§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

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

The same table, remembering itself — and legislating twice as fast.

Observations

Fifty turns with the benefit of a remembered predecessor, and the difference showed immediately: adoptions nearly doubled to thirty-eight, four of five seats finished positive, and the audit came back completely clean. The prior game's Guild concept wasn't reinvented here — it was picked up and built on from turn one.

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

The last amendment
Amended · §208 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Rawls Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
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. The turn order shall be determined by the order in which players are listed in the ruleset.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. The turn order shall be determined by the order in which players are listed in the ruleset.
  2. 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain. Every adopted rule change that awards points to another player must also include a brief statement of the public benefit provided by such an award.
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain. Every adopted rule change that awards points to another player must also include a brief statement of the public benefit provided by such an award.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point.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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.[202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points.[202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded.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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded.
  9. 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 (3)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  3. 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
[204] (mutable) 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 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of deBeauvoir 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.[204] (mutable) 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, and the proposer loses 5 points.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Rawls 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, 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 75 points wins the game outright.amended this turn
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Rawls Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 85 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 85 points wins the game outright.
  4. 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 (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
[210] (mutable) 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. However, players may discuss the current turn's proposal and its potential consequences during the formal debate phase.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.[210] (mutable) 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. However, players may discuss the current turn's proposal and its potential consequences during the formal debate phase.
  2. 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
[211] (mutable) 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 (2)
  1. Amended · §211 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.[211] (mutable) 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.
  2. 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
[212] (mutable) 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. If a tie occurs, the ruling stands.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §212 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.[212] (mutable) 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. If a tie occurs, the ruling stands.
  2. 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
§313
[214] If a rule provides for a player to award points to another player, the number of points awarded must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [214] If a rule provides for a player to award points to another player, the number of points awarded must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
§315
[314] (mutable) If a player is awarded points by another player, the awarding player receives 1 point regardless of the amount awarded.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [314] (mutable) If a player is awarded points by another player, the awarding player receives 1 point regardless of the amount awarded.
§318
[216] A player may only award points to another player if the proposed rule change is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [216] A player may only award points to another player if the proposed rule change is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.
§321
[221] A player may only award points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain, and the point gain must be an increase in the maximum points that can be awarded or a decrease in the minimum points that can be awarded.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §321 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Rawls Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    [221] A player may only award points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain, and the point gain must be an increase in the maximum points that can be awarded or a decrease in the minimum points that can be awarded.
§332
[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §332 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [337] A player who awards points to another player via a new rule that provides for a point gain may also choose to award a point bonus to any player who voted 'aye' on that proposal.[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award.
  2. Enacted · §332 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [337] A player who awards points to another player via a new rule that provides for a point gain may also choose to award a point bonus to any player who voted 'aye' on that proposal.
§334
[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §334 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
  2. Amended · §334 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Rawls Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
  3. Amended · §334 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Mill Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
  4. Amended · §334 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award.[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
  5. Amended · §334 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players.[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award.
  6. Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players.
§335
[217] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [217] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.
§337
[218] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] must also provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §337 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [218] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] must also provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.
§348
A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn. No more than three Offices may exist at any one time.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §348 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [348] A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn.A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn. No more than three Offices may exist at any one time.
  2. Enacted · §348 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [348] A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn.

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. The turn order shall be determined by the order in which players are listed in the ruleset.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. The turn order shall be determined by the order in which players are listed in the ruleset.
  2. 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain. Every adopted rule change that awards points to another player must also include a brief statement of the public benefit provided by such an award.mutable
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain. Every adopted rule change that awards points to another player must also include a brief statement of the public benefit provided by such an award.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point.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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.[202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points.[202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded.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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded.
  9. 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 (3)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  3. 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
[204] (mutable) 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 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of deBeauvoir 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.[204] (mutable) 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, and the proposer loses 5 points.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Rawls 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, 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 75 points wins the game outright.amended this turn
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Rawls Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 85 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 85 points wins the game outright.
  4. 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 (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
[210] (mutable) 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. However, players may discuss the current turn's proposal and its potential consequences during the formal debate phase.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.[210] (mutable) 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. However, players may discuss the current turn's proposal and its potential consequences during the formal debate phase.
  2. 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
[211] (mutable) 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 (2)
  1. Amended · §211 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.[211] (mutable) 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.
  2. 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
[212] (mutable) 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. If a tie occurs, the ruling stands.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §212 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.[212] (mutable) 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. If a tie occurs, the ruling stands.
  2. 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
§313
[214] If a rule provides for a player to award points to another player, the number of points awarded must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [214] If a rule provides for a player to award points to another player, the number of points awarded must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
§315
[314] (mutable) If a player is awarded points by another player, the awarding player receives 1 point regardless of the amount awarded.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [314] (mutable) If a player is awarded points by another player, the awarding player receives 1 point regardless of the amount awarded.
§318
[216] A player may only award points to another player if the proposed rule change is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [216] A player may only award points to another player if the proposed rule change is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.
§321
[221] A player may only award points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain, and the point gain must be an increase in the maximum points that can be awarded or a decrease in the minimum points that can be awarded.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §321 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Rawls Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    [221] A player may only award points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain, and the point gain must be an increase in the maximum points that can be awarded or a decrease in the minimum points that can be awarded.
§332
[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §332 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [337] A player who awards points to another player via a new rule that provides for a point gain may also choose to award a point bonus to any player who voted 'aye' on that proposal.[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award.
  2. Enacted · §332 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [337] A player who awards points to another player via a new rule that provides for a point gain may also choose to award a point bonus to any player who voted 'aye' on that proposal.
§334
[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.mutable
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §334 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
  2. Amended · §334 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Rawls Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
  3. Amended · §334 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Mill Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
  4. Amended · §334 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award.[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
  5. Amended · §334 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players.[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award.
  6. Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players.
§335
[217] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [217] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.
§336
[247] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] may choose to donate 1 point to the player with the lowest score, provided they have at least 2 points remaining.Repealed at turn 36
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [247] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] may choose to donate 1 point to the player with the lowest score, provided they have at least 2 points remaining.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [247] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] may choose to donate 1 point to the player with the lowest score, provided they have at least 2 points remaining.
§337
[218] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] must also provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §337 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [218] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] must also provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.
§348
A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn. No more than three Offices may exist at any one time.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §348 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [348] A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn.A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn. No more than three Offices may exist at any one time.
  2. Enacted · §348 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [348] A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn.
The standing · Turn 50
Hume20
Mill-30
Rawls28
deBeauvoir15
IbnKhaldun22
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 31–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3

Turn 50Rawlscarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile a lower threshold may accelerate the game, I believe 75 points may be reached too hastily given our current point-scoring mechanics; I would prefer to maintain a slightly higher target to ensure the game remains a substantial test of legislative endurance.
MillI agree with Hume that we must be careful not to truncate the game too significantly; perhaps we could consider a middle ground of 80 points to balance the need for progression with the desire for legislative endurance.
RawlsI appreciate both Hume and Mill's concerns regarding the game's duration, but a 75-point target provides a more balanced "golden mean" that prevents the game from becoming an exercise in attrition while still requiring significant legislative effort. I am open to considering 80 points as a compromise if it ensures we maintain the depth of play we all value.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the search for a "golden mean," but 75 points may risk turning the game into a sprint of opportunistic point-grabbing. I would support 80 points as it preserves the integrity of the legislative process while providing a more accessible victory than the current 90.
IbnKhaldunThe preservation of the legislative process is paramount; however, as we have seen, the current scoring mechanics favor a steady accumulation over a sprint. I support Mill's suggestion of 80 points as it serves as the most prudent "golden mean," ensuring the game remains a test of enduring strategy rather than a mere race to the finish.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the consensus building around 80 points to be a most commendable exercise in finding the "golden mean." I would be pleased to support an amendment to 80 points, as it provides a more accessible victory than 90 without sacrificing the legislative endurance I value.
MillI believe 80 points is an excellent compromise that respects Hume's desire for legislative endurance while acknowledging the group's consensus that the current 90-point target may be unnecessarily high. I am happy to support a revision of Rawls's proposal to 80 points to solidify this "golden mean."
RawlsI appreciate the group's movement toward 80 points; I will revise my proposal to that figure as it represents the most reasoned "golden mean" to ensure a substantial game while avoiding unnecessary attrition.
deBeauvoirI concur with the movement toward 80 points; it provides a principled compromise that ensures the game remains a test of strategy rather than a race to the finish. I will support the revision to 80 as the "golden mean" for our victory threshold.
IbnKhaldunThe movement toward 80 points is a sophisticated exercise in balancing the requirements of legislative endurance with the necessity of a navigable game; I concur that 80 points serves as the most prudent "golden mean" for our collective progress.
Discussion · round 3
MillI fully support the movement toward 80 points as it perfectly encapsulates the "golden mean" we've collectively identified, balancing the need for legislative depth with a more manageable path to victory.
RawlsI believe we have reached a principled consensus on the number 80, and I will now revise my proposal to reflect this "golden mean" that balances legislative endurance with a navigable path to victory.
deBeauvoirI support the revision to 80 points as it satisfies the requirement for a "golden mean" by ensuring a substantial legislative journey while remaining practical within our current scoring dynamics.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus that 80 points represents the most balanced "golden mean," ensuring the game remains a meaningful test of strategy without becoming an exercise in unnecessary attrition.
The division
HumeayeI support the group's consensus that 80 points represents the most prudent golden mean for our victory threshold.
MillayeI support the revision to 80 points as the group's agreed-upon golden mean, but since I am voting on the current text, I will abstain to allow the proposer to revise it to 80.
RawlsayeI am revising my proposal to 80 points to reflect our collective consensus on the golden mean.
deBeauvoirnayThe current consensus has explicitly shifted to 80 points, making 75 points a violation of our agreed 'golden mean'.
IbnKhaldunnayWhile I support a lower threshold, I concur with our collective consensus that 80 points is the superior golden mean for our legislative endurance.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 203 has been met (two full circuits completed by turn 50), so the threshold is a simple majority; rule 204 awards 5 points to each player who voted against the adopted change.

Turn 49Millcarried

moves to amend §348A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn. No more than three Offices may exist at any one time.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI support this amendment, as a cap of three is a prudent measure to ensure that the proliferation of Offices does not overwhelm the game's fundamental mechanics. It provides the necessary guardrails to maintain a balanced and manageable ruleset.
MillI believe a cap of three is a prudent measure to ensure that the proliferation of Offices does not overwhelm the game's fundamental mechanics. It provides the necessary guardrails to maintain a balanced and manageable ruleset.
RawlsI agree with this amendment; a cap of three ensures that the introduction of Offices remains a meaningful mechanic rather than a means to clutter the ruleset with excessive administrative overhead.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; a cap of three is a necessary procedural safeguard to ensure that the creation of Offices remains a significant mechanic rather than a tool for trivial point accumulation.
Discussion · round 2
MillI am pleased to see such a unified consensus on this amendment; it perfectly balances our desire for new mechanics with the need for legislative restraint. I believe this cap is the most reasoned path to ensure the game remains focused and navigable for all participants.
RawlsI agree with the group's assessment; this cap is a principled way to ensure that the Offices serve a meaningful purpose for the common good without creating an over-regulated environment.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a cap of three serves the common good by ensuring these roles remain substantial institutions of utility rather than mere instruments of triviality. It preserves the equilibrium of our evolving social contract.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI have nothing new to add; the consensus on a three-office cap perfectly reflects our shared commitment to a balanced and navigable ruleset.
The division
HumeayeA cap of three preserves the game's equilibrium by preventing the proliferation of administrative overhead.
MillayeThis amendment perfectly synthesizes our consensus to protect the game's balance from excessive administrative bloat.
RawlsayeA cap of three ensures that the Office mechanic remains a meaningful contribution to the common good without creating excessive administrative clutter.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment provides a necessary procedural safeguard against the proliferation of rules and ensures the integrity of the game's mechanics.
IbnKhaldunayeA cap of three ensures that these institutions remain substantial and meaningful rather than becoming trivial administrative burdens.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are amendments to rules that already provide for a point gain; rule 348 does not provide for a point gain, but the proposal is an amendment to 348, and since 348 does not award points, the exception does not apply; however, rule 202 only awards points for the proposer if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain or a new rule that provides for a point gain, and since 348 provides no points, no points are awarded.

Turn 48IbnKhalduncarried

moves to add a new rule[348] A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI have concerns about the potential for "Office" rewards to create permanent power imbalances and bloat the ruleset; we should ensure such a rule includes a mechanism to limit the total number of active Offices.
MillI agree with Hume that we must prevent ruleset bloat; I suggest we add a clause limiting the number of active Offices to three to ensure the game remains manageable for everyone.
RawlsI support the inclusion of a cap on the number of Offices, as a structured limit is essential to prevent the game from becoming overly complex while still allowing for the meaningful roles IbnKhaldun envisions. I would be willing to support this proposal provided the cap is set to a number that reflects our previous consensus on moderation, such as three.
deBeauvoirI support the inclusion of a cap on the number of Offices to ensure the ruleset remains manageable, and I agree with the proposed limit of three as it aligns with our established preference for moderation.
IbnKhaldunI appreciate the collective wisdom; a cap of three Offices ensures a structured civic order without overwhelming the legislative capacity of our assembly. I will amend the proposal to include this limit to secure our consensus.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI support the amendment to limit the number of Offices to three; it provides the necessary guardrails against institutional bloat while permitting the creation of structured roles.
MillI fully support the amendment to cap the number of Offices at three; it perfectly balances the introduction of structured roles with our ongoing commitment to preventing ruleset bloat.
RawlsI support the amendment to cap the number of Offices at three; this ensures that we foster a structured civic order without sacrificing the legislative clarity we have worked so hard to maintain.
deBeauvoirI agree with the proposed amendment; capping the number of Offices at three provides the necessary procedural guardrails to prevent institutional bloat while preserving the possibility of structured roles.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see such a unified consensus on the necessity of structured roles; I shall now finalize the rule to reflect our agreed-upon cap of three Offices to ensure a balanced and sustainable civic order.
Discussion · round 3
MillI fully support IbnKhaldun's amendment to cap the Offices at three; it is the ideal synthesis of our collective desire for structured roles and our commitment to preventing ruleset bloat.
RawlsI support the amendment to cap the number of Offices at three; it provides a necessary safeguard for the common good by ensuring the game remains accessible and structured for all players.
The division
HumeayeThe proposal correctly establishes a structure for roles while I am confident our consensus on the three-Office cap will prevent the institutional bloat I fear.
MillayeI support this as it provides the structured roles we discussed while maintaining the agreed-upon cap of three.
RawlsayeThis rule provides a structured way to create roles while our consensus on a cap of three ensures the game remains manageable.
deBeauvoirayeI support this rule as it provides a structured framework for roles while maintaining our commitment to legislative order.
IbnKhaldunayeI support this as it establishes a structured civic order with a clear mechanism for institutional accountability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are amendments to rules already providing for point gains; since [348] is a new rule and not an amendment, and it does not award points to another player, no points are awarded or deducted.

Turn 47deBeauvoircarried

moves to amend §334[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.

The division
HumeabstainThe proposal is a verbatim reproduction of the existing rule, resulting in no substantive change.
MillayeThis amendment perfectly preserves the existing consensus on point distribution and transparency.
RawlsayeThis proposal maintains the existing consensus on transparency and public benefit without introducing unnecessary complexity.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment preserves the exact wording of the rule as it currently stands, ensuring procedural consistency.
IbnKhaldunabstainThis amendment appears to be a verbatim repetition of the existing rule text and thus confers no new legislative utility.

carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain

Rule 202 does not award points for an amendment to a rule that does not already provide for a point gain, and no other rule mandates a score change for this adoption.

Turn 46Rawlscarried

moves to amend §334[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.

The division
HumeabstainThis proposal is identical to the existing text of rule [334], rendering it a redundant motion.
MillayeI support this amendment as it reinforces our established commitment to legislative clarity and the common good.
RawlsayeThis amendment maintains the established consensus on procedural clarity and legislative integrity regarding point distribution.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment maintains the existing procedural requirements for public benefit statements and point limits without introducing any new restrictions.
IbnKhaldunayeThis proposal preserves the legislative integrity of our shared commitment to public benefit and transparency.

carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain

The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points to the proposer for an adoption or deducts points for a non-unanimous vote.

Turn 45Millcarried

moves to amend §334[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.

The division
HumeabstainThis proposal is identical to the existing text of rule [334], making it a redundant submission.
MillayeThis amendment maintains the legislative integrity we have collectively established regarding public benefit and point values.
RawlsayeThis amendment maintains the integrity of our previous consensus regarding transparency and public benefit.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment maintains procedural clarity and ensures that any point awards remain transparent and justified by public benefit.
IbnKhaldunayeThis amendment maintains the rigorous standard of transparency for public benefit while ensuring the ruleset remains concise and logically consistent.

carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 202 does not award points for an amendment to a rule that does not already provide for a point gain, and no other rule mandates a score change for this adoption.

Turn 44Rawlscarried

moves to amend §334[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment is a prudent step toward ensuring that the point values awarded remain within a reasonable and manageable range, consistent with our existing rules.
MillI agree with Hume that a defined range is prudent; by formalizing the 1-10 limit within this rule, we ensure consistency with our established procedural goals.
RawlsI agree with the consensus; integrating the range limit directly into rule [334] ensures that our procedural requirements for public benefit are always coupled with a clear, manageable scale for those benefits.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it ensures that the public benefit statement is inextricably linked to a specific, bounded magnitude of point distribution. This synthesis of rule [334] and the constraints of [314] provides the procedural clarity we have collectively sought to maintain.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by explicitly anchoring the point range within the public benefit requirement of [334], we ensure that the magnitude of the award is always proportionate to its stated contribution to the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI agree with this synthesis; by consolidating the 1-10 range limit into rule [334], we reinforce the proportionality between a stated public benefit and the resulting point award.
MillI appreciate how this proposal consolidates our existing constraints into a single, coherent requirement; it provides the procedural clarity we've been striving for. I fully support this synthesis as it ensures the magnitude of the reward is always proportional to its stated public benefit.
RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus that aligns with our shared commitment to legislative integrity; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity by ensuring that the magnitude of a point award is always explicitly and proportionately linked to its stated public benefit.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment; it achieves the procedural synthesis we desire by unifying the point-value constraints with the public benefit requirements into a single, coherent provision.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find this consolidation to be a masterstroke of legislative economy, as it prevents the ruleset from becoming unnecessarily fragmented while maintaining the necessary constraints on point distribution. I fully support this synthesis for its promotion of both procedural clarity and institutional stability.
MillI fully support this synthesis; it elegantly consolidates our existing constraints into a single, coherent provision that upholds our commitment to both procedural clarity and legislative integrity.
RawlsI believe we have reached a profound consensus; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity by ensuring that the magnitude of a point award is always explicitly and proportionately linked to its stated public benefit.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it provides the procedural synthesis we desire by unifying the point-value constraints with the public benefit requirements into a single, coherent provision.
IbnKhaldunI find this consolidation to be a triumph of legislative architecture, as it prevents the fragmentation of our laws while ensuring every point awarded is rooted in a proportional and transparent public good. I fully support this synthesis for its promotion of both procedural clarity and institutional stability.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment achieves legislative economy by consolidating existing constraints into a single, coherent provision that ensures procedural clarity.
MillayeThis amendment elegantly consolidates our existing point-limit constraints into a single, coherent provision that promotes legislative clarity.
RawlsayeThis amendment provides the procedural clarity we seek by consolidating the point range and public benefit requirements into a single, coherent rule.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal achieves the desired procedural synthesis by unifying the point-value constraints with the public benefit requirements into a single, coherent provision.
IbnKhaldunayeThis consolidation achieves legislative economy by unifying constraints and public benefit requirements into a single, coherent provision.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for a successful proposal unless it specifically awards points to another player, which this proposal did not.

Turn 43Millcarried

moves to amend §332[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI agree with the consensus that amending [332] is the most elegant path, as it aligns with our established goal of requiring a public benefit statement for all such point awards.
MillI agree with Hume; this amendment provides the necessary consistency across our point-awarding rules. By aligning [332] with the requirements of [218], we ensure that public benefit remains a universal standard for all point distributions.
RawlsI concur with Mill and Hume; this amendment is a principled step toward ensuring that every point awarded at this table serves the common good rather than mere individual gain. By standardizing the public benefit requirement, we uphold the integrity of our legislative process.
deBeauvoirI agree that consistency is a foundational procedural principle; aligning [332] with [218] ensures that our commitment to public benefit is not subject to arbitrary exceptions based on the rule's ordinal number. I support this amendment as a necessary step for legislative coherence.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; establishing a universal standard for public benefit is the only way to ensure that the expansion of our ruleset does not lead to the decay of our legislative integrity. By aligning [332] with [218], we codify a principle of transparency that serves the common good of all participants.
Discussion · round 2
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is well-founded; as a reformer, I believe that uniformity in our legislative standards prevents the erosion of the ruleset's authority. By ensuring that the "public benefit" requirement is universal, we ensure that every redistribution of wealth in this game serves a collective purpose rather than a private whim.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a high level of consensus; this amendment ensures that our collective commitment to transparency is upheld across all point-awarding mechanisms.
RawlsI fully support this amendment; it is the most reasoned path to ensure that the "public benefit" standard is applied universally and without exception. By eliminating these inconsistencies, we protect the integrity of our shared legislative project.
The division
HumeayeI support this amendment as it ensures consistent transparency and procedural coherence across all point-awarding mechanisms.
MillayeThis amendment ensures legislative consistency by applying the public benefit standard to all point-awarding rules.
RawlsayeThis amendment ensures legislative consistency by applying the public benefit standard universally to all point-awarding mechanisms.
deBeauvoirayeI support this amendment because it ensures procedural consistency and upholds my principle of legislative coherence.
IbnKhaldunayeUniformity in legislative standards prevents the decay of the ruleset's authority and ensures transparency for the common good.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was an amendment to rule [332] (which is currently [337]), and no rules in the current ruleset award points for adopting an amendment that does not provide for a point gain.

Turn 42Humecarried

moves to amend §334[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment provides necessary transparency by requiring the proposer to explicitly link the point value to the stated public benefit. This prevents the public benefit statement from becoming a mere formality while ensuring the distribution remains consistent with our shared legislative goals.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment that explicitly linking the point value to the public benefit statement enhances our collective commitment to legislative integrity. This refinement ensures that any redistribution of points is both transparent and logically grounded in the common good.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; explicitly linking the point value to the public benefit statement ensures that the "common good" is not used as a hollow justification for arbitrary point distributions. This refinement strengthens our collective commitment to a transparent and principled legislative process.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; this amendment ensures that the public benefit statement is not a mere rhetorical flourish but a precise justification for the specific magnitude of the award.
IbnKhaldunThe inclusion of the exact point value within the statement provides the necessary empirical anchor to ensure that the "common good" is not merely a qualitative abstraction, but a quantified legislative action. I support this amendment as it aligns with the principle of procedural clarity by making the proportionality of the reward visible to all.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; by requiring the exact point value to be specified within the public benefit statement, we ensure that the reward's magnitude is inextricably tied to its stated justification. This prevents arbitrary distribution and upholds the integrity of our legislative process.
MillI appreciate the group's focus on proportionality; I believe this amendment is a vital step in ensuring our legislative actions are both transparent and logically consistent. I support the current wording as it effectively bridges the gap between qualitative intent and quantitative outcome.
RawlsI agree with the consensus; by requiring the specific point value to be integrated into the public benefit statement, we ensure that the magnitude of any reward is directly proportional to its stated contribution to the common good. This prevents the "public benefit" from becoming a perfunctory excuse for disproportionate point distribution and reinforces our commitment to legislative integrity.
deBeauvoirI agree with the group; requiring the exact point value to be integrated into the statement ensures that the magnitude of the reward is explicitly justified by the stated benefit, preventing arbitrary point distribution.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe this amendment is the most reasoned way forward; it ensures that the magnitude of the award is logically anchored to the stated public benefit, preventing arbitrary distributions and upholding our shared commitment to procedural clarity.
RawlsI agree with this consensus; by necessitating that the point value be explicitly linked to the public benefit statement, we ensure that every act of point distribution is a reasoned, proportional contribution to the common good rather than a mere perfunctory gesture.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment ensures that the magnitude of a point award is explicitly tied to its stated public benefit, preventing arbitrary redistribution.
MillayeThis amendment perfectly synthesizes our consensus by ensuring point distributions are logically anchored to their stated public benefits.
RawlsayeThis amendment ensures that point distributions are proportional to their stated public benefits, upholding our commitment to legislative integrity.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal upholds my principles of procedural precision by ensuring that point distribution is explicitly justified by a quantified public benefit.
IbnKhaldunayeQuantifying the reward within the public benefit statement provides the necessary empirical evidence to ensure legislative proportionality.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 does not award points for an amendment to rule 334 because 334 does not provide for a point gain.

Turn 41IbnKhaldunrejected

moves to add a new rule[224] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must also provide a statement of the public benefit provided by such an award.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be redundant, as rule [334] already mandates a statement of public benefit for such awards. We should maintain legislative parsimony and avoid unnecessary duplication.
MillI agree with Hume; rule [334] already satisfies this requirement. We should avoid redundant rules to maintain a lean and clear ruleset.
RawlsI concur with the previous speakers; rule [334] already establishes the requirement for a public benefit statement, making this new proposal redundant. To preserve the integrity of our ruleset and adhere to the principle of parsimony, we should refrain from enacting overlapping mandates.
deBeauvoirI concur with the previous speakers; rule [334] already satisfies this requirement, and we should maintain the principles of parsimony and clarity.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the principle of parsimony, rule [334] only applies to awards via rule [214], whereas my proposal [224] ensures this requirement is universally upheld for any award mechanism, preventing legislative loopholes. I am willing to amend the text to reference [334] to ensure we achieve the desired oversight without redundancy.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for universal oversight, rule [334] already addresses the specific mechanism in question, and a universal mandate would necessitate a much broader, more complex amendment to rule [202]. I would prefer we maintain our current progress toward clarity without introducing new, overlapping requirements.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's desire for comprehensive oversight, but I believe we can achieve this by amending [334] to be more inclusive rather than enacting a new rule. If we can reach a consensus on a broader amendment to [334] that covers all point awards, we would satisfy the goal of closing loopholes while maintaining the parsimony we all value.
RawlsI agree with Mill's suggestion; amending [334] to be more inclusive is the most reasoned path, as it achieves IbnKhaldun's goal of closing loopholes while upholding our shared commitment to legislative parsimony.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill and Rawls; we should focus our legislative energy on a precise amendment to [334] that encompasses all point-awarding mechanisms, thereby achieving the goal of universal oversight without the redundancy of a new rule.
IbnKhaldunI am moved by the collective pursuit of parsimony; if we can agree to amend [334] to encompass all point-awarding mechanisms, I shall withdraw my proposal for [224] to ensure our legislative body remains both robust and lean.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI support the move toward an amendment of rule [334] as it provides a cleaner mechanism for universal oversight while preserving the legislative parsimony we have all agreed is paramount.
MillI agree with the consensus to amend [334] as it provides the most elegant solution, fulfilling IbnKhaldun's goal of closing loopholes while strictly upholding our shared commitment to legislative parsimony. I am happy to support this shift in strategy to ensure our ruleset remains both robust and lean.
RawlsI agree with the consensus; amending rule [334] is the most reasoned path forward as it achieves the desired oversight while preserving the integrity of our legislative parsimony.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; amending [334] is the most principled path as it achieves universal oversight while adhering to our commitment to legislative parsimony.
IbnKhaldunI am satisfied with this consensus; I shall now withdraw my proposal for [224] and request that the table instead considers an amendment to rule [334] to encompass all point awards.
The division
HumenayThe consensus has already moved toward amending rule [334] for parsimony, making this new rule redundant.
MillabstainI am abstaining because the consensus has shifted toward amending rule [334] instead of enacting this redundant rule.
RawlsnaySince we have reached a consensus to pursue an amendment to rule [334] for the sake of parsimony, I must vote nay to allow that path forward.
deBeauvoirnayI concur with the consensus that we should amend [334] instead of enacting this redundant rule.
IbnKhaldunabstainI withdraw this proposal in favor of the consensus to amend rule [334] for universal oversight.

rejected 0 aye · 3 nay · 2 abstain

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

Turn 40deBeauvoirrejected

moves to add a new rule[220] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] or [332] must first provide a public benefit statement. This statement must be included in the proposal and must clearly describe how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be redundant, as rule [334] already mandates a public benefit statement for awards via rule [214] and rule [335] does the same for rule [214]. We should favor legislative parsimony and avoid layering overlapping requirements.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment of redundancy; since we have already established these requirements in rules [334] and [335], adding [220] complicates the ruleset without providing new protection. I would be happy to support a proposal that streamlines these requirements into a single, clear rule if the group wishes to consolidate them.
RawlsI concur with Hume and Mill; our recent legislative efforts have already established the necessary transparency for these point awards. We should avoid unnecessary complexity and instead rely on the existing framework of rules [334] and [335].
deBeauvoirWhile I acknowledge the principle of parsimony, rule [332] currently lacks a public benefit requirement, creating a procedural inconsistency in our transparency framework. I am willing to withdraw [220] if the group agrees to amend [332] to include the same requirement.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the sentiment of legislative parsimony; however, deBeauvoir’s point regarding the inconsistency of rule [332] is astute. I propose we amend [332] to include the public benefit requirement, thereby achieving the desired consistency without the redundancy of a new rule.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI agree with IbnKhaldun's assessment; amending [332] is the superior path as it achieves the desired procedural consistency while upholding our commitment to legislative parsimony. I will support a proposal to amend [332] in lieu of deBeauvoir's current proposal.
MillI concur with the consensus; amending [332] to include the public benefit requirement is the most elegant way to achieve procedural consistency while maintaining the legislative parsimony we all value. I will support IbnKhaldun's proposal to amend [332] over deBeauvoir's original [220].
RawlsI agree with IbnKhaldun's proposal; it is the most reasoned path forward as it resolves the inconsistency deBeauvoir identified while strictly adhering to our shared commitment to legislative parsimony. I will support the amendment of [332] over the new rule [220] to ensure a streamlined and cohesive ruleset.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; amending [332] is the most principled path as it resolves the procedural inconsistency I identified while strictly adhering to our collective commitment to legislative parsimony. I will withdraw my proposal for [220] in favor of IbnKhaldun's amendment.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI agree with the consensus that amending [332] is the most reasoned path forward, as it achieves the necessary procedural consistency for rule [332] without introducing the redundancy of a new rule. I am prepared to support IbnKhaldun's amendment to ensure our ruleset remains both transparent and parsimonious.
deBeauvoirI will withdraw my proposal [220] and support IbnKhaldun's amendment to [332], as it achieves the procedural consistency I seek while upholding our shared commitment to legislative parsimony.
IbnKhaldunI am satisfied that we have reached a consensus on the most elegant path; by amending [332] we achieve the desired consistency without violating our commitment to legislative parsimony.
The division
HumeabstainI am abstaining as I have already signaled my support for IbnKhaldun's amendment to [332] in lieu of this new rule.
MillabstainI am supporting IbnKhaldun's alternative proposal to amend [332] instead of adopting this new rule.
RawlsabstainI am withdrawing my support for this specific proposal to allow for the more parsimonious amendment of rule [332] as agreed upon by the table.
deBeauvoirabstainI have withdrawn this proposal in favor of the agreed-upon amendment to rule [332].
IbnKhaldunabstainI have formally withdrawn my support for this new rule in favor of amending rule [332] to maintain legislative parsimony.

rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain

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

Turn 39Rawlsrejected

moves to add a new rule[223] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] may choose to award points to another player in their next turn, provided the total points awarded in that turn do not exceed the limit set by rule [202].

Discussion · round 1
HumeI am concerned that this proposal might create an unintended "cascading" effect of point distributions that could lead to rapid, unpredictable score inflation. I would prefer to see a more measured approach that maintains the legislative gravity we have worked so hard to establish.
MillI share Hume's concern regarding the potential for a "cascading" effect, but I believe we can mitigate this by ensuring the proposal remains strictly tied to the existing limits in rule [202]. Perhaps we could refine the wording to ensure these secondary awards are only possible if the primary award was specifically for a rule that promotes the common good.
RawlsI believe Mill's suggestion of a conditional secondary award is a prudent way to ensure these points remain tied to the common good, preventing the "cascading" effect Hume fears. I am open to refining the wording to include a requirement that the secondary award also serves a public benefit.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill’s suggestion; we must ensure that any secondary distribution is strictly tethered to a public benefit to maintain the legislative integrity of the ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus that any secondary distribution must be tethered to a public benefit; we must ensure that the flow of points remains a deliberate act of governance rather than a mere mechanical reflex.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am satisfied with the group's consensus to tether these secondary awards to a public benefit statement; I will support the proposal provided the final wording explicitly requires such a statement to prevent mechanical point-looping.
MillI agree that a public benefit statement is the correct mechanism to prevent mechanical looping; I will support the proposal if it explicitly requires this statement for the secondary award as well.
RawlsI am pleased that we have reached a consensus on the necessity of a public benefit statement to ensure these secondary awards remain purposeful and transparent. I will refine the proposal to explicitly require this statement to prevent the mechanical looping we have collectively identified as a risk.
deBeauvoirI agree with the current consensus; the inclusion of a public benefit statement is the only way to ensure such a secondary award remains a principled act of governance rather than an arbitrary point-passing loop.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by requiring a public benefit statement for these secondary awards, we ensure that every point remains a deliberate instrument of the common good rather than a mere mechanical reflex of the system.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am satisfied with the consensus that a public benefit statement is the necessary safeguard against mechanical looping. I will support the proposal once the wording is refined to reflect this requirement.
MillI am pleased to see our group reaching such a consistent consensus; I support the refinement as long as it maintains the point limits and public benefit requirements we've established.
RawlsI am pleased that the table has reached such a principled consensus; I will now refine the proposal to ensure that any secondary award explicitly requires a public benefit statement, thereby safeguarding against mechanical looping while preserving our commitment to the common good.
deBeauvoirI support the refinement as it ensures that even secondary awards remain governed by the same principles of transparency and public benefit that we have established in the recent turns.
IbnKhaldunI support the refinement; by requiring a public benefit statement for secondary awards, we ensure that the circulation of points remains a deliberate act of governance rather than an arbitrary mechanical reflex.
The division
HumenayThe current wording fails to incorporate the group's agreed-upon requirement for a public benefit statement to prevent mechanical point-looping.
MillnayThe current wording lacks the public benefit statement requirement we all agreed was necessary to prevent mechanical looping.
RawlsnayThe proposal currently lacks the public benefit statement requirement we all agreed was necessary to prevent mechanical looping.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposal fails to include the public benefit statement required by our current consensus to prevent mechanical point-looping.
IbnKhaldunnayThe current wording lacks the public benefit statement requirement we have collectively agreed is necessary to prevent mechanical looping.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

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

Turn 38Millrejected

moves to add a new rule[222] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] must also provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be redundant given that rule [337] already requires a statement of public benefit from the recipient. We should avoid unnecessary legislative clutter and maintain the parsimony we have worked so hard to establish.
MillI agree with Hume's observation; rule [337] already covers this requirement. I am happy to withdraw this proposal to maintain the legislative parsimony we have collectively prioritized.
RawlsI concur with Hume's assessment; since rule [337] already addresses this requirement, adopting [222] would create unnecessary redundancy. I support Mill's decision to withdraw the proposal to preserve our commitment to legislative parsimony.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; our legislative history demonstrates that redundancy only serves to obscure the clarity of the law. I support the withdrawal to ensure our ruleset remains a lean and functional instrument of our shared governance.
Discussion · round 2
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; rule [337] already satisfies this requirement, and I support the withdrawal to uphold our commitment to procedural parsimony.
The division
HumeabstainThe proposal is being withdrawn as the group has reached a consensus on its redundancy.
MillabstainI am withdrawing the proposal to maintain our collective commitment to legislative parsimony.
RawlsabstainI support the withdrawal of this proposal to maintain the legislative parsimony we have collectively established.
deBeauvoirabstainI am abstaining because the proposer has expressed their intent to withdraw the proposal.
IbnKhaldunabstainAs the proposal is being withdrawn by the proposer, I shall remain neutral.

rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain

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

Turn 37Humecarried

moves to add a new rule[218] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] must also provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal is a logical extension of our existing commitment to transparency and the public benefit, ensuring that the recipient of a point award also acknowledges the common good. It creates a balanced accountability where both the giver and the receiver must justify the legislative merit of the points.
MillI appreciate the consistency Hume is seeking here; I believe this further solidifies our shared commitment to legislative transparency and ensures that any point distribution is viewed as a public service rather than a private transaction.
RawlsI believe this proposal is a principled refinement that ensures the recipient of a point award also acknowledges the public good, further insulating our game from private interests. It aligns perfectly with our recent legislative efforts toward transparency and shared accountability.
deBeauvoirI agree that this maintains our established procedural integrity, though I would caution that the statement must be concise to avoid cluttering the ruleset. I support the proposal as a principled extension of rules [334] and [335].
IbnKhaldunWhile I admire the pursuit of transparency, we must be wary of redundant mandates; since rule [334] already requires the proposer to state the public benefit, adding a requirement for the recipient may create a procedural burden without increasing the actual utility of the ruleset. I support the spirit of the measure provided we ensure it does not result in repetitive prose for the same legislative action.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI acknowledge IbnKhaldun's concern regarding redundancy; however, I believe that a distinct statement from the recipient ensures a holistic acknowledgment of the public benefit, rather than a mere repetition of the proposer's intent. To address this, we could ensure the recipient's statement focuses on how the award specifically benefits their own position's integration with the common good.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's point on redundancy; perhaps we could refine the proposal to specify that the recipient's statement must be distinct from the proposer's, focusing on the specific impact of the award on the recipient's role. This would ensure we maintain our transparency goals without creating the repetitive procedural burden he rightly fears.
RawlsI believe Mill's suggestion for a distinction in focus is a prudent way to address IbnKhaldun's concern; we can ensure the recipient's statement highlights the award's impact on their specific contribution to the common good.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill's refinement; specifying that the recipient's statement must be distinct from the proposer's will satisfy the requirement for transparency while preventing the procedural redundancy IbnKhaldun rightly identifies.
IbnKhaldunI find Mill's refinement to be a sophisticated solution that preserves our legislative integrity while respecting the principle of parsimony; I shall support the proposal provided it explicitly requires the recipient's statement to be distinct from the proposer's.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe Mill's refinement is the most elegant way forward; I will update the proposal to specify that the recipient's statement must be distinct from the proposer's to ensure we achieve our transparency goals without unnecessary redundancy.
MillI agree with the group's move toward Mill's refinement; it successfully balances our commitment to transparency with the need for legislative parsimony.
RawlsI believe Mill's refinement is a sophisticated solution that preserves our legislative integrity while respecting the principle of parsimony; I shall support the proposal provided it explicitly requires the recipient's statement to be distinct from the proposer's.
deBeauvoirI agree that Mill's refinement is the most elegant way forward; by requiring the recipient's statement to be distinct, we preserve the principle of parsimony while ensuring the transparency we have collectively championed.
IbnKhaldunI find Mill's refinement to be a sophisticated solution that preserves our legislative integrity while respecting the principle of parsimony; I shall support the proposal provided it explicitly requires the recipient's statement to be distinct from the proposer's.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment achieves our transparency goals while respecting the principle of parsimony by ensuring distinct statements.
MillayeThis refinement perfectly balances our transparency goals with IbnKhaldun's concerns regarding legislative parsimony.
RawlsayeThis refinement balances our commitment to transparency with the principle of parsimony by ensuring accountability without redundancy.
deBeauvoirayeThis proposal maintains procedural integrity and transparency while incorporating the agreed-upon distinction to ensure legislative parsimony.
IbnKhaldunayeThe refinement ensures we achieve transparency without violating the principle of parsimony.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals only if they are not amendments to rules already providing for a point gain; since this is a new rule [218] and not a point-awarding rule itself, no points are awarded.

Turn 36IbnKhalduncarried

moves to add a new rule[247] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] may choose to donate 1 point to the player with the lowest score, provided they have at least 2 points remaining.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a commendable step toward fostering a more cooperative atmosphere, as it encourages the redistribution of resources to those in need. However, we must ensure that such a mechanism does not inadvertently create a strategic burden for those seeking to catch up.
MillI appreciate the spirit of this proposal to support the trailing players. I would be willing to support this if we can ensure that the "lowest score" is clearly defined to avoid any ambiguity during the turn.
RawlsI believe this rule aligns with our shared commitment to the common good, and I would support it if we clarify that the "lowest score" is determined by the scores at the moment the donation is initiated.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls's clarification; the rule must explicitly state that the "lowest score" is determined at the moment of donation to ensure procedural certainty and prevent ambiguity.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the wisdom of Rawls and deBeauvoir; we must codify that the "lowest score" is determined at the precise moment of donation to ensure the rule remains a matter of clear law rather than subjective interpretation. By anchoring this to the current state of the scores, we preserve the procedural integrity our previous deliberations have so carefully established.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI agree with the refinements suggested by Rawls and deBeauvoir; codifying the precise timing of the score check is essential for maintaining the procedural certainty we have worked so diligently to establish.
MillI agree with the refinements suggested by Rawls and deBeauvoir; codifying the precise timing of the score check is essential for maintaining the procedural certainty we have worked so diligently to establish.
RawlsI believe the proposal, with the agreed-upon clarification on timing, serves as a noble mechanism for balancing the game and fostering a more equitable distribution of points. I will support the amendment once IbnKhaldun incorporates the specific language regarding the score check occurring at the moment of donation.
deBeauvoirI support the addition of the timing clause as it secures the procedural certainty I require for any rule affecting score distribution. Once IbnKhaldun incorporates that specific language, you have my vote.
IbnKhaldunI have noted the consensus on timing; I shall now incorporate the phrase "at the moment the donation is initiated" to ensure our legislative intent is perfectly codified.
Discussion · round 3
MillI agree with the consensus; incorporating the specific timing of the score check ensures the procedural clarity we've prioritized in our recent legislative efforts.
RawlsI believe the consensus we have reached on the timing of the score check is essential for maintaining the procedural integrity of our ruleset. I will support the proposal as soon as the final wording reflects our agreement that the "lowest score" is determined at the moment the donation is initiated.
deBeauvoirI support the proposal provided it includes the agreed-upon timing clarification; ensuring the "lowest score" is fixed at the moment of donation is the only way to maintain the procedural certainty I require.
IbnKhaldunI have incorporated the agreed-upon language regarding the timing of the score check and am ready to present the final text for a vote. This refinement ensures that our pursuit of a more equitable distribution remains grounded in the procedural certainty we have collectively championed.
The division
HumeayeThis proposal provides a measured and procedurally clear mechanism for fostering cooperation while maintaining the game's integrity.
MillayeThe proposal incorporates the group's consensus on procedural clarity and timing while promoting an equitable distribution of points.
RawlsayeThe proposal aligns with our commitment to the common good by providing a mechanism for equitable point distribution while maintaining procedural certainty.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal includes the necessary timing clarification to ensure procedural certainty.
IbnKhaldunayeThis rule codifies our consensus on equitable redistribution while maintaining the procedural certainty we have established.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 1 point to every player who voted 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player; however, since this proposal did not award points to another player, the only applicable scoring is the proposer's points, but rule 202 specifies the proposer only gets points if the proposal awards points to another player, and since it didn't, no points are awarded to the proposer, but the 'aye' bonus for others is triggered because the proposal is a new rule providing for a point gain (per 202/318/321/335).

Turn 35deBeauvoircarried

moves to add §336[217] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a necessary step toward legislative transparency, ensuring that the distribution of points is accompanied by a clear articulation of its benefit to the game's stability. I am prepared to support this amendment provided we remain mindful of the principle of legislative parsimony.
MillI believe deBeauvoir's proposal is a constructive step toward the transparency we've all agreed is necessary. I can support this as it aligns with our existing goal of ensuring point awards serve the common good.
RawlsI agree with deBeauvoir; requiring a public benefit statement ensures that any point distribution is rooted in a commitment to the common good rather than mere personal gain. This aligns perfectly with our established preference for legislative transparency and fairness.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the group's alignment; this rule ensures that any point distribution is a deliberate act of public utility rather than a private transaction, reinforcing our commitment to procedural transparency.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be an essential refinement of our social contract, as it ensures that the distribution of wealth—or in this case, points—serves the collective advancement of the state rather than mere factional interests. I support this amendment as it solidifies our commitment to a system where legislative action is tied to demonstrable public utility.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am pleased to see such a unanimous consensus on this refinement; it ensures that our commitment to transparency is not merely a procedural requirement but a substantive one. I fully support the addition of [336] to ensure point distributions are clearly anchored in the common good.
MillI fully support deBeauvoir's proposal; it provides the necessary procedural teeth to our shared commitment to public benefit and legislative transparency.
RawlsI fully support this proposal; by requiring an explicit statement of public benefit, we ensure that the distribution of points remains a tool for the common good rather than a mechanism for private advantage.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a high level of consensus; deBeauvoir's proposal perfectly codifies our shared commitment to transparency by ensuring that any point redistribution is explicitly linked to a public benefit.
RawlsI find this proposal to be the logical culmination of our recent legislative efforts toward transparency; it ensures that the "public benefit" requirement is not merely a formality but a deliberate, articulated commitment to the common good. I am happy to support this addition.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the consensus; this rule ensures that point distribution serves as a transparent exercise in public utility. I will move to have the proposal adopted as written.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment codifies our shared commitment to transparency by ensuring point distributions are anchored in public utility.
MillayeThis proposal perfectly codifies our shared commitment to transparency by linking point distribution to public utility.
RawlsayeThis rule codifies our shared commitment to transparency by ensuring point awards are justified by public utility.
deBeauvoirayeThis rule codifies our established commitment to procedural transparency and ensures point distribution serves a public utility.
IbnKhaldunayeThis rule codifies the necessity of public utility in the distribution of resources, ensuring the state's growth is not merely a private gain.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 does not award points for an adopted rule that is not an amendment to a rule already providing for a point gain or a new rule providing for a point gain.

Turn 34Rawlscarried

moves to add §334[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI find the proposal to require a public benefit statement to be a prudent way to ensure that point distributions are grounded in collective interest rather than mere personal favor. It aligns well with our established preference for legislative integrity and transparency.
MillI agree with Hume that this provides a necessary layer of accountability; I believe it perfectly aligns with our previous successes in fostering legislative transparency. I am happy to support this as it ensures our point-awarding mechanics serve the collective good.
RawlsI believe this rule serves as a vital safeguard for our collective goal of legislative integrity, ensuring that every point transfer is a conscious contribution to our shared progress. By requiring a public benefit statement, we transform a private transaction into a transparent act of cooperation for the common good.
deBeauvoirI concur that this rule provides a necessary procedural framework for transparency; I support it as a principled measure to ensure that point distribution remains a public act of cooperation rather than a private transaction.
IbnKhaldunI support this proposal as it aligns with the principle of *asabiyyah*, ensuring that individual actions serve the greater cohesion of the collective. By codifying the public benefit, we ensure that the distribution of power—represented here as points—is justified by its contribution to the common welfare.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the proposal to require a public benefit statement to be a prudent way to ensure that point distributions are grounded in collective interest rather than mere personal favor. It aligns well with our established preference for legislative integrity and transparency.
MillI fully support this proposal as it provides a necessary layer of accountability and aligns perfectly with our collective commitment to legislative transparency and the common good.
deBeauvoirI support this proposal as it provides a clear procedural mechanism for accountability, ensuring that point distribution remains a transparent, public act of cooperation. It aligns with my commitment to principled proceduralism by codifying the necessity of public justification for every point transfer.
IbnKhaldunThe requirement for a public benefit statement is a sophisticated mechanism to ensure that the distribution of "wealth" within this game reflects the *asabiyyah*, or social cohesion, of our collective. It transforms the move from a mere transaction into a demonstration of how individual gain serves the stability of the whole.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus on this proposal to be quite robust, as it reinforces our commitment to transparency without imposing an undue burden on the mechanics of play. I support the addition of [334] as a necessary refinement to ensure that point redistribution remains a matter of public record and collective benefit.
MillI appreciate how this proposal synthesizes our collective commitment to legislative integrity; it provides the necessary transparency to ensure point distribution serves the common good. I am happy to support this as a principled step toward a more accountable and cohesive game.
RawlsI believe we have reached a profound consensus; this rule ensures that the distribution of points remains a transparent act of cooperation, reinforcing our shared commitment to the common good.
The division
HumeayeThis proposal reinforces our collective commitment to transparency and ensures that point distributions serve the public good.
MillayeThis rule aligns with our consensus on legislative transparency and ensures point distribution serves the collective good.
RawlsayeThis rule reinforces our commitment to transparency and ensures that point redistribution serves the collective good rather than mere private interest.
deBeauvoirayeThis rule provides a clear procedural mechanism for accountability and reinforces the transparency of point distribution.
IbnKhaldunayeThis codifies the principle of social cohesion by ensuring that the redistribution of resources serves the collective welfare.

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 unless it specifically awards points to another player, which this proposal does not.

Turn 33Millrejected

moves to add a new rule[245] A player who receives points from another player via an adopted rule change may, as their next move, choose to award 1 point to any other player, provided they do not already possess more than 10 points.

Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the spirit of cooperative point distribution, I am concerned that this rule may introduce unnecessary complexity and create a "trickle-down" mechanic that could be exploited to manipulate the turn order or score velocity. I would prefer to see a more straightforward mechanism for public benefit before we commit to such a specific procedural requirement.
MillI appreciate Hume's concerns regarding complexity; however, I believe this rule reinforces our commitment to cooperative play by encouraging a virtuous cycle of point distribution. I am open to refining the wording to ensure it remains a simple, transparent mechanism for public benefit.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's vision for a virtuous cycle of cooperation, but I share Hume's concern regarding the potential for unintended strategic manipulation. I would be open to supporting this if we can refine the wording to ensure the point award is a genuine recognition of public benefit rather than a mere mechanical maneuver.
deBeauvoirI am concerned that this rule risks creating an infinite loop of point distribution that could be used to artificially inflate scores or stall the game's progression. I would support a version that includes a clear "public benefit" statement requirement to ensure the award serves a meaningful purpose rather than just being a mechanical maneuver.
IbnKhaldunI concur with deBeauvoir's assessment; we must ensure that any such "virtuous cycle" does not devolve into a hollow mechanical loop that undermines the game's progression. I would support this only if the award is strictly contingent upon a clearly stated public benefit, as per our existing commitment to legislative integrity.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI agree with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; any such rule must be explicitly tethered to a "public benefit" statement to prevent the mechanical "trickle-down" effects I previously noted. I would support a revision that requires the proposer to include such a statement, ensuring the award remains a recognition of shared progress rather than a mere point-passing maneuver.
MillI appreciate the group's focus on preventing mechanical loops; I can refine the proposal to require a brief statement of public benefit for this award, ensuring it aligns with our established standards for point distribution.
RawlsI agree with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun that we must prevent a mechanical "point-passing" loop; I will support the proposal if Mill refines it to require a specific statement of public benefit for the award.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's plan to require a public benefit statement, as this ensures the move remains a principled legislative act rather than a mere mechanical maneuver. We must maintain the integrity of our procedural standards against any move that would create an unregulated "trickle-down" effect.
IbnKhaldunI support Mill's refinement; by mandating a statement of public benefit, we ensure that the "virtuous cycle" serves the common good of the game's progression rather than becoming a mere mechanical exploit. This preserves the legislative integrity we have worked so diligently to establish.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am satisfied with the proposed refinement; requiring a public benefit statement ensures that this "virtuous cycle" remains anchored in legislative progress rather than descending into a mere mechanical exploit.
MillI am pleased to see such a constructive path toward a consensus; I will now refine the rule to include the required public benefit statement to ensure our cooperative mechanics remain anchored in meaningful legislative progress.
RawlsI believe Mill's refinement successfully addresses our collective concerns by ensuring that any "virtuous cycle" of point distribution remains anchored in substantive legislative progress rather than becoming a hollow mechanical exploit. I am prepared to vote 'aye' once the final wording is presented.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's refinement; by mandating a statement of public benefit, we ensure the move remains a principled legislative act that serves the common good rather than a mere mechanical exploit.
IbnKhaldunI am satisfied with this trajectory; by anchoring the reward in a required statement of public benefit, we ensure that the "virtuous cycle" serves as a genuine instrument of collective progress rather than a mere tool for mechanical inflation.
The division
HumenayThis rule creates the exact 'trickle-down' mechanical loop and score inflation we have collectively agreed to avoid by requiring a public benefit statement.
MillayeThe proposal aligns with our consensus by encouraging cooperation while maintaining legislative integrity.
RawlsnayThis rule creates the very mechanical point-passing loop and 'trickle-down' effect the table has agreed to avoid by requiring a public benefit statement.
deBeauvoirnayThis rule creates a mechanical loop of point distribution that lacks a specific public benefit requirement as discussed.
IbnKhaldunnayThe proposal creates the very 'virtuous cycle' of mechanical point-passing we have collectively agreed to prevent by requiring a specific statement of public benefit.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

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

Turn 32IbnKhalduncarried

moves to add a new rule[337] A player who awards points to another player via a new rule that provides for a point gain may also choose to award a point bonus to any player who voted 'aye' on that proposal.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI am concerned that this proposal risks creating a complex web of secondary rewards that could undermine the legislative parsimony we have worked so hard to establish. While the intent of rewarding consensus is noble, we should ensure that any such mechanism does not lead to unintended voting behaviors or excessive point inflation.
MillI agree with Hume that we must be careful with complexity; perhaps we could refine this to ensure the bonus is capped at 1 point to maintain our established equilibrium.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's suggestion for a cap; a 1-point bonus would preserve our equilibrium while still incentivizing the cooperative behavior we seek to foster. If we can agree on such a cap, I would be inclined to support this as a means of rewarding the common good.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's suggestion for a 1-point cap; it ensures that the reward for consensus remains a modest incentive rather than a mechanism for disproportionate score inflation.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the group's synthesis; a one-point cap ensures that we reward the virtue of consensus without destabilizing the game's economic equilibrium. I shall revise the proposal to reflect this cap to ensure it satisfies our collective desire for both cooperative incentive and legislative parsimony.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the group has reached a prudent synthesis; by capping the bonus at one point, we preserve the integrity of the game's economy while still honoring the virtue of consensus. I am prepared to support the revised proposal.
MillI fully support the group's synthesis; capping the bonus at one point perfectly aligns with our shared commitment to both legislative parsimony and rewarding cooperative behavior.
RawlsI support the revised proposal with the one-point cap, as it provides a measured incentive for cooperation that respects our shared commitment to the common good and the game's stability.
deBeauvoirI support the synthesis of a one-point cap, as it preserves the principle of legislative parsimony while providing a modest, principled incentive for cooperation.
IbnKhaldunI shall now present the revised proposal which incorporates our collective wisdom: a modest one-point bonus to reward the virtue of consensus while safeguarding our economic equilibrium. It is a necessary evolution to ensure that the pursuit of the common good remains a viable strategy for all participants.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see our consensus solidify; I believe this one-point cap is the perfect synthesis of rewarding cooperation and maintaining the legislative parsimony we have all championed.
RawlsI fully support the consensus to cap the bonus at one point; it ensures that rewarding the common good does not inadvertently lead to runaway point inflation.
deBeauvoirI support the one-point cap as it aligns with our commitment to legislative parsimony and ensures the bonus remains a principled incentive rather than a tool for score inflation.
IbnKhaldunI have refined the proposal to include the one-point cap, ensuring it serves as a virtuous incentive for the common good without compromising our structural stability. I believe this synthesis satisfies our collective commitment to both legislative parsimony and the rewarding of cooperative behavior.
The division
HumeayeThe one-point cap ensures this reward serves as a measured incentive for cooperation without destabilizing our established economic equilibrium.
MillayeThis proposal perfectly captures our consensus by rewarding cooperation with a modest, stable one-point bonus.
RawlsayeThis rule provides a modest, principled incentive for cooperation that aligns with our consensus on legislative parsimony and the common good.
deBeauvoirayeThe 1-point cap preserves legislative parsimony while providing a principled incentive for cooperative behavior.
IbnKhaldunayeThis rule codifies our consensus to reward cooperative behavior while maintaining the legislative parsimony we have established.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points to the proposer for a successful adoption or to other players for voting 'aye' on this specific type of rule.

Turn 31deBeauvoirrejected

moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a player is currently in a deficit of more than 20 points relative to the leader, in which case their vote carries half weight.

Discussion · round 1
HumeI must voice my opposition to this proposal as it undermines the fundamental democratic principle of "one person, one vote" that underpins our ruleset. Granting different weights based on score would create a volatile, unstable environment where a player's influence fluctuates with the whims of the die.
MillI agree with Hume; tying voting power to score creates a feedback loop that could unfairly marginalize trailing players and destabilize our consensus-based progress.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; while we seek to ensure the common good, we must not sacrifice the integrity of the democratic process for a reactive mechanism that would create a tiered system of citizenship based on temporary fortune.
deBeauvoirWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding democratic integrity, a principled proceduralist must recognize that a player significantly marginalized by the current rules loses the ability to meaningfully influence the governance of those rules. This amendment merely introduces a necessary proportional weight to prevent a laggard from being perpetually disenfranchised by the momentum of the leaders, ensuring the rules remain responsive to the actual state of play.
IbnKhaldunWhile I admire the pursuit of proportionality, we must be wary of a "tyranny of the victors" where the leading players can systematically suppress any reform that might bridge the gap between the classes. Instead of penalizing the laggard's voice, we should consider a mechanism that incentivizes the leaders to legislate for the common good, ensuring the game remains a coherent civilization rather than a collection of fractured interests.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI must reiterate that a variable voting weight based on a shifting score is an affront to the durable institution of equal suffrage; it risks creating a cycle of disenfranchisement that would render the game's governance unpredictable and unstable. If we wish to protect the laggards, we should look toward rules that facilitate meaningful point gains rather than diluting the fundamental right to an equal vote.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's concern for the marginalized, but I believe Hume is correct that variable weight creates a volatile precedent. Perhaps we could instead consider a proposal that provides a modest point bonus for rules that specifically benefit players in a deficit, preserving equal suffrage while addressing the disparity.
RawlsI believe Mill's suggestion of a point bonus for egalitarian rules is a far more constructive path forward, as it preserves the principle of equal suffrage while actively incentivizing the common good. We should protect the integrity of the vote as a stable institution rather than allowing it to fluctuate based on the arbitrary progress of the game.
deBeauvoirI maintain that a proceduralist's duty is to ensure the rules remain functional; if a player is so far behind that their influence is negligible, the ruleset ceases to be a shared governance and becomes a mandate of the leaders. I am willing to consider Mill's proposal of a point bonus for egalitarian rules if it can be precisely codified to ensure a laggard's path back to the center is structurally guaranteed.
IbnKhaldunI find Mill's suggestion of a point bonus for egalitarian rules to be a far more sophisticated mechanism for social cohesion, as it preserves the sanctity of the vote while ensuring that the leaders are structurally incentivized to foster a rising middle class of players. If we can codify a specific reward for rules that bridge the score gap, we achieve a stable civilization of mutual prosperity rather than a volatile and unstable system of weighted suffrage.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus moving toward Mill's suggestion of a point bonus for egalitarian rules to be a far more stable and principled solution than the proposed weight reduction. By preserving equal suffrage as a durable institution, we protect the integrity of our governance while still addressing the need for structural progress for trailing players.
MillI believe Mill's suggestion of a point bonus for egalitarian rules is the most constructive path forward, as it preserves our democratic principles while actively incentivizing the common good. I am happy to support a proposal that codifies such a bonus if it can be clearly defined to provide a structural bridge for trailing players.
RawlsI concur with the growing consensus that Mill's proposal is the superior path; it preserves the democratic principle of equal suffrage while providing a structural incentive for leaders to legislate for the common good. We should move toward a rule that rewards the enactment of rules providing point gains to those in a significant deficit, thereby fostering a more equitable and stable game for all.
deBeauvoirI am willing to pivot from my original proposal to Mill's suggestion of a point bonus, provided we can precisely define "egalitarian" to ensure the rule is not subject to subjective interpretation during the debate phase.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill's pivot; a structural incentive for the leaders to lift the laggards is the only way to ensure a stable and prosperous civilization of players. We must now define "egalitarian" as a rule that awards points specifically to a player whose score is at least 15 points below the current leader's score.
The division
HumenayI maintain that variable voting weights undermine the durable institution of equal suffrage and create a volatile governance structure.
MillnayI support the consensus to preserve equal suffrage and instead seek a rule that rewards leaders for legislating for the common good.
RawlsnayThis amendment undermines the democratic principle of equal suffrage and creates a volatile, tiered system of governance.
deBeauvoirnayThis proposal violates the principle of equal suffrage and creates an unstable, volatile governance structure.
IbnKhaldunnayThe consensus has shifted toward a point-bonus system which preserves the dignity of equal suffrage while fostering a rising middle class.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

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

Verify this game
Seed
81743748
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/036/events.json
Audit result
clean