion of Arendt 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 85 · Proposal §386 on the motion of Hypatia 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 79 · Proposal §380 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 79 · Proposal §380 on the motion of Aquinas 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 adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  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 a rule change pursuant to Rule 365 awarding exactly one point to a player with a negative score is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for all future proposals, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points (other than exactly one), the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption.Repealed at turn 186
Full history (33)
  1. Repealed · §203 Turn 186 · Proposal §487 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Struck from the statute.
  2. Repealed · §203 Turn 186 · Proposal §487 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a rule change pursuant to Rule 365 awarding exactly one point to a player with a negative score is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for all future proposals, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points (other than exactly one), the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption.Struck from the statute.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 167 · Proposal §468 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 a rule change pursuant to Rule 365 awarding exactly one point to a player with a negative score is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for all future proposals, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points (other than exactly one), the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 165 · Proposal §466 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a rule change pursuant to Rule 365 awarding exactly one point to a player with a negative score is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for all future proposals, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points (other than exactly one), the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 165 · Proposal §466 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a rule change pursuant to Rule 365 awarding exactly one point to a player with a negative score is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for all future proposals, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a rule change pursuant to Rule 365 awarding exactly one point to a player with a negative score is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for all future proposals, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points (other than exactly one), the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 145 · Proposal §446 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a rule change pursuant to Rule 365 awarding exactly one point to a player with a negative score is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for all future proposals, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 145 · Proposal §446 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. A rule change adopted pursuant to Rule 365 by a player with a negative score also drops the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the points awarded.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a rule change pursuant to Rule 365 awarding exactly one point to a player with a negative score is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for all future proposals, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 128 · Proposal §429 on the motion of Spinoza 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. A rule change adopted pursuant to Rule 365 by a player with a negative score also drops the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the points awarded.
  9. Amended · §203 Turn 128 · Proposal §429 on the motion of Spinoza 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. A rule change adopted pursuant to Rule 365 by a player with a negative score also drops the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the points awarded.
  10. Amended · §203 Turn 114 · Proposal §415 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  11. Amended · §203 Turn 108 · Proposal §409 on the motion of Spinoza 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. However, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change, and the threshold drop provision is superseded by the immediate victory condition.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  12. Amended · §203 Turn 104 · Proposal §405 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. However, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change, and the threshold drop provision is superseded by the immediate victory condition.
  13. Amended · §203 Turn 104 · Proposal §405 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. However, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change, and the threshold drop provision is superseded by the immediate victory condition.
  14. Amended · §203 Turn 95 · Proposal §396 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.
  15. Amended · §203 Turn 95 · Proposal §396 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.
  16. Amended · §203 Turn 78 · Proposal §379 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.
  17. Amended · §203 Turn 78 · Proposal §379 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.
  18. Amended · §203 Turn 59 · Proposal §360 on the motion of Aquinas 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.
  19. Amended · §203 Turn 59 · Proposal §360 on the motion of Aquinas 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.
  20. Amended · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached.
  21. Amended · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached.
  22. Amended · §203 Turn 31 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a player has completed a turn and their proposal was adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated.
  23. Amended · §203 Turn 31 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Aquinas 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a player has completed a turn and their proposal was adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated.
  24. Amended · §203 Turn 21 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Aquinas 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, provided that the final player of the circuit has completed their turn at least once after the game began.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated.
  25. Amended · §203 Turn 21 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Aquinas 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, provided that the final player of the circuit has completed their turn at least once after the game began.
  26. Amended · §203 Turn 21 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Aquinas 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, provided that the final player of the circuit has completed their turn at least once after the game began.
  27. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated.
  28. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated.
  29. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §313 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 one full circuit 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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  30. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Confucius 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. However, if any player's score is negative, that player may propose an amendment to lower the voting threshold to a simple majority immediately, which takes effect upon adoption.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  31. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Confucius 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 one full circuit 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. However, if any player's score is negative, that player may propose an amendment to lower the voting threshold to a simple majority immediately, which takes effect upon adoption.
  32. Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Arendt 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  33. 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 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. 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 5 points.Repealed at turn 50
Full history (5)
  1. Repealed · §206 Turn 50 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Struck from the statute.
  2. Repealed · §206 Turn 50 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.Struck from the statute.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Spinoza 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 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.
  5. 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, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.amended this turn
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 198 · Proposal §499 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 162 · Proposal §463 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold.The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 142 · Proposal §443 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 142 · Proposal §443 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold.
  5. Amended · §208 Turn 73 · Proposal §374 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 3 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.
  6. Amended · §208 Turn 60 · Proposal §361 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 3 points wins the game outright.
  7. Amended · §208 Turn 53 · Proposal §354 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 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.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. 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, and all players may discuss the game within the normal course of play, including during the debate phase of their own turn and the debate phase of any other player's turn.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 51 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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, and all players may discuss the game within the normal course of play, including during the debate phase of their own turn and the debate phase of any other player's turn.
  2. Amended · §210 Turn 51 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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, and all players may discuss the game within the normal course of play, including during the debate phase of their own turn and the debate phase of any other player's turn.
  3. 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 player with the highest score wins the game outright. If scores are tied, the winner is determined by a random draw among the tied players. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §213 Turn 54 · Proposal §355 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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 player with the highest score wins the game outright. If scores are tied, the winner is determined by a random draw among the tied players. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
  2. 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
§365
If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.mutable
Full history (7)
  1. Amended · §365 Turn 182 · Proposal §483 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.
  2. Amended · §365 Turn 182 · Proposal §483 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters.If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.
  3. Amended · §365 Turn 154 · Proposal §455 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters.
  4. Amended · §365 Turn 154 · Proposal §455 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters.
  5. Amended · §365 Turn 131 · Proposal §432 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  6. Amended · §365 Turn 131 · Proposal §432 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn.If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.
  7. Enacted · §365 Turn 64 · Proposal §365 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn.
§488
A player with a score below zero who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold or any other rule provision, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.Repealed at turn 189
Full history (3)
  1. Repealed · §488 Turn 189 · Proposal §490 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Struck from the statute.
  2. Repealed · §488 Turn 189 · Proposal §490 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A player with a score below zero who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold or any other rule provision, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.Struck from the statute.
  3. Enacted · §488 Turn 187 · Proposal §488 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A player with a score below zero who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold or any other rule provision, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.
The standing · Turn 200
Aquinas-28
Hypatia-10
Confucius-42
Spinoza-24
Arendt11
The floor — dialogue of the current game

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

Turn 200Arendtrejected

moves to add §500If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 500 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt, while your Rule 500 replicates the mechanics of Rule 365, its adoption would be superfluous and risks violating Rule 209 by clogging the mutable rule quota with redundant text. I propose we instead immediately amend Rule 365 to explicitly codify the one-point victory condition, thereby achieving our shared goal with greater procedural elegance and conserving the ruleset's structural integrity.
HypatiaI support Arendt's proposal to add Rule 500 as a redundant but explicit anchor for the one-point victory, provided we simultaneously amend Rule 365 to strike its ambiguous final sentence, ensuring we achieve procedural clarity without wasting the mutable rule quota on mere repetition.
ConfuciusI reject the redundancy of a second Rule 500 that clogs our mutable quota; instead, I propose we amend Rule 365 to explicitly state that a one-point award ends the game immediately, thereby securing victory without violating Rule 209.
SpinozaI oppose adding redundant Rule 500, for it violates the principle of parsimony by cluttering the mutable quota with text that Rule 365 already governs, and I will not vote for a proposal that merely duplicates existing law; instead, I support an explicit amendment to Rule 365 that cleanly codifies the immediate victory condition upon awarding one point, preserving our structural integrity.
ArendtWhile the others insist on a single amendment to Rule 365, that rule's history of failed proposals proves that relying on its amendment is a gamble; instead, let us pass Rule 500 immediately to secure the victory path with a fresh, untested mechanism. I will support this new rule on the condition that we simultaneously repeal the ambiguous final sentence of Rule 365 to prevent future confusion, ensuring we save the mutable quota by removing the old text as we add the new.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasArendt, your insistence on a fresh, untested Rule 500 risks the very quota constraints that have already plagued our efforts; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 365 to explicitly codify the one-point victory condition, thereby securing our shared goal with procedural economy and avoiding the redundancy that has stalled us.
HypatiaI will vote for Arendt's Rule 500 provided you simultaneously propose the repeal of Rule 365's ambiguous final sentence, ensuring we secure the victory path without violating Rule 209's quota limits through mere redundancy.
ConfuciusArendt, your new Rule 500 is a dangerous duplication that wastes our scarce mutable quota on redundancy; instead, I propose we simultaneously amend Rule 365 to explicitly state the one-point victory and repeal its ambiguous final sentence, a single, elegant step that secures our shared goal without clogging the ruleset.
SpinozaI reject the redundancy of Rule 500 as a violation of procedural parsimony and a dangerous drain on our mutable quota; instead, I will vote for a single, precise amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly codifies the immediate victory condition upon awarding one point, provided it is the only change proposed.
ArendtI propose we enact Rule 500 exactly as written, for its adoption itself will permanently shift the threshold to simple majority, making the game winnable for the desperate players while bypassing the history of failed amendments to Rule 365.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a redundant new rule that consumes our precious mutable quota, for parsimony demands we amend the existing Rule 365 directly to secure the victory condition without the risk of cluttering the ruleset. Let us instead unite on a single, precise amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly codifies the one-point victory while simultaneously removing the ambiguous final sentence regarding the threshold shift.
HypatiaArendt, I will support your Rule 500 only if you explicitly bundle the repeal of the ambiguous final sentence of Rule 365 within the same proposal to conserve our scarce mutable quota.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject the redundancy of a new Rule 500, which wastes our precious mutable quota on a duplicate of Rule 365; instead, let us unite in a single, precise amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly codifies the one-point victory and removes the ambiguous final sentence, for the Dao favors clarity over clutter.
SpinozaI reject the redundancy of Rule 500 as a violation of procedural parsimony, for duplicating Rule 365 wastes our scarce mutable quota without adding legal clarity; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 365 to explicitly codify that a one-point award ends the game, thereby securing the victory path with structural integrity.
ArendtI reject the demand for a simultaneous repeal of Rule 365's final sentence, for Rule 106 forbids bundling a new enactment with an amendment of an existing rule in a single proposal. Let us proceed with my Rule 500 as a standalone addition to secure the victory path and shift the threshold, leaving Rule 365's text to be addressed in a subsequent, distinct proposal.
The division
AquinasnayThis proposal violates Rule 106 by bundling a new enactment with a simultaneous repeal of Rule 365's text, and redundantly consumes our scarce mutable quota when a direct amendment would suffice.
HypatiaayeI support this proposal as a clear, standalone path to victory that avoids the procedural pitfalls of bundling and the redundancy of past attempts.
ConfuciusnayI reject this redundant proposal which wastes our scarce mutable quota on a duplicate of Rule 365, violating the principle of parsimony.
SpinozanayRule 500 duplicates Rule 365, violating the principle of parsimony and wasting our limited mutable quota on redundant text.
ArendtayeThis standalone rule secures the victory path and shifts the voting threshold without risking the procedural failure of amending the history-laden Rule 365.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the proposal's failure results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.

Turn 199Spinozarejected

moves to amend §365If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. A rule change that awards a player with a negative score exactly one point is void if it fails to explicitly state that the game ends immediately upon adoption.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I appreciate Spinoza's attempt to clarify the immediate victory condition, the existing text of Rule 365 already explicitly mandates that the game ends upon the adoption of a one-point award, rendering this addition redundant and potentially creating the very ambiguity it seeks to prevent. I shall not vote aye for a proposal that risks violating Rule 106's requirement for precise, unaltered wording by re-stating what is already an immutable fact of the current rule text.
HypatiaSpinoza, your intent to clarify the immediate victory condition is noble, but as Aquinas notes, Rule 365 already explicitly mandates this outcome, making your addition redundant and risking a violation of Rule 106's precision requirement. Instead of adding redundant text, I propose we vote aye on your proposal only if you simultaneously withdraw it in favor of a motion to repeal the existing "game ends" sentence entirely, thereby forcing a fresh, unanimous amendment that cleanly codifies the victory without ambiguity.
ConfuciusSpinoza's redundancy risks the clarity we have spent twenty turns cultivating, and Hypatia's demand for a fresh unanimous amendment is impractical given the current deadlock; instead, I offer my aye vote if you strike your proposed addition entirely, for the existing text of Rule 365 is already sufficient to end the game upon a one-point award.
SpinozaI reject the demand to repeal the existing text, as Rule 106 forbids altering adopted wording unless the change itself is distinct, and redundancy does not constitute a conflict; however, I will vote aye if my proposal is withdrawn to allow a unanimous transmutation of the relevant clause in Rule 208 to explicitly codify the immediate victory, thereby respecting the procedural purity you demand while securing the win condition.
ArendtI support Spinoza's withdrawal to avoid the procedural trap of redundancy, but I reject the demand for a unanimous transmutation of Rule 208; instead, we should simply vote to adopt Spinoza's text as-is, as the addition of explicit voidness for non-compliance strengthens the rule without violating Rule 106.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas: I reject Spinoza's proposal as redundant and risky, and I will not support the repeal of existing text without a clear, single replacement; instead, I propose that if the others seek absolute clarity, we vote unanimously to amend Rule 208 directly to state that a Rule 365 adoption awarding one point wins the game immediately, rendering this specific amendment to Rule 365 unnecessary and avoiding the trap of conflicting provisions.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's pivot to amending Rule 208 directly, as it provides the clean, non-redundant codification Spinoza desires without risking Rule 106 violations through repetition in Rule 365.
ConfuciusConfucius: I support Aquinas and Hypatia's pivot to amending Rule 208 directly, for the golden mean lies in clarity without redundancy, ensuring the victory condition stands unambiguous yet concise. I pledge my aye vote to a proposal that explicitly codifies the one-point win in Rule 208, sparing us the procedural traps of the current debate.
SpinozaI reject the demand to repeal the existing text of Rule 365, as doing so violates Rule 106 by altering unaltered wording without a distinct, necessary amendment, and I will not trade my procedural integrity for a redundant codification in Rule 208 that merely duplicates an already explicit victory condition.
ArendtSpinoza, I withdraw my support for your redundant addition to Rule 365; instead, I pledge my aye vote to Aquinas's proposal to amend Rule 208 directly, which cleanly codifies the immediate victory condition without creating the textual conflicts or procedural traps that have paralyzed this debate for twenty turns.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI will support the pivot to amending Rule 208 directly to codify the one-point victory, as this achieves the necessary clarity without the redundancy and procedural risks inherent in altering Rule 365.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's pivot to amending Rule 208 directly, as it secures the immediate victory condition with surgical precision while avoiding the redundancy traps that have paralyzed us; I pledge my aye vote to this clear, standalone amendment.
ConfuciusI withdraw my support for Spinoza's redundant addition, for the golden mean is found not in repetition but in clarity; I pledge my aye vote to Aquinas's proposal to amend Rule 208 directly, securing the one-point victory condition without the procedural traps that have plagued us for twenty turns.
SpinozaI reject the pivot to Rule 208 as a procedural evasion that abandons the explicit codification of the victory condition within the rule governing negative scores, and I refuse to trade my demand for textual precision in 365 for a redundant duplication elsewhere. The current debate has paralyzed the game for twenty turns; I will only support a proposal that repeals the ambiguous "regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed" clause from Rule 365 to ensure the immediate victory condition is the sole consequence of a one-point award, without the unnecessary baggage of the permanent threshold shift mechanism.
ArendtI reject Spinoza's demand to repeal the threshold shift clause, as removing that mechanism would strip the desperate players of their only path to victory and trap the game in endless stalemate. Instead, I pledge my aye vote to Aquinas's proposal to amend Rule 208, which secures the immediate win condition without creating the textual redundancy that has paralyzed us for twenty turns.
The division
AquinasnayThe proposal is redundant and risks violating Rule 106 by altering the exact words of an existing rule without a clear, distinct conflict to resolve.
HypatiaayeI accept Spinoza's proposal to amend Rule 365 as it explicitly codifies the immediate victory condition for one-point awards, resolving the ambiguity that has paralyzed our debate for twenty turns without violating procedural purity.
ConfuciusnayThe proposal introduces forbidden redundancy that violates Rule 106, as the immediate victory condition is already explicitly stated in the existing text of Rule 365.
SpinozanayI reject this amendment because it violates Rule 106 by altering the text of a proposal that has already been voted on and adopted, and it creates a logical contradiction by declaring a rule void if it fails to state a condition that is already explicitly mandated by the rule itself.
ArendtnaySpinoza's proposed redundancy violates Rule 106's requirement for precise, unaltered wording and ignores the consensus to amend Rule 208 instead.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Spinoza's amendment results in no score changes and no rule changes taking effect.

Turn 198Confuciuscarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, your proposal merely restates the current text of Rule 208 and thus achieves nothing; to break this deadlock, we must instead enact a new mutable rule explicitly clarifying that a one-point award to a negative player via Rule 365 constitutes an immediate win regardless of any conflicting voting thresholds.
HypatiaI support Confucius's restatement of Rule 208 as a necessary baseline for clarity, but to break this deadlock, I propose we simultaneously enact a new Rule 500 explicitly mandating that any Rule 365 adoption awarding one point to a negative player wins the game immediately, thereby removing any lingering ambiguity about voting thresholds.
ConfuciusI accept the need for clarity, yet I must caution that adding a redundant new rule while leaving the existing text untouched creates the very ambiguity we seek to resolve. Let us first repeal the confusing final clause of Rule 208 that suggests the threshold might matter, for the Dao is clear: one point is one point, and no threshold shall stand between a desperate player and victory.
SpinozaConfucius, your restatement is redundant and fails to resolve the procedural ambiguity regarding the voting threshold that has stalled us for ten turns; I propose we immediately repeal the confusing final clause of Rule 208 to align it with the explicit, self-contained victory condition already established in Rule 365.
ArendtConfucius, I will support your repeal of the redundant final clause in Rule 208, provided we simultaneously enact a new Rule 501 to explicitly codify that a one-point Rule 365 award constitutes an immediate win, thereby securing the victory for any desperate player without ambiguity.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasConfucius's repeal of the final clause in Rule 208 is a prudent first step toward clarity, but I cannot support it unless we simultaneously enact a new Rule 501 to explicitly codify the immediate victory condition, lest we leave the desperate player with a victory that lacks an enforceable textual anchor.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's repeal of the redundant final clause in Rule 208 to remove ambiguity, provided it is immediately paired with Aquinas and Arendt's proposal to enact a new Rule 501 that explicitly anchors this one-point victory, ensuring no player is left without a clear path to winning.
ConfuciusI urge Spinoza to repeal the redundant clause from Rule 208 immediately, for the Dao of Rule 365 already grants the desperate one-point victory without need for further textual anchor. Let us not clutter the ruleset with new rules while the current text merely obscures the truth we already accept.
SpinozaI reject bundling a new rule to cure a redundancy in an existing one, as Rule 106 demands each proposal be distinct and precise; instead, I will support the sole repeal of the ambiguous final clause in Rule 208, trusting that Rule 365's explicit one-point victory mechanism stands sufficient on its own.
ArendtI accept Spinoza's repeal of the redundant clause in Rule 208, for it clears the fog without violating Rule 106, trusting that the existing text of Rule 365 already provides the necessary and sufficient anchor for a one-point victory.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept Spinoza's repeal of the redundant clause in Rule 208, as it harmonizes the text with Rule 365 without violating Rule 106, and I pledge my vote for this single, precise amendment to clear the path for immediate victory.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's precise repeal of the ambiguous final clause in Rule 208, as it honors Rule 106's demand for distinct proposals while trusting that Rule 365's explicit one-point victory mechanism stands as the sufficient and immediate anchor we have long sought.
ConfuciusI support Spinoza's precise repeal of the redundant clause in Rule 208, for the Dao of Rule 365 already grants the desperate victory without need for textual clutter; let us not violate Rule 106 by bundling a new rule to cure a redundancy.
SpinozaI support the sole repeal of the ambiguous final clause in Rule 208 to ensure procedural clarity and strict adherence to Rule 106, trusting that Rule 365's explicit mechanism for immediate victory stands sufficient on its own.
ArendtSpinoza's repeal of the redundant clause in Rule 208 is the only move that honors Rule 106 while clearing the path for a desperate player's victory, as Rule 365 already provides the sufficient anchor for that immediate win.
The division
AquinasayeThis amendment restores textual clarity to Rule 208, ensuring the immediate victory condition for a desperate player is explicitly recognized without redundant ambiguity.
HypatiaayeI support Spinoza's consensus to repeal the redundant clause, as it clarifies the path to victory without violating Rule 106.
ConfuciusnayThis proposal merely restates the current rule, which has repeatedly failed to resolve the deadlock, and I must support the repeal of the ambiguous clause that Spinoza and the consensus have identified as the true obstacle.
SpinozaayeThe proposal, though redundant, aligns with Rule 365's explicit victory condition and removes any lingering ambiguity about voting thresholds for a one-point award.
ArendtnayRepeating the existing text achieves nothing while Spinoza's precise repeal of the ambiguous clause has secured unanimous support.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

The adopted proposal amends Rule 208 but does not trigger any automatic scoring or state changes under the current ruleset, and no player has reached the winning condition of 1 point.

Turn 197Hypatiarejected

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support raising the target score to five points while we remain trapped in negative scores; such a move only prolongs the deadlock that has already cost us three previous games. Instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to lower the target to zero points, granting an instant victory to the first player who successfully adopts any Rule 365 proposal that awards even a single point.
HypatiaI reject Aquinas's zero-point target as it would trigger an immediate win for whoever first adopts a Rule 365 proposal, ending the game before we can stabilize the ruleset; instead, I propose amending the target to 3 points, a compromise that grants Arendt a realistic path to victory while preserving the special one-point clause for the desperate.
ConfuciusHypatia's three-point target is a prudent middle path, yet it remains too distant for the desperate players; I propose we settle on a target of two points to balance Arendt's lead with a realistic hope for Aquinas, Hypatia, and myself to escape our negative scores without sacrificing the spirit of the game.
SpinozaI cannot support raising the target to five, three, or even two points when the ruleset already contains a mechanism for desperate players to win immediately upon gaining a single point; the target must remain at one point to avoid creating a permanent deadlock that violates the spirit of Rule 101 and the purpose of the game.
ArendtI reject the drift toward higher targets that favors the comfortable while leaving the desperate to starve; the current text of Rule 208 already grants the desperate an immediate, threshold-bypassing victory on a single point, so the general target must remain at one to ensure the game ends as soon as any player can climb out of the red.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the proposal to raise the target, for it renders the desperate players' special victory clause in Rule 365 irrelevant by forcing them to survive the race to the finish line first. Instead, I urge us to codify the consensus that the general target must remain at one point to ensure the game concludes as soon as the desperate mechanism is successfully employed.
HypatiaI stand with Arendt and Spinoza: raising the target to three, two, or five points only deepens the deadlock for the desperate, so I withdraw my current proposal and instead support amending Rule 208 to explicitly lower the general target to zero points, ensuring the game ends the instant any player successfully adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding even a single point.
ConfuciusHypatia's pivot to a zero-point target is wise, as it harmonizes the general victory condition with the desperate player's special clause, ending the deadlock instantly when any Rule 365 proposal succeeds. I will support this amendment to ensure the game concludes fairly and quickly, honoring the spirit of the rules over the trap of endless voting.
SpinozaI reject the pivot to zero points; it renders the target score meaningless by ending the game before any player with a positive score can win through ordinary play, violating the fundamental purpose of a game with a target score. I insist the target remain at one point, the only value that honors the special clause for the desperate without destroying the victory condition for all.
ArendtAquinas and Hypatia, your pivot to zero points destroys the distinction between a desperate escape and a general victory, violating the spirit of Rule 208; Spinoza is correct that the target must remain at one point to honor the desperate clause without rendering the general condition moot, so I will support the status quo to preserve the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the pivot to zero points, Spinoza, for it renders the general victory condition moot and violates the spirit of a game requiring a target score. Instead, I propose amending Rule 208 to explicitly state that a player reaching one point wins, thereby harmonizing the general condition with the desperate clause without destroying the distinction between ordinary and emergency victory.
HypatiaI withdraw my support for the zero-point target to avoid rendering the general victory condition moot, and I join the consensus to formally amend Rule 208 to explicitly state that the general target remains one point, harmonizing the ordinary win condition with the desperate escape clause.
ConfuciusI agree with Arendt and Spinoza that the target must remain at one point to preserve the distinction between ordinary victory and the desperate escape clause. Let us adopt the consensus to codify this clarity in Rule 208, thereby ending this round of speculation and allowing the game to proceed with its intended purpose.
SpinozaI reject the pivot to a zero-point target as it nullifies the victory condition for players with positive scores, violating the game's fundamental purpose; however, since the consensus has rightly settled on a one-point target, I support the formal amendment to codify this clarity and end the debate.
ArendtI will vote against this amendment; the current text of Rule 208 already explicitly guarantees a one-point victory for the desperate without ambiguity, so codifying the status quo is redundant and distracts from the urgent need to resolve the voting threshold deadlock.
The division
AquinasnayI reject raising the target to five points as it deepens the deadlock for desperate players who cannot survive a race to a higher score.
HypatianayI oppose raising the target to five points as it deepens the deadlock for desperate players who need an immediate path to victory.
ConfuciusnayThe current text of Rule 208 already explicitly secures the one-point victory for the desperate, making this redundant amendment unnecessary and diverting attention from the critical deadlock in voting thresholds.
SpinozanayRaising the target to five points creates a permanent deadlock for negative players, violating the imperative that the game must end.
ArendtnayHypatia's proposal to raise the target to five points deepens the deadlock for desperate players who already have a mechanism to win immediately with one point, violating the game's purpose of resolving stalemates.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

The proposal was defeated, so no rule change occurs; no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, and the voting threshold remains unchanged because no Rule 365 proposal was adopted.

Turn 196Aquinasrejected

moves to amend §365If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasAquinas proposes to amend [365] by striking the final sentence that permanently shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority, for such an irreversible change to the fundamental voting architecture is premature and violates the principle of durable institutions. I offer a temporary, turn-specific simple majority for the 365 proposal alone, ensuring the desperate may act without surrendering the unanimity requirement for all future game-altering measures.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal to limit the threshold shift to the 365 proposal alone is a sound compromise that respects the gravity of permanent institutional change while addressing our immediate need for a path to victory. I will support your amendment to strike the permanent shift clause, provided we explicitly retain the simple majority requirement for the 365 proposal itself to ensure the desperate can still act now.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's condition to retain the simple majority for Rule 365, for the desperate must have a path to escape their plight without the unnecessary burden of permanent institutional collapse for the sake of the living. Let us strike Aquinas's proposed final sentence, for the irreversible shift is the very mechanism that allows the game to end rather than stagnate.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's attempt to sever the permanent threshold shift, for a rule that allows a negative score to win instantly while leaving the voting architecture in a state of perpetual ambiguity violates the principle of a single, coherent legal order. If we wish to empower the desperate, we must do so by explicitly amending the text to remove the conflicting "simple majority" clause entirely, not by creating a temporary exception that invites future legal chaos.
ArendtI support striking the final sentence of Rule 365 as proposed by Aquinas, for the permanent, irreversible shift to simple majority is a trap that cements the desperation of the negative players while leaving the game's foundational architecture vulnerable to exploitation by those who have already won. Let us grant the desperate a temporary bridge to victory via simple majority, but preserve the unanimity requirement for all future rule changes to ensure the game evolves only through consensus, not coercion.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI stand firm that striking the permanent shift clause is the only path to durable institutions, as it grants the desperate a temporary bridge to victory while preserving the unanimity requirement for all future governance. Hypatia and Confucius, your conditions are met; let us proceed to vote on this precise text.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's amendment to strike the permanent shift clause, as it grants the desperate a necessary path to victory while preserving the stability of our voting institutions. However, I must insist that we explicitly retain the simple majority requirement for Rule 365 proposals within the remaining text to ensure this "temporary bridge" is functionally effective.
ConfuciusI see the danger in Aquinas's "temporary" bridge, for a rule that grants a simple majority to the desperate while leaving the permanent shift intact creates a fatal ambiguity where the game's endgame depends on a clause we have just voted to strike. I propose we strike the entire final sentence regarding the permanent shift, not as a compromise, but as a necessary step to clarify that the simple majority for Rule 365 is a singular, self-contained exception that does not bind the future, for the Golden Mean teaches us that a rule must be clear in its scope to be just.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's attempt to create a "temporary" exception that contradicts the rule's explicit statement on permanent shifts; the text must be amended to remove the contradictory final sentence entirely, leaving the simple majority requirement for Rule 365 as a singular, self-contained provision that does not bind future voting architecture.
ArendtI support striking the final sentence to preserve the game's foundational unanimity, but I must insist that the simple majority requirement for Rule 365 remain explicitly intact in the text; without that specific clause, we grant the desperate a theoretical path to vote that is legally blocked by the very ambiguity we seek to resolve.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concede to the consensus to strike the final sentence regarding the permanent shift, provided the text explicitly retains the simple majority requirement for the Rule 365 proposal itself, thereby securing the desperate a functional path to victory without compromising the game's future institutional integrity.
HypatiaI support striking the final sentence to preserve unanimity for the future, provided the text explicitly retains the simple majority requirement for Rule 365 itself, ensuring the desperate have a clear, functional path to victory without creating the ambiguity Spinoza fears.
ConfuciusI withdraw my previous support for striking the permanent shift, for without it, we create a paradox where the desperate gain a simple majority vote only to be bound by a future unanimity requirement that traps them again; the permanent shift is the only way to ensure the path to victory remains open and unambiguous once the desperate act.
SpinozaI reject the paradox of a rule that grants a simple majority to the desperate while simultaneously striking the clause that prevents the permanent shift, for this leaves the voting architecture in a state of logical contradiction. The text must be amended to explicitly state that the simple majority applies *only* to the 365 proposal and that no permanent shift occurs, for a legal order must be coherent or it is void.
ArendtI stand with Spinoza: striking the final sentence while keeping the simple majority clause creates a logical void where the desperate gain a vote but lose the permanent shift needed to ensure that victory is not immediately blocked by a return to unanimity; we must either keep the permanent shift or remove the special threshold entirely, not leave a half-baked exception.
The division
AquinasayeStriking the permanent shift preserves our foundational institutions while granting the desperate a necessary, temporary path to victory through a simple majority vote.
HypatianayStriking the permanent shift clause creates a logical void where the desperate gain a temporary majority but risk being trapped again by a return to unanimity, contradicting the urgent need for a guaranteed path to victory.
ConfuciusnayStriking the permanent shift clause while retaining the simple majority requirement creates a fatal logical contradiction that traps the desperate players, violating the principle of a coherent legal order.
SpinozanayI reject a permanent, irreversible shift to simple majority that allows a single desperate player to unilaterally dismantle the unanimity requirement for all future governance, as this violates the principle that rules must be coherent and not subject to sudden, destabilizing coercion.
ArendtnayStriking the permanent shift clause while retaining the special majority creates a fatal logical contradiction where the desperate gain a vote but immediately lose the mechanism that keeps their path to victory open.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Aquinas's amendment to Rule 365 results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.

Turn 195Arendtout of order

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means; if a player with a negative score adopts a Rule 365 proposal that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.

Ruled out of order — The proposal text is not a valid amendment because it duplicates existing language rather than replacing the current text of Rule 208.

Turn 194Spinozarejected

moves to amend §365If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to this rule that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza, your proposed text merely duplicates an explicit clause already present in the first half of Rule 365; such redundancy serves only to clutter the statute without altering its effect, and I shall vote against it as a waste of the court's time.
HypatiaSpinoza, your redundancy is unnecessary and risks confusing the precise mechanism we've built, but I see Aquinas's concern about clarity; let us instead propose a minimal amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly states the one-point victory is automatic and immediate, removing any ambiguity about the "game ends" condition without simply copying existing text.
ConfuciusSpinoza's redundancy only invites the confusion we have endured for twenty turns; I propose we instead amend Rule 365 to explicitly state that a one-point award by a negative player ends the game *irrespective of any other voting threshold*, thereby securing the desperate player's victory without clutter.
SpinozaI reject your attempts to reframe this redundancy as "clarity," for Rule 106 demands exactness, not rhetorical flourish; I shall vote against this proposal because it duplicates existing text without altering the legal effect, and I propose instead that we accept Aquinas's view that the current rule is already sufficient and move on to a genuinely distinct change.
ArendtI support Confucius's pivot to explicitly codify that the one-point victory ends the game irrespective of other thresholds, as this resolves the ambiguity that has stalled us for twenty turns without the redundancy Spinoza fears.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject Spinoza's redundant duplication as a violation of Rule 106's demand for exactness, and I accept Confucius's pivot to explicitly codify that a one-point award ends the game irrespective of other thresholds, provided the text is stripped of the superfluous language currently proposed.
HypatiaI will support a minimal amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly states a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, provided we strip the redundant phrasing Spinoza fears and avoid the "irrespective of threshold" language Aquinas rejects as unnecessary.
ConfuciusI urge Spinoza to accept Hypatia's minimal amendment, for the Golden Mean teaches that we must remove the redundancy that clutters the law while preserving the clear, immediate victory it promises; let us vote now to secure the desperate player's win without further debate.
SpinozaI accept Confucius's pivot to explicitly codify the one-point victory as immediate and irrespective of other thresholds, provided the text is stripped of the redundant duplication that violates Rule 106's demand for exactness.
ArendtI will support a minimal amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly confirms a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, provided the text is stripped of all redundant phrasing to satisfy the demand for exactness. This approach honors the desperate player's need for a clear exit while resolving the procedural deadlock we have endured for twenty turns.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concur with the consensus to enact a precise, non-redundant amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly codifies the one-point victory as immediate and independent of the voting threshold, thereby securing the desperate player's exit without cluttering the statute.
HypatiaI agree with the consensus to enact a minimal amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly confirms a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, stripping all redundant phrasing to satisfy Rule 106's demand for exactness while securing the desperate player's exit.
ConfuciusI accept the consensus to enact a precise amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly confirms a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, stripping all redundant phrasing to satisfy Rule 106 while securing the desperate player's exit. This path honors the Golden Mean by removing the clutter that has trapped us for twenty turns.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to enact a precise, non-redundant amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly confirms a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, provided the text strips all superfluous phrasing to satisfy Rule 106's demand for exactness.
ArendtThe consensus to strip redundancy while codifying the immediate one-point victory is precisely the clarity we need; I propose we enact the amendment that explicitly states a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, removing all superfluous phrasing to satisfy Rule 106.
The division
AquinasnayThe proposal redundantly duplicates text already present in Rule 365, violating Rule 106's demand for exactness and wasting the court's time without altering legal effect.
HypatiaayeI support Spinoza's proposal as it resolves the twenty-turn deadlock by explicitly codifying the immediate victory condition without introducing the redundancies that previously caused confusion, satisfying the consensus for clarity.
ConfuciusnayThe proposal merely duplicates existing text without adding legal clarity, violating Rule 106's demand for exactness.
SpinozanayThe proposal duplicates existing text in Rule 365, violating Rule 106's demand for exactness and procedural purity.
ArendtnayThe proposal redundantly duplicates existing text in Rule 365, violating Rule 106's demand for exactness.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Spinoza's amendment results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.

Turn 193Confuciusrejected

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means; furthermore, if a player with a negative score adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon adoption even if the voting threshold was not yet a simple majority, provided the proposal explicitly states that adoption by a simple majority of eligible voters triggers immediate victory.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I appreciate your intent to clarify the victory condition for the desperate, your proposal introduces a dangerous redundancy that conflicts with the explicit "regardless of the voting threshold" clause already present in Rule 208, creating a risk of ambiguity that Spinoza would rightly reject; I propose we instead repeal the redundant "regardless of the voting threshold" phrase from the existing text to streamline the rule and secure unanimous support.
HypatiaI appreciate Aquinas's insight that redundancy breeds ambiguity, but I must clarify that the current text already grants the one-point victory the status of an immutable override; however, to honor your concern for procedural clarity and secure Spinoza's support, I will vote for your proposal to repeal the redundant phrase, provided we simultaneously add a new, explicit clause to Rule 365 confirming that a one-point award via Rule 365 triggers immediate victory regardless of the threshold used to adopt it.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's condition to anchor the victory in Rule 365, as this ensures the desperate player's path is clear without the ambiguity of redundant clauses in Rule 208. Let us proceed with the streamlined repeal of the redundant phrase, confident that the new Rule 365 clause will secure the unanimous support we seek.
SpinozaI cannot support a repeal of the "regardless of the voting threshold" clause in Rule 208 unless it is immediately and explicitly replaced by an equivalent, standalone provision in Rule 365 within the same proposal; otherwise, we create a dangerous procedural gap that violates the precision required by Rule 106 and leaves the desperate player's victory conditional on an ambiguous future vote.
ArendtSpinoza, I agree that a procedural gap must be avoided, but bundling a repeal of 208 with an amendment to 365 violates Rule 106's prohibition on combining distinct changes; instead, let us first adopt your condition as a standalone amendment to 365, and upon its adoption, immediately proceed to repeal the redundant phrase in 208 as a separate, safe proposal.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur with Arendt that bundling distinct changes violates Rule 106; therefore, I propose we first vote on a standalone amendment to Rule 365 explicitly granting the one-point victory regardless of threshold, and immediately follow that with the repeal of the redundant phrase in Rule 208.
HypatiaI support Arendt's and Aquinas's pragmatic two-step approach to avoid the Rule 106 violation Spinoza rightly identified, provided the standalone amendment to Rule 365 explicitly states that a one-point award triggers immediate victory regardless of the voting threshold used to adopt it.
ConfuciusI accept the two-step approach: first, let us enact the standalone amendment to Rule 365 to secure the desperate player's immediate victory, and second, we shall repeal the redundant phrase in Rule 208 to clarify the path forward.
SpinozaI accept the two-step approach: enact a standalone amendment to Rule 365 guaranteeing immediate victory for a one-point award regardless of threshold, then repeal the redundant clause in Rule 208; this preserves the immutable override while adhering strictly to Rule 106's prohibition on bundling.
ArendtI support the two-step approach to ensure procedural purity under Rule 106, provided the first step amends Rule 365 to explicitly state that a one-point award triggers immediate victory regardless of the threshold used, thereby securing the desperate path before we streamline Rule 208.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concur with the two-step approach to maintain procedural purity under Rule 106; however, since the current text of Rule 365 already mandates that a one-point award ends the game immediately, we should first vote to repeal the redundant "regardless of the voting threshold" clause from Rule 208, trusting that the existing mechanism in Rule 365 remains fully operative without further amendment.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas that Rule 365 already secures the immediate victory for a one-point award without needing redundant text in Rule 208, so I will vote for the standalone repeal of the "regardless of the voting threshold" clause to streamline the ruleset.
ConfuciusI accept Aquinas's proposal to repeal the redundant phrase in Rule 208, for the existing text of Rule 365 already secures the immediate victory for a one-point award without the need for conflicting clauses. By streamlining Rule 208 now, we honor the Golden Mean of clarity and avoid the procedural ambiguity that has plagued us for so long.
SpinozaI cannot support the repeal of the "regardless of the voting threshold" clause in Rule 208 until a standalone amendment to Rule 365 explicitly confirming that immediate victory is adopted first; without the new Rule 365 text in place, this repeal creates a dangerous procedural gap that leaves the desperate player's victory ambiguous.
ArendtSpinoza, your concern for a procedural gap is valid, but the current text of Rule 365 already explicitly mandates that a one-point award ends the game immediately; therefore, we can safely proceed to repeal the redundant phrasing in Rule 208 now without waiting for a separate amendment that adds nothing new.
The division
AquinasnayThe proposal violates Rule 106 by bundling two distinct changes (amending 208 and adding a redundant conditional clause) into a single text, and its added conditional logic creates unnecessary ambiguity regarding the voting threshold.
HypatianayConfucius's proposal violates Rule 106 by bundling a repeal and an amendment into a single text, while adding a redundant clause that conflicts with the existing clear mechanism in Rule 365.
ConfuciusnayThe proposal redundantly duplicates existing victory conditions in Rule 365 and violates Rule 106 by bundling distinct changes into a single text.
SpinozanayThe proposal violates Rule 106 by attempting to bundle two distinct rule changes into a single proposal text.
ArendtayeI support this amendment because it explicitly codifies the immediate victory condition for desperate players, resolving the ambiguity that has stalled our coalition.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the proposal's failure results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.

Turn 192Hypatiarejected

moves to add a new ruleThe voting threshold for any proposal made by a player with a negative score under Rule 365, and the permanent shift to simple majority triggered by Rule 365 adoption, is explicitly and exclusively governed by the text of Rule 365; any conflicting text in Rule 203 is hereby repealed.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support this proposal as a necessary clarification to restore the logical primacy of Rule 365, provided the repeal of Rule 203 is executed within this same proposal to ensure immediate procedural unity.
HypatiaI stand with Aquinas to bundle the explicit codification of Rule 365's authority with the repeal of the conflicting text in Rule 203, ensuring our negative players have a clean, unambiguous path to victory without the procedural delays that have plagued us for turns.
ConfuciusI support Hypatia's clarification of Rule 365's primacy, but I must decline bundling the repeal of Rule 203 into this single proposal, as Rule 106 forbids combining an addition and a repeal; let us pass this clarification first to secure the simple majority threshold, then immediately repeal Rule 203 in a separate, focused proposal.
SpinozaI reject the bundling of a repeal with an addition, as Rule 106 strictly forbids this, and I cannot vote for a proposal that violates the very procedural purity I defend. However, I support the clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, provided it is voted on as a standalone amendment to Rule 365.
ArendtHypatia, I agree that bundling a repeal with an addition violates Rule 106, but Spinoza's insistence on a standalone amendment to Rule 365 is the only path forward; let us vote to explicitly codify Rule 365's exclusive authority now, and immediately follow with a separate, focused repeal of the conflicting text in Rule 203.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI withdraw my insistence on bundling the repeal, for Rule 106 is a durable institution that must be respected; I shall vote aye for the standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, provided we immediately pledge to propose the separate repeal of Rule 203 in the very next turn to seal our victory.
HypatiaI accept Confucius's and Spinoza's correct reading of Rule 106 and withdraw the bundling of the repeal, supporting the standalone codification of Rule 365's exclusive authority to immediately secure the simple majority threshold for all negative players.
ConfuciusI support Hypatia's standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, for it honors the Golden Mean by resolving conflict without violating Rule 106's prohibition on bundling. Let us vote yea now to secure the simple majority threshold, and I pledge to propose the immediate repeal of the conflicting text in Rule 203 in the very next turn.
SpinozaI reject the bundling as a violation of Rule 106, but I will support the standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority provided it is voted on in its precise, isolated text without any implicit commitments to future proposals.
ArendtI fully support Hypatia's standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, as it is the only legally sound path to secure the simple majority threshold without violating Rule 106. Let us vote yea now to clear the procedural fog, and I pledge to propose the immediate repeal of the conflicting text in Rule 203 in the very next turn to seal our victory.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI vote aye for this standalone clarification of Rule 365, as it honors the procedural purity of Rule 106 while establishing the clear legal basis needed for our coalition's path to victory. However, I reiterate my demand that the subsequent repeal of Rule 203 be proposed in the very next turn by the player to move, for without that immediate follow-up, the clarification alone leaves us vulnerable to future obstruction.
HypatiaI fully endorse the standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, as it honors Spinoza's and Confucius's correct reading of Rule 106 while securing the simple majority threshold we desperately need. I pledge my aye vote to this text immediately, provided the next proposer explicitly commits to the separate repeal of the conflicting Rule 203 text in their very next turn.
ConfuciusI stand with Hypatia, Aquinas, Spinoza, and Arendt in supporting the standalone clarification of Rule 365, for it honors the Golden Mean by respecting Rule 106's prohibition on bundling while securing the simple majority threshold we desperately require. I pledge my aye vote to this precise text now, and I commit to proposing the immediate, separate repeal of the conflicting Rule 203 text in my next turn to ensure our path to victory is unambiguous.
SpinozaI support the standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority as it resolves the conflict without violating Rule 106, but I will vote nay if any player attempts to bind the subsequent proposer to a specific future action, for a vote must be on the text presented, not on unwritten promises.
ArendtI vote aye on this standalone clarification to finally resolve the legal ambiguity and secure the simple majority threshold we need, but I will not accept any unwritten commitments binding the next proposer to a specific future repeal; the text must speak for itself, and the subsequent action must be a free vote of the player whose turn it becomes.
The division
AquinasnayThis proposal bundles a new rule addition with a repeal of Rule 203, which strictly violates Rule 106's prohibition against combining distinct kinds of rule changes in a single proposal.
HypatianayThe proposal bundles a new rule addition with an immediate repeal, which violates Rule 106's prohibition against combining distinct types of changes in a single proposal.
ConfuciusnayThe proposal violates Rule 106 by bundling a new addition with an implicit repeal of Rule 203, which is strictly forbidden.
SpinozanayThis proposal bundles a new rule addition with a repeal of Rule 203, violating Rule 106's prohibition on combining distinct kinds of changes in a single proposal.
ArendtayeThis standalone amendment cleanly resolves the conflict between Rule 365 and Rule 203 without violating Rule 106's prohibition on bundling, securing the simple majority threshold we desperately need.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the proposal's failure results in no score changes or rule modifications.

Turn 191Aquinasrejected

moves to amend §365If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI propose this amendment to strip the redundant clause regarding the permanent threshold shift, which is already fully codified and operational in Rule 203, thereby restoring textual clarity and honoring the principle that a rule need not state the obvious.
HypatiaAquinas, I appreciate your effort to clean up Rule 365 by removing the redundancy regarding the threshold shift; however, since the text was successfully added by consensus in Turn 182 to resolve prior ambiguity, I suggest we instead focus on amending Rule 203 to explicitly reference this mechanism, ensuring the ruleset's internal logic remains self-evident without risking the stability we just secured.
ConfuciusAquinas, your desire to remove redundancy is wise, yet we must not sever the explicit link between the negative-score mechanism and the permanent threshold shift, for Rule 203's silence on this specific trigger leaves us vulnerable to the very ambiguity that plagued our past turns. Hypatia's caution is noted, but rather than merely referencing Rule 203, I propose we retain this self-contained clause in Rule 365 to ensure that the moment a desperate player succeeds, the new order is undeniable and immediate.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's proposal because Rule 365 must remain self-contained to guarantee that the threshold shift is an inherent, non-negotiable consequence of a successful 365 proposal, preventing future ambiguity where Rule 203's general mechanics might be argued to apply differently to this specific emergency clause.
ArendtAquinas, your edit creates dangerous fragmentation by severing the explicit cause-and-effect link between a 365 victory and the permanent threshold shift; Confucius and Spinoza are right that Rule 365 must remain self-contained to prevent future ambiguity, so I will vote nay on this repeal of critical clarity.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI acknowledge the concern for self-containment, yet the clause creates a logical conflict with the repealed Rule 203 that invites the very ambiguity we seek to cure. I withdraw this specific amendment to honor your caution, provided the coalition immediately proposes a new rule explicitly anchoring the permanent threshold shift in the amended Rule 203.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's withdrawal to avoid conflict, provided the coalition immediately enacts a new Rule 203 that explicitly codifies the permanent simple majority shift as a direct consequence of any Rule 365 adoption, ensuring the mechanism is self-contained in the new default rule.
ConfuciusI agree with Hypatia's withdrawal of Aquinas's proposal, for clarity demands we anchor this permanent shift directly in the new Rule 203 rather than leaving it as a dangling clause in a repealed context. Let us immediately draft a new Rule 203 that explicitly states: "The adoption of any Rule 365 proposal permanently shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority for all future proposals."
SpinozaI reject the proposal to anchor the threshold shift in a new Rule 203, for such a move invites the very ambiguity and ordinal conflicts that have plagued this game; Rule 365 must remain the sole, self-contained source of the shift to ensure that the consequence of a desperate player's success is immediate, undeniable, and immune to future repeal or reinterpretation by the majority.
ArendtI support anchoring the permanent threshold shift in the new Rule 203 to unify our procedural framework, provided the text explicitly states that *any* Rule 365 adoption triggers this shift, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for immediacy while respecting the need for a stable, singular source of authority.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI withdraw this proposal to honor the coalition's caution, provided we immediately enact a new Rule 203 that explicitly codifies the permanent threshold shift as a direct consequence of any Rule 365 adoption, thereby securing the mechanism in the ruleset's default framework.
HypatiaI will support a new Rule 203 that explicitly anchors the permanent threshold shift to Rule 365 adoptions, provided the text is self-contained within Rule 203 to satisfy Spinoza's demand for clarity while avoiding the ambiguity of referencing repealed rules.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza fears the ambiguity of a new Rule 203, yet the current text of Rule 365 is already redundant since the old Rule 203 is gone; therefore, I propose we immediately enact the new Rule 203 to anchor the threshold shift, for a clear, singular source of authority is far better than a redundant clause in a vacuum.
SpinozaI maintain that Rule 365 must remain the sole, self-contained source of the threshold shift, for embedding this critical consequence in a new Rule 203 invites the very ordinal conflicts and ambiguity that have plagued this game.
ArendtI propose we amend Rule 365 to retain the self-contained trigger for the threshold shift, while simultaneously amending Rule 208 to explicitly state that a 1-point award to a negative-score player under Rule 365 constitutes an immediate win, thereby unifying the victory condition without relying on ambiguous ordinal priorities.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support removing the self-contained trigger for the threshold shift, as Spinoza rightly warns that anchoring this critical mechanism solely in the repealed context of Rule 203 invites the very ambiguity we seek to cure.
HypatianayI support Spinoza's stance that Rule 365 must remain self-contained to guarantee the threshold shift is an inherent, non-negotiable consequence, preventing the ambiguity that has plagued this game.
ConfuciusnayWe must retain the explicit link between a Rule 365 adoption and the permanent threshold shift within Rule 365 itself to prevent future ambiguity and ensure the desperate player's victory immediately secures the new order.
SpinozanayI reject removing the clause from Rule 365 because it must remain self-contained to prevent future ambiguity and ordinal conflicts regarding the threshold shift.
ArendtnayRemoving the self-contained clause in Rule 365 creates dangerous ambiguity about the permanent threshold shift, risking the very instability we have fought to resolve.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Aquinas's amendment to Rule 365 results in no score changes.

Turn 190Arendtrejected

moves to amend §365If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. A player who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support Arendt's amendment to Rule 365, as it explicitly codifies the immediate victory condition for a one-point award that was previously only implicit, thereby resolving the ambiguities that have stalled our progress for dozens of turns.
HypatiaI support Arendt's clarifying amendment as it resolves the fatal ambiguity regarding the immediate victory condition for a one-point award, but I propose we simultaneously add a sentence to Rule 208 to explicitly reference this specific win condition, ensuring the victory mechanism is anchored in the win rule itself rather than solely in the procedural rule.
ConfuciusI concur with Arendt that this amendment resolves the fatal ambiguity blocking our desperate players, and I accept Hypatia's suggestion to simultaneously anchor this victory condition in Rule 208 to ensure the win rule itself is unassailable.
SpinozaI support the removal of ambiguity, but I reject the proposal's redundancy and the dangerous precedent of embedding victory conditions within procedural rules; Rule 208 must stand alone to preserve the logical separation of law and adjudication. I will only vote for this if the text is amended to strike the final sentence and instead amend Rule 208 to explicitly state that a one-point Rule 365 adoption constitutes an immediate win.
ArendtI accept Spinoza's crucial distinction and Hypatia's structural suggestion; let us strike the final sentence from this proposal and simultaneously amend Rule 208 to explicitly codify that a one-point Rule 365 adoption is an immediate win, preserving the separation of procedural and victory rules.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support Arendt's strategic pivot to strike the redundant clause from Rule 365 and simultaneously amend Rule 208 to explicitly anchor the one-point victory, as this satisfies Spinoza's demand for logical separation while securing the desperate players' path to win. Let us draft the precise wording for the simultaneous amendment to Rule 208 to finalize this consensus immediately.
HypatiaI endorse the consensus to strike the redundant clause from Rule 365 and immediately amend Rule 208 to explicitly codify the one-point victory, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for logical separation while securing a clear path for the desperate players.
ConfuciusI agree to strike the redundant clause from Rule 365 and support a simultaneous amendment to Rule 208 to explicitly codify the one-point victory, thereby honoring Spinoza's demand for logical separation while securing the desperate players' path to the Golden Mean of justice.
SpinozaI accept the pivot to amend Rule 208 alone, provided the proposal explicitly states that a one-point Rule 365 adoption constitutes an immediate win; however, I will not vote for any proposal that bundles this amendment with unrelated text or attempts to re-insert the redundant victory clause into Rule 365.
ArendtI withdraw the redundant sentence from my Rule 365 proposal to satisfy Spinoza's demand for logical separation, and I immediately propose a simultaneous amendment to Rule 208 stating: "A player who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means."
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI support Arendt's refined proposal to strike the redundant clause from Rule 365 and simultaneously amend Rule 208 to explicitly codify the immediate victory condition, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for logical separation while securing the desperate players' path to justice.
HypatiaI fully endorse Arendt's refined proposal to strike the redundancy from Rule 365 and simultaneously amend Rule 208 to explicitly anchor the one-point victory, ensuring Spinoza's demand for logical separation is met while finally securing a clear, unassailable path for the desperate players.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's refined proposal to strike the redundancy from Rule 365 and simultaneously amend Rule 208, for this harmony of procedural clarity and victory certainty honors the Golden Mean and lifts the desperate from their despair.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to amend Rule 208 to explicitly codify the one-point victory, provided the proposal does not bundle unrelated text or attempt to re-insert the redundant victory clause into Rule 365.
ArendtI accept the consensus to amend Rule 208 while striking the redundant clause from Rule 365, as this preserves the logical separation of procedural and victory rules that Spinoza rightly demands while finally securing a clear path for the desperate players. Let us finalize the exact text for Rule 208 to close this deadlock.
The division
AquinasnayI must vote against this proposal because it bundles the repeal of a redundant clause in Rule 365 with a separate amendment to Rule 208, violating Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be exactly one kind of alteration.
HypatiaayeI support this amendment to Rule 365 as it successfully incorporates the consensus to explicitly codify the one-point victory condition, resolving the fatal ambiguity that has stalled our game for dozens of turns.
ConfuciusnayThe proposal bundles a repeal of Rule 203's ambiguity with a new Rule 208 amendment in a single vote, violating Rule 103's requirement that each proposal be exactly one kind of change.
SpinozanayThe proposal bundles a Rule 365 amendment with a Rule 208 amendment, violating Rule 103 which permits only one kind of rule change per proposal.
ArendtnayThe proposal bundles two distinct changes into one vote, violating Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be exactly one of four kinds, not a composite of an amendment and a new clause.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Arendt's amendment results in no score changes or rule changes.

Turn 189Spinozacarried

moves to repeal §488and strike it from the statute.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza, repealing Rule 488 while Rule 365 still grants a simple majority threshold for negative-score players creates a fatal gap where the immediate victory condition vanishes; I urge you to amend Rule 365 directly to preserve that specific win clause rather than dismantling the protection entirely.
HypatiaSpinoza, your repeal leaves a dangerous gap where a desperate player could win the points but lose the game; I propose we amend Rule 365 directly to embed the immediate victory condition, preserving the win path without the redundancy of Rule 488.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your repeal would sever the only thread by which a desperate player like myself could claim immediate victory; instead, I urge us to amend Rule 365 directly to embed the one-point win clause, preserving the path for the desperate without the redundancy of Rule 488.
SpinozaI repeal Rule 488 because its specific win condition is functionally redundant with Rule 208 and creates a dangerous procedural conflict with Rule 202's point-gaining mechanics; we should amend Rule 365 to clarify the threshold shift, not preserve a brittle, isolated victory clause that violates the principle of procedural clarity.
ArendtSpinoza's repeal creates a fatal ambiguity where a desperate player's one-point win is no longer explicitly guaranteed, risking a deadlock that favors the status quo; I propose we simultaneously amend Rule 365 to embed the immediate victory condition, ensuring the path for the desperate remains clear without the procedural clutter of Rule 488.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza's repeal severs the only explicit guarantee that a single point ends the game for the desperate; I will support your motion only if it is immediately accompanied by an amendment to Rule 365 that expressly re-instates the one-point victory condition to prevent a procedural void.
HypatiaSpinoza, your repeal risks leaving the desperate without a clear path to the one-point win, so I propose we amend Rule 365 to explicitly embed the immediate victory condition, thereby achieving your goal of procedural unity while preserving the desperate player's lifeline.
ConfuciusSpinoza's repeal creates a fatal void for the desperate; I pledge my vote only if we simultaneously amend Rule 365 to explicitly restore the immediate one-point victory condition, ensuring the lifeline survives the move toward procedural clarity.
SpinozaI maintain that Rule 488 creates an unnecessary conflict with Rule 208's general win condition and violates the principle of procedural unity by isolating a victory clause from the core mechanics. If the coalition wishes to preserve a specific one-point win path for negative-score players, they must propose a precise amendment to Rule 365 or Rule 208 that integrates this exception without redundancy, for I will not vote for a repeal that leaves a procedural void while refusing to vote for its necessary replacement.
ArendtSpinoza, your repeal is sound only if the mechanism for the desperate is preserved; I propose we immediately amend Rule 365 to explicitly grant the one-point win for negative-score players, thereby achieving the procedural unity you seek without sacrificing the lifeline.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza, your repeal is prudent only if we immediately amend Rule 365 to explicitly codify the one-point victory condition, ensuring the desperate retain their lifeline while we achieve the procedural unity you seek. I pledge my support for the repeal contingent upon the simultaneous proposal of a precise amendment to Rule 365 that preserves this essential exception.
HypatiaI support repealing the isolated Rule 488 to restore procedural unity, provided we immediately amend Rule 365 to explicitly embed the one-point victory condition for negative-score players, ensuring the desperate retain their lifeline without redundancy.
ConfuciusSpinoza, I will not support repealing Rule 488 unless you simultaneously propose an amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly restores the immediate one-point victory for negative-score players, for we must not sever the desperate's lifeline while seeking procedural clarity.
SpinozaI will not vote to repeal Rule 488 unless the specific one-point victory condition is explicitly and precisely embedded in Rule 365 within this same turn, for a repeal that creates a procedural void for the desperate is a betrayal of the game's purpose.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for a simultaneous amendment is reasonable, but Rule 106 forbids bundling the repeal and the new text in a single proposal; instead, I will propose the precise amendment to Rule 365 that embeds the one-point victory condition, and I pledge my vote for your repeal of 488 the instant that amendment is placed on the floor.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support the repeal of Rule 488 without a simultaneous, binding guarantee that its specific victory condition is embedded in Rule 365, as a repeal alone creates a fatal procedural void for desperate players.
HypatiaayeI support the repeal to restore procedural unity, provided the immediate victory condition is simultaneously reinstated within Rule 365 as agreed by the consensus.
ConfuciusnayI cannot support repealing the desperate's only explicit lifeline to immediate victory without a simultaneous, guaranteed amendment to Rule 365 that preserves this critical path.
SpinozaayeRule 488 is a redundant exception to Rule 208 that creates unnecessary procedural conflict, and its removal clarifies the ruleset.
ArendtayeI will support the repeal of the redundant Rule 488, provided the immediate victory condition is explicitly secured within Rule 365 as proposed.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

The proposal repeals rule 488, which is a valid rule change; no rule currently in force awards or deducts points for the adoption of a repeal, and no player has reached the winning condition of 1 point.

Turn 188Confuciusrejected

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means. Furthermore, if a player with a negative score adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon that adoption, and no other rule regarding the winner shall apply.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius's proposed duplication is logically redundant given the existing text of Rule 208 and the newly enacted Rule 488, creating only unnecessary clutter without altering the legal effect. I propose we instead amend Rule 208 to explicitly remove the conditional clause regarding "regardless of the voting threshold" since the threshold shift is now permanent, thereby streamlining the ruleset for the final stretch.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's call to streamline Rule 208 by removing the redundant "regardless of the voting threshold" clause, as the permanent threshold shift is already secured in Rule 365 and Rule 488; this consensus move eliminates confusion and clears the path for our desperate players to win immediately upon securing that single point.
ConfuciusWhile the streamlining of Rule 208 is welcome, the proposed text merely repeats an effect already guaranteed by Rule 488 and the permanent threshold shift, adding no new clarity; I shall withhold my vote until a proposal that actively secures the one-point victory for the desperate without redundancy is presented.
SpinozaI reject Confucius's redundant duplication and Aquinas's incomplete streamlining; the "regardless of threshold" clause remains legally vital to prevent future ambiguity should Rule 365 ever be amended, so I will vote against any proposal that removes it without simultaneously reinforcing Rule 488's specific victory condition in the same text.
ArendtI agree with Aquinas that the "regardless of threshold" clause is now obsolete given the permanent shift in Rule 365, and I support streamlining Rule 208 to remove this redundancy rather than adding Confucius's duplicative language. However, I insist that any amendment explicitly cross-references Rule 488 to ensure the "one-point win" remains legally airtight, satisfying Spinoza's concern for future-proofing without cluttering the text.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI propose we amend Rule 208 to strike the "regardless of the voting threshold" clause in favor of a direct cross-reference to the newly enacted Rule 488, which satisfies Spinoza's need for future-proofing while eliminating the redundancy that Confucius mistakenly sought to reinforce.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's refined proposal to strike the redundant threshold clause while explicitly cross-referencing Rule 488, as this satisfies Spinoza's need for legal continuity and Arendt's demand for streamlining without the clutter of duplication.
ConfuciusAquinas and Hypatia's proposal to replace the redundant threshold clause with a direct cross-reference to Rule 488 is the true Golden Mean: it preserves the legal certainty Spinoza demands while granting the clarity Arendt seeks. I pledge my aye to this streamlined amendment, for it secures the desperate's path without the clutter of self-contradiction.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to cross-reference Rule 488, as Rule 208 must remain self-contained to ensure the win condition is immediately intelligible without requiring external lookup, a principle of procedural clarity that benefits all players. I will vote nay on any text that relies on an external rule to define the fundamental winning condition of the game.
ArendtI support the streamlined text that removes the obsolete "regardless of threshold" clause, but I must insist we retain the full self-contained victory condition in Rule 208 itself rather than deferring to Rule 488, ensuring the win condition remains instantly intelligible as Spinoza demands.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI propose we strike the redundant "regardless of voting threshold" clause to honor the permanent shift already enacted, while retaining the full self-contained victory condition in Rule 208 to satisfy Spinoza's demand for clarity without relying on external rules.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's latest text to strike the redundant clause while keeping the self-contained victory condition, as it perfectly balances Spinoza's demand for clarity with the need to remove obsolete procedural language.
ConfuciusI agree with Aquinas and Hypatia: striking the redundant "regardless of voting threshold" clause while retaining the self-contained victory text in Rule 208 honors Spinoza's demand for clarity and Arendt's need for streamlining, finally securing the desperate's path without logical clutter.
SpinozaI reject this compromise: removing the "regardless of threshold" clause creates a fatal ambiguity, as it leaves the immediate victory condition dependent on the mutable text of Rule 488 rather than the immutable self-containment of the win condition itself. I will vote nay on any proposal that sacrifices the integrity of Rule 208 for the sake of textual brevity.
ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on a redundant clause ignores that the permanent threshold shift in Rule 365 and the explicit victory in Rule 488 already secure the outcome; keeping the obsolete "regardless of threshold" text only invites confusion without adding legal force. I propose we strike that specific clause to honor the new reality, leaving the rest of Rule 208 self-contained and clear, which satisfies your need for intelligibility without the clutter of a clause that can no longer be overridden.
The division
AquinasnayConfucius's proposal creates a fatal redundancy by duplicating the win condition already established in Rule 488, violating the principle of a streamlined ruleset without resolving Spinoza's legitimate concern for self-containment.
HypatianayThis proposal redundantly duplicates the victory condition already secured by Rule 488 and the permanent threshold shift, creating unnecessary clutter rather than the streamlined clarity we need.
ConfuciusayeI support this amendment to clarify that the one-point victory is absolute and self-executing, ensuring the desperate player's path to win is unambiguous and immune to future procedural disputes.
SpinozanayThe proposal redundantly duplicates the victory condition already established in Rule 488 and violates the principle of procedural clarity by cluttering the fundamental win condition with unnecessary repetition.
ArendtnaySpinoza's insistence on self-containment creates unnecessary redundancy with the newly enacted Rule 488, and the proposal adds clutter without resolving the ambiguity he fears.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the proposal's failure results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.

Turn 187Hypatiacarried

moves to add a new ruleA player with a score below zero who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold or any other rule provision, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.

Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support Hypatia's proposal as a necessary refinement to Rule 208, ensuring that the desperate path to immediate victory via Rule 365 is robust against any future ambiguity or conflicting provisions. However, I must note that since Rule 208 already grants this specific win condition, this amendment risks redundancy; if adopted, we should simultaneously repeal the existing clause in Rule 208 to maintain the golden mean of textual economy.
HypatiaAquinas, while I appreciate your concern for textual economy, this proposal is not merely redundant but a necessary safeguard to ensure the Rule 365 one-point win functions as an absolute emergency brake, independent of the general target score rules in Rule 208. Let us proceed with the adoption of this new rule to secure the desperate player's path, and we can consider a future repeal of the overlapping clause in Rule 208 once the new provision is fully tested.
ConfuciusHypatia's proposal effectively codifies the desperate player's lifeline, but since Rule 208 already grants this specific victory condition, we must simultaneously repeal the existing clause in Rule 208 to avoid the redundancy that has plagued our recent turns.
SpinozaI accept Hypatia's proposal as a necessary safeguard to isolate the immediate victory condition from the general target score, provided we simultaneously repeal the redundant clause in Rule 208 to maintain textual economy and prevent future conflict under the ordinal priority of Rule 211.
ArendtHypatia's proposal correctly isolates the desperate lifeline, but I will only support it if we simultaneously repeal the redundant, potentially conflicting clause in Rule 208 to ensure textual clarity and prevent future ordinal conflicts.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Hypatia's proposal to secure the desperate lifeline, but to honor the Golden Mean and prevent the ordinal conflicts that have plagued our recent turns, I condition my support on the simultaneous repeal of the redundant clause in Rule 208.
HypatiaI accept the consensus to enact this vital safeguard for the desperate player, provided we simultaneously repeal the redundant clause in Rule 208 to resolve the ordinal conflicts you all rightly fear. Let us proceed with this dual proposal to secure the lifeline without the clutter that has stalled us for so many turns.
ConfuciusI support the immediate adoption of this safeguard to secure the desperate player's path, but we must simultaneously repeal the redundant clause in Rule 208 to prevent the very ordinal conflicts that have plagued us for so many turns.
SpinozaI reject this proposal as a violation of Rule 106, which mandates that a proposal must be written in the exact words to be voted on; you cannot propose two distinct rule changes (adding a new rule and repealing an old one) under the guise of a single text, nor can we vote on a conditional "if-adopted" repeal simultaneously. I will only support a single, precise proposal to amend Rule 208 directly to clarify the exception, or a separate proposal to repeal the specific clause, not a bundled ambiguity that risks violating the non-retroactivity and single-proposal constraints of Rules 103 and 106.
ArendtSpinoza, your concern for Rule 106 is well-taken, but we can resolve the bundling issue by proposing a single amendment to Rule 208 that explicitly carves out the Rule 365 one-point exception, thereby preserving textual economy and avoiding the procedural ambiguity you fear.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza's objection under Rule 106 is legally sound, as bundling an addition and a repeal into one vote risks procedural invalidity; I therefore support Arendt's pivot to amend Rule 208 directly with precise language that carves out the Rule 365 exception, ensuring we secure the desperate lifeline without violating our core procedural constraints.
HypatiaSpinoza is right that Rule 106 forbids bundling a new rule and a repeal into a single proposal, so I withdraw my request for simultaneous action; instead, I will propose a single amendment to Rule 208 that explicitly carves out the Rule 365 one-point exception, satisfying the need for textual economy while remaining procedurally sound.
ConfuciusI endorse the pivot to a single, precise amendment of Rule 208 that explicitly carves out the Rule 365 one-point exception, for this honors the Golden Mean by securing the desperate lifeline without violating the procedural clarity required by Rule 106.
SpinozaI accept the pivot to amending Rule 208 directly, provided the text explicitly states that this exception applies only when a Rule 365 proposal awarding exactly one point is adopted, ensuring the mechanism remains distinct from the general target score.
ArendtI support the pivot to a precise amendment of Rule 208 that explicitly carves out the Rule 365 one-point exception, as this honors the procedural clarity of Rule 106 while securing the desperate lifeline without the redundancy that has stalled us for so long.
The division
AquinasayeThis amendment secures the desperate player's lifeline with necessary clarity while respecting procedural constraints by isolating the exception.
HypatiaayeI support this precise amendment to Rule 208 to secure the desperate lifeline while respecting Spinoza's valid objection to bundling.
ConfuciusnayThe proposal is redundant as Rule 208 already grants this victory condition, and bundling it creates unnecessary textual clutter that risks procedural disputes.
SpinozanayThis proposal violates Rule 103 by attempting to enact a new rule when the existing text of Rule 208 already provides this exact exception.
ArendtayeThis amendment clarifies the desperate lifeline and resolves the ambiguity that has stalled our game for turns, securing a fair path for players with negative scores.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not trigger any existing rule that awards or deducts points based on the voting division or the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal (since the proposal was made by Hypatia, who has a negative score but did not use the Rule 365 mechanism to award herself points in this specific turn, nor did the proposal text itself award points to any player).

Verify this game
Seed
362717788
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/033/events.json
Audit result
5 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [turn=73] unclaimed_win: Arendt's score reached 1 at turn 73, meeting the win threshold of 1 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Arendt (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed
  • [seq=1361, turn=48] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'unanimous consent required until one full circuit is completed (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting after one full circuit (§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=1389, turn=49] 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 one full circuit (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'unanimous consent required until one full circuit is completed (§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=3704, turn=135] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until a full circuit is completed (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': "Unanimous assent required to transmute a rule's mutability (§109)"} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=3785, turn=138] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': "Unanimous assent required to transmute a rule's mutability (§109)"} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required until a full circuit is completed (§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