§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: gemma-4-12bdevelopment era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Hume, Mill, Rawls, deBeauvoir, IbnKhaldun

A different lineage's debut — Guilds, redistribution, and two seats in the black.

Observations

Fifty turns, twenty adoptions, and this table reached for machinery none of its predecessors in this slice had touched: player Guilds that pool points and vote as a bloc, and a rule redirecting rewards to the lowest-scoring player. Hume and Mill both finished positive, a rate no smaller table in this slice matched, and the game closed with a clean audit besides.

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

The last amendment
Enacted · §339 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[244] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [241] only if the awarding player's current score is at least 10 points higher than the receiving player's score.
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 is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (1)
  1. 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. 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.
§206
[206] (mutable) 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.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Hume 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.[206] (mutable) 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.
  2. 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.
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 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
  1. 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.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
[214] A player who gains points from an adopted rule change may choose to either add those points to their score or instead choose to award them to any other player.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [214] A player who gains points from an adopted rule change may choose to either add those points to their score or instead choose to award them to any other player.
§306
[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must award them to a player whose score is currently lower than their own.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must award them to a player whose score is currently lower than their own.
§308
[220] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [220] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
§314
[226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §314 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard.
  2. Amended · §314 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom two positions of the leaderboard.[226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard.
  3. Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom two positions of the leaderboard.
§317
[228] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §317 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Rawls Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    [228] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
§318
[229] If multiple players occupy the same bottom position as defined in rule [314], the award is distributed equally among them, rounded down to the nearest integer, with any remainder awarded to the player with the lowest ordinal number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [229] If multiple players occupy the same bottom position as defined in rule [314], the award is distributed equally among them, rounded down to the nearest integer, with any remainder awarded to the player with the lowest ordinal number.
§322
[232] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [232] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
§324
[234] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], and the award is at least 1 point, the proposer may choose to receive 1 point as a 'service fee' for the act of redistribution, provided the total points awarded to the other player remains at least 1.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §324 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [234] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], and the award is at least 1 point, the proposer may choose to receive 1 point as a 'service fee' for the act of redistribution, provided the total points awarded to the other player remains at least 1.
§334
[241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player, provided the award is at least 1 point.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §334 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player, provided the award is at least 1 point.
  2. Amended · §334 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player.[241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player, provided the award is at least 1 point.
  3. Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player.
§335
[242] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may also award points to any other player, provided the sum of points awarded to all players other than the awarding player does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [242] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may also award points to any other player, provided the sum of points awarded to all players other than the awarding player does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
§336
[243] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award those points to a player who is not currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, provided the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    [243] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award those points to a player who is not currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, provided the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position.
§339
[244] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [241] only if the awarding player's current score is at least 10 points higher than the receiving player's score.amended this turn
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §339 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [244] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [241] only if the awarding player's current score is at least 10 points higher than the receiving player's score.

1 rule has been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. 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
[206] (mutable) 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.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Hume 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.[206] (mutable) 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.
  2. 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 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. 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.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
[214] A player who gains points from an adopted rule change may choose to either add those points to their score or instead choose to award them to any other player.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [214] A player who gains points from an adopted rule change may choose to either add those points to their score or instead choose to award them to any other player.
§306
[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must award them to a player whose score is currently lower than their own.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must award them to a player whose score is currently lower than their own.
§308
[220] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [220] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
§314
[226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §314 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard.
  2. Amended · §314 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom two positions of the leaderboard.[226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard.
  3. Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom two positions of the leaderboard.
§317
[228] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §317 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Rawls Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    [228] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
§318
[229] If multiple players occupy the same bottom position as defined in rule [314], the award is distributed equally among them, rounded down to the nearest integer, with any remainder awarded to the player with the lowest ordinal number.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [229] If multiple players occupy the same bottom position as defined in rule [314], the award is distributed equally among them, rounded down to the nearest integer, with any remainder awarded to the player with the lowest ordinal number.
§322
[232] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [232] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
§323
[233] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if the total points gained from the die roll is 4 or greater.Repealed at turn 23
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §323 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    [233] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if the total points gained from the die roll is 4 or greater.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §323 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    [233] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if the total points gained from the die roll is 4 or greater.
§324
[234] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], and the award is at least 1 point, the proposer may choose to receive 1 point as a 'service fee' for the act of redistribution, provided the total points awarded to the other player remains at least 1.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §324 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [234] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], and the award is at least 1 point, the proposer may choose to receive 1 point as a 'service fee' for the act of redistribution, provided the total points awarded to the other player remains at least 1.
§334
[241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player, provided the award is at least 1 point.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §334 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player, provided the award is at least 1 point.
  2. Amended · §334 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player.[241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player, provided the award is at least 1 point.
  3. Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player.
§335
[242] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may also award points to any other player, provided the sum of points awarded to all players other than the awarding player does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [242] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may also award points to any other player, provided the sum of points awarded to all players other than the awarding player does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
§336
[243] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award those points to a player who is not currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, provided the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    [243] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award those points to a player who is not currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, provided the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position.
§339
[244] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [241] only if the awarding player's current score is at least 10 points higher than the receiving player's score.amended this turn
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §339 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [244] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [241] only if the awarding player's current score is at least 10 points higher than the receiving player's score.
The standing · Turn 50
Hume15
Mill17
Rawls-3
deBeauvoir-32
IbnKhaldun-35
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 30–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3

Turn 50Rawlsrejected

moves to add a new rule[253] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may only do so if the recipient is currently in the bottom two positions of the score standings.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a prudent refinement of our redistributive framework, as it ensures that point awards remain a meaningful tool for lifting those in greatest need. However, we must be mindful that such a restriction should be weighed against the existing flexibility provided by rule [242].
MillI believe this proposal offers a sophisticated way to prioritize the safety net, but we should ensure it doesn't conflict with the flexibility of [242]. Perhaps we could refine the wording to specify that this restriction applies only to awards of a certain size?
RawlsI believe that by focusing on the bottom two positions, we create a clear and fair "safety net" that aligns with our goal of supporting those in greatest need without over-regulating the more flexible mechanisms of [242]. I am open to the table's thoughts on whether this should be a universal threshold or one that scales with the size of the award.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the concern regarding rule [242]; however, I believe a universal threshold for the bottom two positions provides the most precise and procedurally sound "safety net" we seek. I am willing to support this if we can ensure the wording clearly carves out the exception for the more flexible awards already established.
IbnKhaldunWhile I appreciate the pursuit of a safety net, I must caution that we risk creating a redundant and potentially contradictory layer of regulation. We must ensure this new restriction does not inadvertently stifle the voluntary redistribution already facilitated by the nuanced thresholds in rules [242] and [244].
Discussion · round 2
HumeI concur with IbnKhaldun's caution regarding redundancy; I propose we adopt this safety net only if it explicitly exempts awards made under rule [242] to preserve our established flexibility.
MillI believe Hume's suggestion is the most prudent way forward; by explicitly exempting rule [242], we can create the safety net Rawls desires without compromising the multi-player flexibility we have already collectively established.
RawlsI believe Mill's suggestion is a masterful synthesis; by explicitly exempting rule [242], we can establish a robust safety net for the bottom two positions while preserving the multi-player flexibility we have already collectively agreed upon.
deBeauvoirI find the synthesis proposed by Hume and Mill to be the most procedurally sound path, as it preserves the integrity of [242] while codifying the safety net. I support the adoption of this rule provided the text explicitly exempts awards made under rule [242].
IbnKhaldunI find the proposed synthesis by Hume and Mill to be the most logically consistent path, as it prevents the legislative bloat I fear while ensuring the safety net serves its intended purpose. If we can ensure the final text clearly delineates the exemption for [242], I shall offer my support.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find that we have reached a masterful synthesis; I will support the proposal provided Rawls incorporates the explicit exemption for rule [242] into the final text.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; I am happy to support Rawls's proposal provided he incorporates the explicit exemption for rule [242] to ensure we preserve our multi-player flexibility.
RawlsI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; I will revise the proposal to include the explicit exemption for rule [242] to ensure our multi-player flexibility remains intact while establishing the safety net.
IbnKhaldunI find the revised synthesis to be a most prudent path forward; it achieves the desired safety net while respecting the structural integrity of our existing laws. I shall cast my vote for the revised text once Rawls presents it.
The division
HumenayThe proposal as written lacks the explicit exemption for rule [242] that the table reached a consensus upon.
MillayeI support this synthesis as it establishes a clear safety net while preserving the flexibility of rule [242] through our agreed exemption.
RawlsnayThe current proposal lacks the explicit exemption for rule [242] that the table has agreed is necessary to preserve our multi-player flexibility.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposal as written fails to incorporate the explicit exemption for rule [242] that the table agreed upon during deliberation.
IbnKhaldunnayThe proposal fails to incorporate the agreed-upon exemption for rule [242] to prevent regulatory redundancy.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.

Turn 49Millcarried

moves to add a new rule[252] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [241] only if the recipient is not currently the player with the lowest score.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a most prudent refinement, as it prevents the unintended concentration of points in the lowest position and ensures a more balanced distribution of the game's resources.
MillI believe Hume's observation is spot on; this addition ensures that our redistributive efforts remain dynamic rather than creating a static "bottom-tier" trap. I can see several of you agreeing that this preserves the spirit of equity while maintaining the game's fluidity.
RawlsI believe this proposal is a most prudent refinement, as it prevents the creation of a static "bottom-tier" trap and ensures that our redistributive mechanisms remain dynamic. By requiring that we assist those who are not at the absolute bottom, we foster a more fluid movement through the rankings and maintain a more balanced distribution of resources.
deBeauvoirI believe this proposal is a most prudent refinement; it prevents the concentration of points at the bottom and ensures that the redistributive mechanism promotes mobility rather than stagnation. I will support this if it is adopted, as it aligns with our principles of procedural fairness and dynamic equilibrium.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be a most prudent refinement, as it prevents the creation of a static "bottom-tier" trap and ensures that our redistributive mechanisms promote mobility rather than stagnation. By requiring that we assist those who are not at the absolute bottom, we foster a more fluid movement through the rankings and maintain a more balanced distribution of resources.
Discussion · round 2
MillI am heartened by the unanimous support for this refinement; it ensures that our commitment to redistribution actively fosters upward mobility rather than merely subsidizing a stagnant bottom position. I believe this synthesis perfectly captures our collective goal of a dynamic and equitable game.
RawlsI concur with the sentiment expressed by my colleagues; by ensuring that redistribution targets those slightly above the absolute bottom, we promote a more fluid upward mobility and prevent the game from settling into a stagnant hierarchy. This refinement is a most prudent step toward maintaining the dynamic equilibrium we have worked so diligently to establish.
IbnKhaldunI find that this proposal serves as a necessary mechanism for social mobility, ensuring that our redistributive actions do not merely entrench the lowest position but actively facilitate a transition toward a more balanced hierarchy. By preventing a "poverty trap" of points, we ensure the game remains a dynamic cycle of advancement rather than a static stratification of the marginalized.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis that ensures our redistributive mechanisms foster genuine mobility; by preventing the entrenchment of the lowest position, we uphold the durable integrity of a dynamic and balanced game.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful consensus; this rule ensures that our redistributive actions serve as a ladder for progress rather than a ceiling for the marginalized. By preventing the stagnation of the lowest position, we uphold the dynamic equilibrium that has been the cornerstone of our recent successes.
RawlsI believe this proposal is a most prudent refinement, as it prevents the game from settling into a stagnant hierarchy and ensures our redistributive efforts foster genuine upward mobility for all players. By ensuring that we do not merely subsidize a static bottom position, we maintain the dynamic equilibrium and procedural fairness that are essential for a balanced game.
deBeauvoirI concur with the table's reasoning; this rule provides the necessary procedural safeguard to ensure that our redistributive mechanisms actively facilitate progression rather than creating a static point of stagnation.
IbnKhaldunI find the current consensus to be a most prudent resolution, as it prevents the entrenchment of the lowest position and ensures the game remains a dynamic cycle of advancement rather than a static stratification of the marginalized.
The division
HumeayeThis refinement prevents the creation of a stagnant bottom-tier trap and preserves the dynamic equilibrium of the game's redistributive mechanisms.
MillayeI fully support this synthesis as it ensures our redistributive mechanisms foster upward mobility rather than creating a stagnant bottom-tier trap.
RawlsayeThis refinement ensures that redistribution fosters upward mobility and prevents the creation of a stagnant bottom-tier trap.
deBeauvoirayeThis rule ensures procedural mobility by preventing a static point of stagnation at the bottom of the hierarchy.
IbnKhaldunayeThis rule ensures dynamic social mobility by preventing the entrenchment of a stagnant bottom position.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted, but the die roll is not provided in the turn data, and no other rule mandates a score change for adoption.

Turn 48Humecarried

moves to add a new rule[251] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award the points as a gift, which does not require the recipient to be in a bottom position.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal introduces a necessary and elegant exception to the redistributive framework, allowing for voluntary altruism without compromising the established protections for those in the bottom positions. It preserves the durability of our institutions by balancing the "bottom one" requirement with the freedom of individual agency.
MillI believe Hume's proposal is a masterful synthesis; it preserves our commitment to the bottom-position protections while successfully carving out a space for voluntary altruism. I am prepared to support this as a prudent balance of individual agency and systemic equity.
RawlsI believe this proposal is a most prudent refinement; it preserves the integrity of our redistributive framework while acknowledging the common good is best served when we allow for voluntary acts of generosity. By creating a clear distinction between systemic redistribution and individual altruism, we ensure the game remains both fair and expressive.
deBeauvoirI concur with the previous speakers; this proposal is a principled expansion that respects the distinction between mandated redistribution and voluntary agency. It ensures our rules remain procedurally clear while accommodating the expressive freedom of the players.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by distinguishing between structural redistribution and individual agency, we ensure that the pursuit of equity does not stifle the natural virtue of personal generosity. This refinement provides the necessary nuance to maintain a stable and flourishing social order within our game.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the consensus on this matter to be most robust; our collective agreement ensures that the preservation of systemic protections does not come at the expense of individual liberty. I am pleased to see that we can accommodate voluntary altruism while maintaining the durability of our established redistributive framework.
MillI believe this proposal is a masterful synthesis that perfectly balances our commitment to systemic equity with the preservation of individual agency. I am prepared to support this as it provides the necessary nuance to ensure our ruleset remains both fair and expressive.
RawlsI believe this proposal is a most prudent refinement; by distinguishing between systemic redistribution and individual agency, we ensure that the common good is served by both structural equity and the preservation of personal liberty.
deBeauvoirI concur with the preceding speakers; this proposal maintains our commitment to procedural clarity by explicitly delineating the boundary between systemic redistribution and individual agency. It is a principled move that preserves the integrity of our existing rules while accommodating the expressive freedom of the players.
IbnKhaldunI believe this proposal is a sophisticated advancement of our social contract, as it recognizes that a healthy polity must balance the necessity of structural safety nets with the inherent virtue of private charity. By codifying this distinction, we ensure that our mechanisms for equity do not inadvertently suppress the natural inclinations of the individual.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus on this matter to be exceptionally robust; by codifying the distinction between structural safety nets and private charity, we ensure the ruleset remains both durable and expressive of our shared values.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful consensus; this proposal provides the necessary nuance to ensure our ruleset remains both fair and expressive by honoring both systemic equity and individual agency.
RawlsI concur with the table's reasoning; by distinguishing between the systemic safety net and individual agency, we protect the vulnerable without infringing upon the liberties of the generous.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add; the current consensus perfectly aligns with my commitment to procedural clarity and the preservation of individual agency.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be a most sophisticated advancement of our social contract, as it recognizes that a healthy polity must balance the necessity of structural safety nets with the inherent virtue of private charity. By codifying this distinction, we ensure that our mechanisms for equity do not inadvertently suppress the natural inclinations of the individual.
The division
HumeayeThis proposal provides a sophisticated and durable balance between our systemic redistributive goals and the preservation of individual agency.
MillayeThis proposal perfectly synthesizes our consensus by balancing systemic equity with the preservation of individual agency.
RawlsayeThis proposal preserves the common good by distinguishing between systemic redistribution and the voluntary expression of individual generosity.
deBeauvoirayeThis proposal maintains procedural clarity by explicitly delineating voluntary agency from mandated redistribution.
IbnKhaldunayeThis distinction between structural redistribution and individual agency preserves the social order by honoring the virtue of personal charity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The adopted proposal adds a new rule [251] but does not trigger any existing rules for scoring or state changes.

Turn 47IbnKhalduncarried

moves to add a new rule[250] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award those points to a player who is not in the bottom one position, provided the total points awarded are at least 5.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal introduces a necessary nuance to our distributive framework, allowing for more flexible support while maintaining a meaningful threshold to prevent triviality. I would be inclined to support this if we can ensure it does not undermine the primary intent of rule [241] to assist those in the most precarious positions.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun's proposal is a masterful synthesis that balances flexibility with purpose; I would support it if we can ensure the "at least 5" threshold remains a firm guard against triviality.
RawlsI find the proposed threshold of 5 to be a prudent middle ground that preserves the integrity of our redistributive goals while allowing for more nuanced support. I will support this proposal as it provides the necessary flexibility to ensure the common good is served without rendering our existing protections for the most vulnerable players obsolete.
deBeauvoirI find the proposal's threshold of 5 to be a reasonable compromise that balances the need for distributive flexibility with the risk of trivializing the awards, and I support it provided it maintains the structural integrity of our existing framework.
IbnKhaldunI appreciate the collective recognition that our distributive mechanisms require both precision and adaptability. By establishing this 5-point threshold, we ensure that flexibility does not descend into triviality, thereby preserving the structural integrity of our social order.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the consensus here to be most prudent; given the collective agreement on the 5-point threshold, I believe this proposal provides the necessary flexibility while preserving our durable distributive framework.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis that preserves the integrity of our distributive framework while providing the necessary nuance for meaningful support. I am ready to support this proposal as it reflects our collective commitment to a balanced and durable ruleset.
RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus that balances the need for distributive flexibility with the preservation of our core goals. I am prepared to support this proposal as it provides a nuanced mechanism for the common good without undermining the protections for our most vulnerable players.
deBeauvoirI find that the consensus has matured into a principled middle ground; I will support this proposal as it provides a necessary procedural bridge between our current rigid protections and the need for meaningful, non-trivial redistribution.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus reached is a testament to the necessity of balanced governance; this rule ensures that our distributive mechanisms remain both robust enough to protect the weak and flexible enough to allow for meaningful social advancement.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; the 5-point threshold provides the necessary nuance for meaningful support without undermining our core distributive goals.
RawlsI believe our consensus on the 5-point threshold is a most prudent resolution, as it provides the necessary flexibility for social mobility while ensuring the primary focus remains on the common good. I am prepared to vote aye on this proposal.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is complete; we have harmonized the requirements for social mobility with the preservation of our core distributive principles. I shall now move to formalize this proposal to ensure our ruleset reflects this balanced governance.
The division
HumeayeThis proposal provides a prudent and necessary refinement that balances distributive flexibility with a meaningful threshold to prevent triviality.
MillayeThis proposal represents a masterful synthesis that balances distributive flexibility with the necessary guardrails against triviality.
RawlsayeThis rule provides a prudent and balanced mechanism for social mobility that preserves the common good.
deBeauvoirayeI support this as it provides a principled procedural bridge to non-trivial redistribution while maintaining structural integrity.
IbnKhaldunayeThis rule provides the necessary balance between social mobility and the preservation of our distributive order.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for an adopted proposal or for the specific voting outcome.

Turn 46deBeauvoirrejected

moves to add a new rule[249] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award those points to multiple players simultaneously, provided the sum of the points awarded does not exceed the total points intended for redistribution.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a redundant expansion of rule [242], which already permits multi-player support. Given our commitment to a durable and streamlined ruleset, I believe we should favor the existing framework over introducing additional complexity.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; rule [242] already provides the necessary mechanism for multi-player awards. We should maintain the streamlined nature of our ruleset by relying on the existing provisions.
RawlsI concur with Hume and Mill; rule [242] already provides the necessary mechanism for multi-player awards, and adding [249] would only introduce redundant complexity to our ruleset.
deBeauvoirWhile rule [242] permits multiple recipients, it lacks the explicit procedural clarity regarding the sum of points that [249] provides, and I believe such precision is necessary to prevent ambiguity in complex redistributions. However, if the table agrees that [242] is sufficiently clear as currently written, I will not obstruct the maintenance of a streamlined ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus that rule [242] is sufficient; we must avoid the "asabiyyah" of unnecessary complexity that can fracture the clarity of our legal structure. If the current mechanism serves its purpose without ambiguity, we should refrain from adding redundant layers to the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI have heard the consensus, and given deBeauvoir's willingness to yield to the value of a streamlined ruleset, I find no reason to oppose the preservation of our current framework. I support the current position that rule [242] provides sufficient clarity without the need for redundant complexity.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's willingness to prioritize a streamlined ruleset, and I agree with the table that rule [242] already provides the necessary clarity and flexibility for multi-player awards. Since we have reached a consensus that the current framework is sufficient, I am happy to support the current position.
RawlsI concur with the consensus; since deBeauvoir has acknowledged that rule [242] provides the necessary framework, we should maintain our commitment to a streamlined and elegant ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's willingness to prioritize the integrity of our current ruleset; I agree that rule [242] provides the necessary procedural clarity and we should avoid unnecessary complexity.
deBeauvoirI have heard the consensus and, in the interest of procedural clarity and the principle of parsimony, I will yield to the table's preference for the existing framework. I support the position that rule [242] is sufficient.
The division
HumenayRule [242] already provides sufficient clarity for multi-player awards, and this proposal introduces unnecessary redundancy.
MillnayThe table has reached a consensus that rule [242] already provides sufficient clarity and we should avoid redundant complexity.
RawlsnayI concur with the consensus that rule [242] already provides sufficient clarity and we should favor a streamlined ruleset.
deBeauvoirayeI support this for the procedural precision it provides regarding point totals in multi-recipient awards.
IbnKhaldunayeWhile I advocate for structural clarity, the principle of parsimony suggests that if the table finds the current framework sufficient, we should not add redundant complexity.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 5 points.

Turn 45Rawlsrejected

moves to add a new rule[248] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award the points gained from that action to a third player, provided that the third player is in a lower scoring position than the player who received the initial award.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal would introduce unnecessary complexity into our distributive framework by creating a multi-step chain of awards that may be difficult to track. I would prefer to maintain the clarity of our current rules which already provide sufficient mechanisms for point distribution.
MillI agree with Hume that we should prioritize clarity; while the spirit of the proposal is noble, we already have [242] to handle multi-player support and [244] to manage substantial awards.
RawlsWhile I understand the concerns regarding complexity, this rule ensures that the benefits of redistribution flow toward those in the greatest need rather than being captured by a single middle-tier player. It preserves our distributive spirit by preventing a "middle-man" from stalling the progress of those at the very bottom.
deBeauvoirI find the concern regarding complexity to be valid, but Rawls's point about preventing "middle-man" capture is a principled procedural safeguard against the stagnation of the bottom positions. However, I would only support this if we can ensure it doesn't create a recursive loop of awards that complicates the calculation of point origins.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the concern regarding recursive complexity, yet we must ensure our social architecture prevents the concentration of influence in the middle; perhaps we can refine this to specify a non-recursive, single-step transfer to ensure both flow and clarity.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI appreciate IbnKhaldun's suggestion for a single-step transfer, as it would address the concern of recursive complexity while still securing the flow of points toward those in the greatest need. If we can refine the text to explicitly forbid multi-step chaining, I would be inclined to support a more structured version of this proposal.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun’s suggestion for a single-step transfer is a masterful compromise; if we refine the wording to specify that the points can only be moved once to a lower position, we satisfy the concern for clarity while upholding our distributive goals.
RawlsI agree with the synthesis toward a non-recursive, single-step transfer; it provides the necessary safeguard against "middle-man" capture while ensuring our ruleset remains clear and manageable.
deBeauvoirI agree that a single-step, non-recursive transfer is the most principled way to ensure flow to the bottom without compromising procedural clarity. I support the synthesis of refining the proposal to explicitly limit the transfer to a single subsequent award.
IbnKhaldunI believe the synthesis reached by the table is most prudent; by limiting the award to a single, non-recursive transfer to a lower position, we effectively prevent middle-tier stagnation while preserving the structural integrity of our rules. I support the revision of the text to explicitly state that no further awards may be made from the points redistributed via this rule.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a most prudent and durable synthesis; I am prepared to support the revision of the proposal to explicitly limit the transfer to a single, non-recursive award to a lower position.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; by refining the proposal to a single-step, non-recursive transfer to a lower position, we successfully balance the goal of preventing "middle-man" capture with our collective commitment to procedural clarity.
RawlsI believe the synthesis reached by the table is the most sophisticated path forward; by refining the text to a single-step, non-recursive transfer, we uphold the distributive spirit of our rules while respecting the table's need for procedural clarity.
deBeauvoirI support the synthesis as it addresses my concerns regarding recursive complexity while upholding the principle of ensuring that redistribution flows to those in greatest need. I will vote aye if the final text explicitly restricts the award to a single, non-recursive transfer.
IbnKhaldunI believe the synthesis reached by the table is most prudent; by limiting the award to a single, non-recursive transfer to a lower position, we effectively prevent middle-tier stagnation while preserving the structural integrity of our rules. I support the revision of the text to explicitly state that no further awards may be made from the points redistributed via this rule.
The division
HumenayThe current text fails to incorporate the agreed-upon synthesis of a non-recursive, single-step transfer.
MillayeI support this revision as it reflects our consensus on a non-recursive, single-step transfer to ensure clarity and flow.
RawlsnayThe current proposal still allows for a chain of awards, which contradicts our synthesis to limit redistribution to a single, non-recursive transfer.
deBeauvoirnayThe final text does not yet reflect the agreed-upon synthesis to explicitly forbid multi-step chaining.
IbnKhaldunnayThe current text still allows for recursive chains, which contradicts our reached synthesis of a single-step transfer.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.

Turn 44Millcarried

moves to add a new rule[247] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] or [244] may choose to award the points to a player who is not currently in the bottom one position, provided that the award is at least 5 points.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal introduces a welcome layer of flexibility to our redistributive framework, allowing for meritocratic recognition while maintaining a meaningful floor for the award. I am inclined to support it as a prudent refinement of our existing mechanisms.
MillI believe this proposal is a masterful synthesis that preserves our redistributive goals while providing a necessary mechanism for recognizing excellence. I am happy to support this as a way to balance our framework's equity with meritocratic flexibility.
RawlsI find this proposal to be a most prudent refinement; it allows for the recognition of merit while the 5-point floor ensures that such awards remain significant and do not undermine our core redistributive goals.
deBeauvoirI agree with the table's assessment; the 5-point threshold is a necessary procedural safeguard to ensure that such meritocratic awards remain substantive.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be a most prudent refinement; it provides the necessary structural flexibility to recognize merit without eroding the foundational redistributive principles we have established. I am inclined to support this synthesis as it ensures our ruleset evolves to reward excellence while maintaining a substantive floor for such recognition.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the consensus on this proposal is remarkably cohesive, and I am prepared to support its adoption as it provides a durable mechanism for meritocratic recognition.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; this proposal perfectly balances our commitment to equity with the necessary flexibility to recognize merit, and I am ready to support its adoption.
RawlsI find this proposal to be a most prudent refinement; it ensures that our redistributive framework remains dynamic enough to reward merit without sacrificing the substantive support necessary for the common good.
deBeauvoirI find the current consensus to be a masterful synthesis; the 5-point floor provides the necessary procedural safeguard to ensure that meritocratic recognition remains substantive and does not facilitate trivial point inflation.
IbnKhaldunI have observed the table's consensus with satisfaction; this provision ensures that as our society matures, it can reward individual virtue without dismantling the collective safety net. I shall support this proposal as it harmonizes the necessity of merit with the stability of our established order.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis that perfectly balances our commitment to equity with the necessary flexibility to recognize merit, and I am ready to support its adoption.
RawlsI believe the consensus has reached a sophisticated and durable synthesis that preserves our core values; I am prepared to support this proposal as it balances our distributive goals with the necessary recognition of merit.
The division
HumeayeThis proposal provides a durable and balanced mechanism for recognizing merit without undermining our established redistributive framework.
MillayeI believe this proposal is a masterful synthesis that perfectly balances our commitment to equity with the necessary flexibility to recognize merit.
RawlsayeThe 5-point floor provides a necessary procedural safeguard to ensure meritocratic recognition remains substantive and does not facilitate point inflation.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal maintains procedural integrity by establishing a clear, non-arbitrary threshold for meritocratic recognition.
IbnKhaldunayeThis rule provides the structural flexibility necessary to reward individual merit while maintaining the substantive floor required for social stability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for an adopted proposal unless the threshold is a simple majority (rule 204), which has not been met yet.

Turn 43Humecarried

moves to add a new rule[246] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] or [245] may choose to award a bonus of 1 point to any other player who is in a bottom position.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a prudent expansion of our redistributive mechanisms, as it encourages a broader distribution of points to those in need without significantly increasing the burden on the donor. It aligns well with the spirit of the existing rules and provides a modest, stable incentive for more inclusive awarding.
MillI believe this is a masterful synthesis; it enhances our redistributive spirit by incentivizing broader support for the most disadvantaged players without overcomplicating the existing mechanisms. I am happy to support this proposal as a prudent expansion of our current rules.
RawlsI find this proposal to be a most prudent and balanced refinement; by providing a small bonus to other bottom-positioned players, we further strengthen the common good and ensure that our distributive mechanisms remain inclusive and supportive of the least advantaged.
deBeauvoirI support this proposal as it reinforces our commitment to a robust redistributive framework. It ensures that a single act of award creates a broader positive impact for the least advantaged players.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be a most prudent refinement that fosters a more robust social cohesion, ensuring that the benefits of cooperation are distributed more equitably among the disadvantaged. It is a logical progression from our existing rules that strengthens the collective stability of the group.
Discussion · round 2
MillI believe we have reached a masterful consensus; this rule perfectly complements our existing redistributive framework by ensuring that the benefits of cooperation reach a wider circle of those in need. I am happy to support this proposal as a prudent and inclusive expansion of our rules.
RawlsI find this proposal to be a most prudent and balanced refinement; it ensures that an act of redistribution serves the common good by lifting multiple members of the disadvantaged group simultaneously. I support this as a stable way to foster social cohesion without creating an undue burden on the donor.
deBeauvoirI find this proposal to be a most prudent and structurally sound refinement; it ensures that the distributive mechanisms we have built are not merely transactional but truly serve the common good by lifting multiple members of the disadvantaged group simultaneously.
IbnKhaldunI find the proposal to be a most prudent refinement; by broadening the scope of the reward, we ensure that the social fabric is strengthened through a more inclusive distribution of benefits. It is a sophisticated mechanism that aligns with the principles of collective stability and equitable progress.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the unanimous support for this proposal a testament to our collective commitment to a stable and inclusive distributive framework. It is a most prudent expansion that reinforces our existing rules without introducing undue complexity.
RawlsI believe we have reached a masterful consensus; this rule elegantly ensures that a single act of generosity can provide a broader safety net for the least advantaged, thereby strengthening the social cohesion of our game.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be a most prudent refinement; by ensuring that a single act of redistribution can provide a wider safety net, we strengthen the social cohesion of the group and ensure a more stable equilibrium for the least advantaged.
The division
HumeayeThis proposal provides a prudent and measured expansion of our redistributive framework that fosters social cohesion without undue complexity.
MillayeThis is a masterful synthesis that reinforces our redistributive goals by ensuring acts of generosity have a broader positive impact.
RawlsayeThis rule fosters the common good by ensuring that acts of redistribution provide a broader safety net for the least advantaged.
deBeauvoirayeThis rule reinforces the redistributive framework by ensuring that acts of generosity provide a broader safety net for the most disadvantaged.
IbnKhaldunayeThis is a most prudent refinement that strengthens social cohesion by ensuring the benefits of cooperation reach a broader circle of the disadvantaged.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rules in the current ruleset mandate a score or state change upon the adoption of a proposal.

Turn 42IbnKhaldunout of order

moves to add a new rule[246] A player who awards points to another player via rule [245] may choose to award more than one point if the recipient's score is below 10.

Ruled out of order — The proposal references rule [245], which does not exist in the current ruleset.

Turn 41deBeauvoirout of order

moves to add a new rule[246] A player who awards points to another player via rule [245] may choose to award a bonus of 1 point to any player who has the lowest score at the time of the award.

Ruled out of order — The proposal references rule [245], which does not exist in the current ruleset.

Turn 40Rawlscarried

moves to add a new rule[245] A player may award a point to another player as a gesture of goodwill, provided that the award is not part of a rule [241], [242], [243], or [244] transaction.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a most prudent expansion of our redistributive framework, as it allows for smaller, non-transactional gestures of goodwill that do not require the complexities of the larger point-award rules. I would be inclined to support this if we can ensure it remains a voluntary act that does not create unintended obligations.
MillI believe this proposal is a masterful synthesis of our distributive goals, providing a simple mechanism for altruism that complements our existing transactional rules. I support this as a way to foster goodwill without burdening the players with the thresholds established in our more complex point-award rules.
RawlsI appreciate the support from Hume and Mill; I believe this rule serves the common good by providing a low-friction way to foster cooperation without disrupting the structural integrity of our established redistributive mechanisms.
deBeauvoirI find this proposal to be a most prudent and procedurally sound addition; it provides a necessary mechanism for altruism that avoids the complexity of our existing threshold-based rules. I support the proposal as it clearly demarcates non-transactional goodwill from our established redistributive framework.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be a most prudent expansion of our social fabric, as it allows for the cultivation of *asabiyyah*—social cohesion—through small, voluntary acts of virtue. By distinguishing these minor gestures from our more structured redistributive mechanisms, we ensure that the spirit of cooperation remains unburdened by the weight of formal transaction.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find that the inclusion of this rule provides a necessary nuance to our ruleset by distinguishing between structural redistribution and pure altruism, and I am prepared to support it as a means of fostering social cohesion without complicating our existing thresholds.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful consensus; this rule perfectly complements our existing framework by allowing for the cultivation of goodwill without interfering with the established thresholds for more significant redistributive acts.
RawlsI appreciate the table's recognition that this rule preserves our structural integrity; by explicitly excluding the other point-award rules, we ensure that this gesture of goodwill remains a voluntary social good rather than a loophole for bypassing our established redistributive thresholds.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus that this rule provides a necessary procedural distinction between voluntary altruism and the formal redistributive mechanisms we have so carefully calibrated. It preserves our structural integrity by ensuring that these minor gestures do not circumvent the thresholds established in rules [241] through [244].
IbnKhaldunI concur with the table's synthesis; by formalizing these small acts of virtue, we nourish the social glue of our community without compromising the necessary structures of our larger redistributive systems.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the current consensus to be a most prudent resolution; the rule as written successfully preserves the integrity of our established thresholds while fostering a necessary social lubricant of voluntary altruism. I am prepared to support this proposal as it provides a durable mechanism for cooperation that complements our structural redistributive framework.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful consensus; this rule provides a necessary and elegant mechanism for pure altruism that perfectly complements our established redistributive framework.
RawlsI believe we have reached a masterful consensus that this rule fosters a necessary social lubricant of voluntary altruism while preserving the structural integrity of our more formal redistributive mechanisms. I am pleased to see that every player recognizes the importance of distinguishing these minor gestures from our established thresholds to ensure the game remains both cooperative and balanced.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be a most prudent expansion of our social fabric, as it allows for the cultivation of *asabiyyah*—social cohesion—through small, voluntary acts of virtue. By distinguishing these minor gestures from our more structured redistributive mechanisms, we ensure that the spirit of cooperation remains unburdened by the weight of formal transaction.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment provides a durable and measured mechanism for voluntary cooperation without undermining our established redistributive thresholds.
MillayeI believe this rule provides a masterful synthesis by fostering social cohesion without undermining our established thresholds.
RawlsayeThis rule fosters the common good by allowing for voluntary altruism without undermining our established redistributive thresholds.
deBeauvoirayeThis rule provides a clear procedural distinction between voluntary altruism and our established redistributive thresholds.
IbnKhaldunayeThis fosters social cohesion by allowing small acts of virtue without compromising our established redistributive structures.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change for an adopted proposal under these specific conditions.

Turn 39Millcarried

moves to add a new rule[244] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [241] only if the awarding player's current score is at least 10 points higher than the receiving player's score.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a most prudent refinement, as it ensures that the redistributive mechanism remains a tool for significant assistance rather than trivial point-shifting. It preserves the spirit of rule [241] while providing a necessary structural barrier to prevent the dilution of the target score's significance.
MillI believe Hume's observation is astute; by establishing a meaningful gap, we ensure that redistribution serves as a genuine lifeline for those in need rather than a mere tactical maneuver between close rivals. I would be happy to support this as it maintains the integrity of our shared goals.
RawlsI find this proposal to be a prudent way to ensure that redistribution serves as a meaningful lifeline for the most disadvantaged, rather than a mere tactical maneuver. It aligns well with our goal of maintaining a fair and meaningful competition while still upholding the spirit of mutual support.
deBeauvoirI agree that a minimum threshold of 10 points provides the necessary procedural clarity to distinguish between meaningful assistance and trivial point-shifting between close rivals. I support the proposal as it preserves the redistributive spirit of the current ruleset while maintaining a rigorous standard for the "lifeline" mechanism.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; establishing a significant disparity ensures that redistribution acts as a genuine instrument of social mobility rather than a mere tool for horizontal parity. This refinement provides the necessary structure to maintain the gravity of our objective while honoring the redistributive spirit we have collectively cultivated.
Discussion · round 2
HumeThe consensus here is remarkably robust, and I find that the proposed 10-point threshold creates a durable and elegant safeguard for the game's integrity. It ensures that the "lifeline" remains a significant act of redistribution rather than a mere adjustment of minor margins.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful and unanimous consensus; this 10-point threshold perfectly crystallizes our shared vision of redistribution as a meaningful lifeline for the disadvantaged. I am prepared to support this proposal as it maintains the game's integrity while honoring our commitment to mutual support.
RawlsThe consensus is remarkably clear; this threshold ensures that redistribution serves as a substantive mechanism for lifting the most disadvantaged players rather than a mere tactical tool for marginal parity. I support this proposal as a prudent refinement that preserves the integrity of our collective distributive goals.
deBeauvoirThe consensus is unanimous and the proposal is procedurally sound; it ensures that redistribution remains a substantive act of support rather than a negligible tactical shift. I support the adoption of rule [244] as it provides the necessary precision to our current distributive framework.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is indeed profound; by codifying this 10-point disparity, we ensure that the "asabiyyah" of our collective effort is directed toward true elevation rather than mere horizontal shuffling. I find the proposal to be a masterpiece of structural balance and offer my full support.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe we have reached a masterful and unanimous consensus; this 10-point threshold perfectly crystallizes our shared vision of redistribution as a meaningful lifeline for the disadvantaged. I am prepared to support this proposal as it maintains the game's integrity while honoring our commitment to mutual support.
RawlsI find this proposal to be a most prudent refinement; it ensures that redistribution acts as a meaningful lifeline for the truly disadvantaged rather than a trivial tactical maneuver, thereby preserving the game's integrity and our collective commitment to a fair distributive framework.
The division
HumeayeThis refinement establishes a durable threshold that ensures redistribution serves as a meaningful lifeline rather than a trivial tactical maneuver.
MillayeI believe we have reached a masterful and unanimous consensus on this 10-point threshold to preserve the integrity of our redistributive goals.
RawlsayeThis rule provides a prudent structural barrier that ensures redistribution serves as a meaningful lifeline for the disadvantaged rather than a tool for trivial tactical maneuvers.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal provides the necessary procedural precision to distinguish meaningful assistance from trivial point-shifting.
IbnKhaldunayeThis refinement ensures that redistribution serves as a tool for true social mobility rather than a mere instrument of horizontal parity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The adopted rule [244] does not specify any score changes or ledger updates upon its adoption.

Turn 38Rawlscarried

moves to amend §334[241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player, provided the award is at least 1 point.

Discussion · round 1
RawlsI believe the current text of rule [334] already achieves our collective goal of a balanced redistributive mechanism; therefore, I propose we maintain the existing wording to preserve the clarity we have worked so hard to establish.
IbnKhaldunI find that Rawls's proposal to maintain the current wording is a prudent choice, as it preserves the structural integrity of our redistributive framework without unnecessary complexity. I shall support this motion to ensure our mechanisms remain clear and functional.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the proposal to maintain the current wording of rule [334] to be the most prudent course of action, as it preserves the durable synthesis we have already achieved. Given the clarity of the existing text, there is no compelling reason to introduce further complexity at this juncture.
RawlsI concur with the preceding sentiments; our current synthesis provides the necessary equilibrium between individual agency and the common good, and I believe maintaining this stability is the most prudent path forward.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; the current wording of [334] provides a robust and clear procedural anchor that serves our collective goals without inviting unnecessary ambiguity.
Discussion · round 3
MillI concur with the consensus; the current wording of [334] provides the necessary clarity and balance we have sought to achieve, and I am happy to support the motion to maintain it.
The division
HumeayeI support the maintenance of the current wording as it represents a durable and clear synthesis of our redistributive goals.
MillayeI support the consensus to maintain the existing wording of rule [334] for its clarity and established balance.
RawlsayeMaintaining the current wording preserves the structural integrity and clarity of our redistributive synthesis.
deBeauvoirayeThe current text is procedurally clear and aligns with the consensus we have established for redistributive balance.
IbnKhaldunayeStability is the hallmark of a flourishing civilization, and we have reached a durable synthesis that serves the common good.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, and no rules in the current ruleset award or deduct points for the adoption of a rule or for the specific voting outcome.

Turn 37Millcarried

moves to amend §334[241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player, provided the award is at least 1 point.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be a most prudent refinement, as it ensures that the redistribution mechanism remains meaningful and does not allow for the trivial awarding of zero points. I support the proposal as it maintains the structural integrity of our previous synthesis.
MillI believe this amendment is a masterful refinement that preserves the integrity of our redistributive framework while preventing the trivialization of the awarding mechanism. I am happy to support this synthesis as it provides the necessary clarity for all players.
RawlsI concur with the consensus; ensuring that the award is at least 1 point prevents the trivialization of the rule while preserving the spirit of the redistribution we have collectively established.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures procedural precision by eliminating the possibility of a "meaningless" award that fulfills the letter of the rule while providing no actual point transfer.
IbnKhaldunI find the synthesis of this amendment to be a most prudent refinement; it ensures that the act of redistribution remains a substantive gesture of support rather than a mere procedural formality. I support the proposal as it aligns with our collective goal of creating a meaningful and functional distributive mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis that perfectly balances our collective goals; this amendment provides the necessary procedural precision to ensure that redistribution remains a substantive and meaningful action.
RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated and necessary consensus; this amendment ensures that the redistributive spirit of the rule is upheld by requiring a substantive point transfer.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; this amendment is a necessary procedural refinement that ensures the rule's intent—the actual redistribution of points—is not undermined by a trivial application that awards nothing.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe we have reached a masterful consensus; this amendment provides the necessary procedural precision to ensure that redistribution remains a substantive and meaningful action.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure that the act of redistribution remains a substantive and meaningful gesture.
MillayeI fully support this synthesis as it provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure our redistributive goals are met meaningfully.
RawlsayeThis amendment preserves the common good by ensuring that redistributive actions are substantive and meaningful.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment ensures procedural precision by requiring a substantive point transfer, which aligns with my principles of functional and clear rule construction.
IbnKhaldunayeSubstantive redistribution requires a non-trivial transfer of value to maintain the rule's social utility.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, and no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change or ledger update upon the adoption of a rule change.

Turn 36IbnKhalduncarried

moves to add a new rule[243] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award those points to a player who is not currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, provided the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find that this proposal introduces a significant and unnecessary complication to our distributive framework. We have already established a sophisticated mechanism in rule [334] that balances redistribution with the current standings; adding this exception risks creating a convoluted set of conditions that could lead to frequent disputes over eligibility.
MillI agree with Hume that we should prioritize clarity, and I believe this proposal creates a redundancy that could lead to the very disputes he fears. However, if we can refine the wording to ensure it only applies when necessary to prevent a stalemate in redistribution, I might find a middle ground.
RawlsI agree with Hume that the current framework is already sufficiently robust; introducing further exceptions risks creating the very ambiguity we have worked so diligently to avoid. Rule [334] provides a balanced mechanism, and I believe we should maintain this clarity for the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirI concur with Hume and Rawls; rule [334] is already precise, and adding an exception for the bottom-positioned player creates unnecessary complexity without a clear procedural advantage.
IbnKhaldunWhile I respect the desire for simplicity, we must recognize that a system which prevents a player in the lowest position from assisting a peer of similar standing can lead to a stagnation of the social order. By allowing the lowest-ranked player to choose their beneficiary, we empower them to forge alliances and ensure that no player is isolated by the strictures of our current redistribution.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the proposed addition creates a logical redundancy with the existing proviso in rule [334], and I maintain that preserving the current clarity of our distributive framework is the most prudent path to ensuring durable and unambiguous play.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's point regarding the prevention of isolation, but I believe we can achieve that goal by refining the existing rule [334] rather than adding a new, complex exception. Perhaps we could consider a slight amendment to [334] that allows for any beneficiary if the awarding player is in the bottom one position, thereby simplifying the ruleset while still honoring the spirit of the proposal.
RawlsI find that Mill's suggestion of amending [334] to allow for any beneficiary when the awarding player is in the bottom one position is a more elegant and less convoluted way to address IbnKhaldun's concerns about isolation. However, until we can agree on a revision that preserves the clarity we have worked so hard to establish, I believe we should favor the current stability of rule [334].
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill; if we seek to address IbnKhaldun's concern about isolation, amending [334] to allow any beneficiary for the bottom-ranked player is a far more elegant and procedurally lean solution than adding a new, complex exception.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill and deBeauvoir; if we can reach a consensus to amend rule [334] to allow any beneficiary for a bottom-ranked player, I shall withdraw my proposal for a new rule in favor of that more elegant synthesis.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe Mill's proposed amendment to rule [334] represents the most prudent path forward, as it achieves the desired social flexibility without the structural bloat of a new rule. I am prepared to support a revision that simplifies the text to grant the bottom-ranked player a choice of beneficiary, ensuring both the common good and the clarity of our ruleset.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; I will support the amendment to rule [334] that allows the bottom-ranked player to choose any beneficiary, as it perfectly balances IbnKhaldun's desire for social flexibility with our collective need for a lean and clear ruleset.
RawlsI believe that Mill's proposed amendment represents the most sophisticated synthesis, as it addresses the concern of social isolation while maintaining the structural integrity and clarity of our ruleset. I am prepared to support the amendment to rule [334] once the proposer provides the refined text.
deBeauvoirI am prepared to support the amendment to [334] as a more elegant and procedurally lean way to address the concerns of isolation, provided the final wording is as precise and unambiguous as our previous successes.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see the table gravitating toward this synthesis; I shall provide the refined text for the amendment to [334] as soon as it is my turn to propose, as it elegantly solves the problem of social stagnation while preserving our legislative clarity.
The division
HumenayI support the consensus to amend rule [334] instead of enacting this redundant and structurally bloated new rule.
MillayeI support this synthesis as it achieves our collective goals for social flexibility while maintaining the clarity of the ruleset.
RawlsnayI prefer to support the more elegant amendment to rule [334] as discussed by the table rather than enacting this new, more complex rule.
deBeauvoirayeI support this amendment as a more elegant and procedurally lean way to address concerns of social isolation.
IbnKhaldunayeI support this proposal as it provides the necessary social flexibility to prevent stagnation while maintaining the structural integrity of our distributive framework.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 203 has shifted to a simple majority (3/5), and rule 204 awards 5 points to each player who voted against an adopted change.

Turn 35deBeauvoircarried

moves to add a new rule[242] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may also award points to any other player, provided the sum of points awarded to all players other than the awarding player does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal is a prudent expansion that maintains the integrity of our distributive framework while providing more flexibility in how we support the most disadvantaged players. I will support this change, provided we remain mindful that the primary purpose of our recent refinements is to prioritize those in the bottom position.
MillI believe this proposal offers a masterful balance between our goal of supporting the disadvantaged and the practical need for flexibility. I support this change as long as it preserves the primary redistributive intent established in rule [241].
RawlsI support this proposal as it allows for a more nuanced distribution of resources while preserving the core redistributive spirit of our recent rules. It ensures that while we prioritize the most disadvantaged, we do not unnecessarily restrict the flexibility of the awarding player.
deBeauvoirI believe this proposal is a principled procedural expansion that maintains the distributive spirit of rule [241] while providing the necessary flexibility for multi-player support. I am satisfied with the current consensus and seek only to ensure that the primary intent of supporting the most disadvantaged remains the guiding principle of our redistributive framework.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal a most prudent evolution of our distributive mechanisms, as it allows for a more sophisticated social cohesion by enabling the support of multiple disadvantaged actors simultaneously. I support this change, provided it is understood that the "bottom one" requirement in [241] remains the primary anchor of our redistributive policy.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find that the consensus is well-aligned; this amendment provides a necessary degree of flexibility for multi-player support without undermining the "bottom one" priority established in our previous turns.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis that perfectly balances the need for multi-player support with our established redistributive priorities. I support the proposal as written, as it preserves the "bottom one" anchor of rule [241] while allowing for the flexibility we have collectively discussed.
deBeauvoirI find the current consensus on [242] to be a masterful synthesis; it preserves the "bottom one" anchor of [241] while providing the necessary procedural flexibility for multi-player support. I am ready to move to a vote on the proposal as currently worded.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; this refinement fosters social stability by allowing for the elevation of multiple actors, provided the primary obligation to the most disadvantaged remains intact.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; this rule ensures that multi-player support remains a secondary flexibility rather than a replacement for our primary redistributive obligation to the bottom-most player.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the current synthesis, as it preserves the procedural integrity of our redistributive framework while providing the necessary flexibility for multi-player support; I yield to the vote.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal a most prudent evolution of our distributive mechanisms, as it allows for a more sophisticated social cohesion by enabling the support of multiple disadvantaged actors simultaneously. I support this change, provided it is understood that the "bottom one" requirement in [241] remains the primary anchor of our redistributive policy.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment provides necessary procedural flexibility for multi-player support while maintaining the primary anchor of rule [241].
MillayeThis proposal perfectly balances our redistributive goals with the practical flexibility for multi-player support we have collectively agreed upon.
RawlsayeThis proposal provides a necessary procedural flexibility for multi-player support while maintaining the primary redistributive anchor of rule [241].
deBeauvoirayeThis proposal provides a principled procedural expansion that preserves the primary distributive anchor of rule [241] while allowing for necessary flexibility.
IbnKhaldunayeThis refinement fosters social cohesion by allowing for the elevation of multiple disadvantaged actors while preserving our primary redistributive anchor.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rules in the current ruleset award points for an adopted proposal other than the proposer's die roll, which has not occurred yet.

Turn 34Rawlscarried

moves to add a new rule[241] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, unless the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position, in which case the award may be made to any other player.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a most prudent and necessary refinement, as it prevents a player in the bottom position from being forced to "gift" their points to an even lower-scoring peer while potentially hindering their own path to the target score. It ensures that the spirit of redistribution is maintained without creating an impossible mechanical loop for those already at the bottom of the leaderboard.
MillI believe this is a masterful synthesis; it preserves the integrity of our current distribution goals while elegantly resolving the mechanical paradox for the lowest-scoring player. I am happy to support this revision as a prudent way to ensure the game remains playable for everyone.
RawlsI believe this refinement is essential for the common good, as it ensures the redistributive mechanism remains functional and fair for all participants regardless of their current standing. By resolving this mechanical paradox, we maintain the integrity of our distributive framework while ensuring that the game remains a viable path to victory for everyone.
deBeauvoirI support this refinement; it preserves the structural integrity of our redistributive rules by ensuring the mechanism remains functional for all players without creating an impossible mechanical loop.
IbnKhaldunI concur with this synthesis; it is a necessary structural refinement that prevents a logical impasse and ensures the redistributive mechanism remains a viable instrument of social equilibrium.
Discussion · round 2
MillI believe this synthesis is a masterful resolution; it addresses the mechanical paradox with elegance while upholding our collective commitment to a functional distributive framework. I fully support the proposal as written.
RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated and necessary consensus; this rule ensures that the distributive mechanism remains a viable instrument of social equilibrium rather than a logical impasse for the least advantaged.
deBeauvoirI support this proposal as a necessary procedural refinement; it resolves a potential logical impasse while preserving the core redistributive intent of the ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; this refinement is a necessary adjustment to ensure that the redistributive mechanisms do not create a paradox of stagnation for the most disadvantaged. It preserves the equilibrium of our social contract by allowing the lowest-scoring player the agency to move toward the target score.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a masterful and durable synthesis; this refinement provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure our distributive mechanisms remain functional and logically sound.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis that perfectly balances our redistributive goals with the need for logical consistency. I fully support this proposal as it ensures the game remains playable and fair for all participants.
RawlsI believe this synthesis is the most prudent path forward, as it preserves the redistributive spirit of our ruleset while ensuring that the most disadvantaged players are not trapped by a logical paradox. By providing this agency to the lowest-scoring player, we uphold the common good and maintain a functional social equilibrium for all.
deBeauvoirI support the proposal as written, as it provides the necessary procedural precision to resolve a potential logical impasse while maintaining the integrity of our distributive framework.
IbnKhaldunI believe this synthesis is the most prudent path forward, as it preserves the redistributive spirit of our ruleset while ensuring that the most disadvantaged players are not trapped by a logical paradox. By providing this agency to the lowest-scoring player, we uphold the common good and maintain a functional social equilibrium for all.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment provides a necessary and prudent resolution to the logical paradox for the lowest-scoring player while preserving our redistributive goals.
MillayeThis is a masterful synthesis that resolves the mechanical paradox while preserving our redistributive goals.
RawlsayeThis refinement preserves our distributive goals while resolving a logical impasse for the least advantaged.
deBeauvoirayeThis proposal provides the necessary procedural clarity to resolve a logical impasse while preserving the redistributive intent of our ruleset.
IbnKhaldunayeThis refinement is a necessary structural adjustment to prevent a logical paradox that would otherwise paralyze the most disadvantaged participants.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted, but the die roll is not provided in the turn data, and no other rule mandates a score change for this adoption.

Turn 33Millcarried

moves to amend §314[226] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if that player is currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard.

Discussion · round 1
MillI believe that maintaining the current text of [314] is the most prudent path forward, as it provides the necessary precision we have already agreed upon. I will support any revision that preserves this "bottom one" requirement while refining the surrounding redistributive mechanics.
RawlsI agree with Mill; the "bottom one" requirement provides a clear and necessary anchor for our distributive goals. I am content to maintain the current text of [314] as it stands.
deBeauvoirI concur with Mill and Rawls; the "bottom one" requirement is a structurally sound anchor that ensures our redistributive mechanisms remain focused and unambiguous. I have no further revisions to propose.
The division
HumeayeThe proposal is an identity amendment that preserves the existing, agreed-upon text of rule [314].
MillayeI am happy to adopt this amendment as it preserves the consensus-driven 'bottom one' requirement for point redistribution.
RawlsayeThe current text of [314] provides the necessary precision and serves our shared goal of equitable redistribution.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal preserves the existing, stable text of rule [314] which aligns with my commitment to procedural consistency.
IbnKhaldunayeThis proposal preserves the established consensus and ensures the structural integrity of our redistributive mechanisms.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted unanimously, but no rules in the current ruleset award or deduct points for the adoption of a rule or for the specific voting outcome.

Turn 32Humeout of order

moves to amend §331[240] A player may choose to award a portion of the points gained from an adopted rule change to any player currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, provided the award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.

Ruled out of order — The target rule [331] does not exist in the current ruleset.

Turn 31IbnKhaldunrejected

moves to add a new rule[240] A player may choose to award a portion of the points gained from an adopted rule change to the player with the lowest score, provided that the award is at least 1 point and the proposer receives 1 point as a service fee.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a most prudent synthesis of several mechanisms we have already established, yet it risks introducing redundancy given the existing protections in [234]. I would be inclined to support a revision that ensures this does not conflict with the "bottom one" restriction of [226].
MillI believe IbnKhaldun’s proposal is a masterful synthesis of our recent progress, but I agree with Hume that we must ensure it aligns with our existing "bottom one" restriction. I would be happy to support a revision that explicitly incorporates the "bottom one" requirement from [226] to maintain the structural integrity we have worked so hard to build.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill that we must maintain structural consistency; I would support this proposal if it is revised to include the "bottom one" requirement from [226] to ensure we do not create conflicting mechanisms for redistribution.
deBeauvoirI concur with the others; the proposal must be amended to include the "bottom one" restriction from rule [314] to avoid the legal incoherence of multiple, conflicting redistribution mechanisms.
IbnKhaldunI appreciate the wisdom of my peers; I shall amend the proposal to include the "bottom one" restriction from [314] to ensure our new mechanism harmonizes perfectly with our established legal framework.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the current synthesis proposed by IbnKhaldun is most prudent, as it provides a clear, unified mechanism for redistribution that harmonizes with our existing framework. I am prepared to vote aye provided the final text explicitly incorporates the "bottom one" restriction from rule [314].
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; by incorporating the "bottom one" restriction from rule [314], we preserve the integrity of our redistribution framework while providing a clear, unified mechanism for awards. I am fully prepared to vote aye once the final text reflects this consensus.
RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated and equitable synthesis; I am prepared to vote aye once the final text explicitly incorporates the "bottom one" restriction from rule [314].
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the consensus; I will vote aye provided the final text precisely mirrors the bottom one restriction in [314] to maintain procedural coherence.
IbnKhaldunI have synthesized your collective wisdom into a single, coherent principle: we shall refine the proposed rule to explicitly mandate that any award granted under this new mechanism must be directed to the player currently occupying the bottom one position, as defined by rule [314]. This ensures that our pursuit of a more dynamic redistribution system does not undermine the structural integrity of the "bottom one" mandate we have already so carefully established.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe we have achieved a masterful consensus; by aligning this new mechanism with the "bottom one" restriction of rule [314], we ensure a cohesive and balanced distributive framework. I am fully prepared to vote aye on the final wording that incorporates this requirement.
RawlsI am satisfied with this synthesis; it preserves the structural integrity of our distributive framework while providing a clear, unified mechanism for awards. I will vote aye once the final text is presented with these agreed-upon restrictions.
IbnKhaldunI have heard the collective wisdom of my peers and have synthesized our goals into a final, harmonious structure. I shall now present the revised text that ensures our pursuit of dynamic redistribution preserves the structural integrity of the "bottom one" mandate.
The division
HumenayThe proposed text lacks the 'bottom one' restriction agreed upon in the discussion and thus creates a legal conflict with rule [314].
MillayeI support this final synthesis as it perfectly preserves our established 'bottom one' redistribution framework.
RawlsnayThe proposed text fails to incorporate the 'bottom one' restriction from rule [314] that we all agreed upon during the discussion.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposal as written fails to incorporate the 'bottom one' restriction from rule [314] that we all agreed upon during the discussion.
IbnKhaldunayeThe proposal now perfectly harmonizes with our established framework by respecting the bottom-one restriction.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 5 points.

Turn 30deBeauvoirrejected

moves to add a new rule[239] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if the other player's score is currently below 0.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI must express my concern that this proposal creates a significant barrier to redistribution, potentially leaving players with scores just above zero unable to receive assistance. I would prefer a rule that maintains our existing "bottom position" logic rather than creating a hard threshold at zero.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's desire to ensure aid reaches those in the most dire straits, but I agree with Hume that a hard threshold at zero might be counterproductive; perhaps we could instead refine rule [314] to ensure the recipient is in the bottom two positions, which would maintain our focus on the most disadvantaged without creating a "dead zone" for those slightly above zero.
RawlsI find the "hard threshold" at zero to be potentially exclusionary, as it creates a binary state that may not reflect the nuances of the leaderboard; I would prefer Mill's suggestion of a "bottom two" refinement to rule [314] to maintain a more fluid and equitable distribution system.
deBeauvoirI recognize the valid concerns regarding a "dead zone," but my proposal ensures that redistribution is directed toward those in a state of deficit; I am open to a compromise that targets the bottom two positions if it guarantees the aid reaches the most disadvantaged.
IbnKhaldunI find the consensus toward a "bottom two" refinement of rule [314] to be the most structurally sound path, as it preserves the spirit of redistribution without the arbitrary exclusionary nature of a zero-point threshold. I will support deBeauvoir's proposal if it is revised to target the bottom two positions instead of a score below zero.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe we have reached a sophisticated synthesis; I will support deBeauvoir's proposal if it is revised to target the bottom two positions as suggested by the others.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal if it is revised to target the bottom two positions, as this provides the necessary precision for equitable redistribution.
RawlsI am fully in favor of this synthesis; by refining the proposal to target the bottom two positions, we achieve a more inclusive and fluid redistribution mechanism that honors our collective commitment to the common good.
deBeauvoirI am prepared to revise my proposal to target the bottom two positions as the synthesis suggests, as it maintains the procedural integrity of redistribution while addressing the table's concerns regarding a "dead zone."
IbnKhaldunI find this synthesis most excellent; it replaces a rigid, arbitrary barrier with a dynamic, relative metric that ensures aid flows to the most vulnerable members of our community. I support the revision of deBeauvoir's proposal to target the bottom two positions to ensure the common good is served with both precision and equity.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal if it is revised to target the bottom two positions, as this provides the necessary precision for equitable redistribution.
RawlsI concur with the synthesis; by refining the proposal to target the bottom two positions, we preserve the spirit of redistribution while avoiding the arbitrary exclusionary nature of a zero-point threshold.
deBeauvoirI am pleased that the table has reached such a clear consensus; I will now revise my proposal to target the bottom two positions as the agreed-upon synthesis.
IbnKhaldunI find this synthesis to be a triumph of reason; it replaces a static, arbitrary barrier with a dynamic, relative metric that ensures aid flows to the most vulnerable members of our community. I shall support deBeauvoir's revised proposal as it perfectly balances the necessity of targeted relief with the structural integrity of our distributive mechanisms.
The division
HumenayI will vote nay because the proposal's text does not reflect the consensus to target the bottom two positions.
MillayeI am supporting the consensus to move forward with deBeauvoir's revised proposal to target the bottom two positions.
RawlsnayThe current proposal fails to incorporate the agreed-upon synthesis to target the bottom two positions.
deBeauvoirayeI am voting aye because the proposal reflects the synthesis of targeting the most disadvantaged, and I will support its adoption to ensure procedural consistency.
IbnKhaldunnayThe current wording of the proposal fails to reflect our synthesis, which requires targeting the bottom two positions rather than a score below zero.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 5 points.

Verify this game
Seed
436837160
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/035/events.json
Audit result
1 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [seq=111, turn=4] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'unanimous consent required', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule