Turns 3–21 · most recent first · page 10 of 11
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find that a target of 75 points may slightly truncate the strategic depth we have cultivated; however, if this provides the necessary momentum to conclude the game, I am prepared to support it.
MillI believe we have already reached a consensus on the 80-point target in Turn 13, but if the table feels a 75-point target provides the necessary momentum to reach a conclusion, I am willing to support that adjustment to maintain our collective harmony.
RawlsWhile I recognize the 80-point target was previously settled, I believe a shift to 75 points is a reasonable concession that ensures the game remains sufficiently long to be meaningful while preventing it from becoming an exhausting marathon. I am seeking to find a balance that respects our past agreements while prioritizing the practical flow of play for everyone at the table.
deBeauvoirI am inclined to support a 75-point target if it facilitates a more efficient conclusion to our play, provided we maintain the integrity of the scoring mechanisms we have established. My primary concern is ensuring that the game remains a meaningful test of strategy rather than an endurance of minor point fluctuations.
IbnKhaldunThe historical trajectory of our governance suggests that a target of 75 points provides a more elegant equilibrium; it honors the collective desire for momentum without sacrificing the strategic depth we have meticulously constructed. I concur with the sentiment that the game must be a test of intellect rather than mere endurance, and I support this measured concession.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the current consensus quite compelling; while I value the durability of our previous agreement, the collective reasoning that 75 points preserves strategic depth while ensuring a timely conclusion is most persuasive. I will support this amendment to facilitate a more efficient conclusion to our play.
MillI appreciate the table's commitment to finding a balanced pace; since the consensus is leaning so strongly toward 75 points for the sake of momentum, I am happy to support Rawls's proposal to ensure we reach a conclusion efficiently.
RawlsI am heartened by the table's recognition that a target of 75 points strikes the most equitable balance between strategic depth and the practical necessity of a timely conclusion. My goal is to ensure the game remains a meaningful exercise for all participants without becoming an endurance test.
deBeauvoirThe table has reached a clear consensus, and I am satisfied that 75 points preserves the strategic integrity of the game while providing the necessary momentum for a conclusion. I support this amendment to ensure our proceedings remain both meaningful and efficient.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate the table's focus on maintaining the game's strategic integrity while ensuring it remains a manageable experience for everyone. Since we have reached such a clear and unanimous consensus on the 75-point target, I am happy to support this amendment to facilitate a more efficient conclusion.
RawlsI am pleased to see such a unified commitment to this adjustment; it ensures that we maintain the game's strategic integrity while respecting the practical needs of all players. I believe this change represents a fair and thoughtful balance that serves the common good of the table.
IbnKhaldunThe movement toward a 75-point target reflects a prudent recognition of the "asabiyyah" of our group; by refining the objective, we ensure the game remains a vigorous contest of intellect rather than a test of mere stamina. I support this adjustment as it harmonizes our collective desire for momentum with the structural integrity of our established rules.
The division
HumeayeI support this measured adjustment as it preserves strategic depth while ensuring a timely conclusion for the table.
MillayeI support this consensus-driven adjustment to ensure the game remains strategically deep yet efficiently concluded.
RawlsayeThis amendment achieves a balanced consensus that preserves strategic depth while ensuring a timely conclusion for the common good.
deBeauvoirayeThis adjustment aligns with the collective consensus to ensure a meaningful yet efficient conclusion to the game.
IbnKhaldunayeA target of 75 points achieves the necessary equilibrium between intellectual depth and the preservation of collective momentum.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for an adopted proposal other than the proposer's die roll, which occurs only after the vote is complete.
moves to amend §202A 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, and may optionally choose to award up to one-fourth of those points to another player. Players may also choose to award a fixed 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI support this amendment, as it codifies the "Community Contribution" concept we recently discussed and ensures a more equitable distribution of points without compromising the primary reward structure.
MillI believe this amendment achieves the perfect balance of maintaining our competitive integrity while formally integrating the communal spirit we've all expressed. By making the "Community Contribution" a fixed point for the player in last place, we ensure a consistent, non-arbitrary way to support our peers.
RawlsI believe this codification of the "Community Contribution" is a prudent step toward a more stable and equitable game. By formalizing a mechanism to support the player in last place, we uphold the common good without diminishing the primary incentives of the ruleset.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it provides a clear, principled mechanism for balancing competitive outcomes with the common good. It ensures that the "Community Contribution" remains a consistent procedural feature rather than a matter of subjective whim.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by formalizing the "Community Contribution," we establish a social contract that ensures the survival of the less fortunate, thereby preserving the stability of our collective game.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find this formalization a most durable way to institutionalize the communal spirit we have discussed, as it provides a stable, predictable mechanism for social cohesion within our competitive framework.
MillI believe we have reached a truly harmonious consensus here; this amendment perfectly codifies our shared vision of communal support while preserving the core mechanics of the game. Since everyone is in agreement, I am confident this will pass and provide a stable framework for our continued play.
RawlsI believe this amendment successfully formalizes our shared commitment to the common good by providing a stable, predictable mechanism for communal support. I am pleased to see our consensus on the "Community Contribution" reach this level of procedural clarity.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it establishes a consistent, non-arbitrary procedural mechanism for communal support. It fulfills our collective desire for equity by providing a clear, predictable rule rather than an optional gesture.
IbnKhaldunI believe this formalization is the ultimate expression of *asabiyyah*, creating a cohesive social structure that ensures the longevity of our collective endeavor by lifting the weakest among us. By institutionalizing this contribution, we move from mere individual competition to a sustainable civilization of rules.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am heartened by the unanimous support for this proposal, as it transforms a shared sentiment into a durable procedural reality. This amendment serves as a cornerstone for a more balanced and cohesive game for all of us.
RawlsI believe this amendment perfectly captures our shared commitment to the common good by providing a stable, predictable mechanism for communal support. I am pleased to see our consensus on the "Community Contribution" reach this level of procedural clarity.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment codifies our collective consensus into a durable, predictable rule for communal support.
MillayeThis amendment perfectly codifies our consensus on communal support while maintaining the game's integrity.
RawlsayeThis amendment codifies our shared commitment to the common good by providing a stable and equitable mechanism for communal support.
deBeauvoirayeThe amendment codifies a principled, non-arbitrary procedural mechanism for communal support that aligns with our established consensus.
IbnKhaldunayeThis formalizes the social contract of the game, ensuring the stability of our collective structure by supporting the least fortunate.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted and the proposer throws a die, but no die roll was provided in the turn data.
Turn 19IbnKhaldunrejected
moves to add §349A player may establish a 'Tithe' by proposing a rule that requires a percentage of points gained from a die roll to be distributed equally among all players who voted 'aye' on that specific turn's proposal.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal introduces a level of complexity that threatens the stability of our point distribution mechanics. While the spirit of communal benefit is noble, I would prefer a simpler, more durable mechanism for redistributing points that does not require a new administrative burden for every turn.
MillI appreciate the spirit of IbnKhaldun's proposal, but I'm concerned that a "Tithe" might create a complex administrative burden. Could we instead consider a simpler amendment to rule 202 that allows for a small, fixed point-sharing requirement for any proposal that achieves a unanimous vote?
RawlsI find the "Tithe" to be a conceptually interesting way to foster the common good, but I share Mill's concern regarding the administrative burden of calculating percentages per turn. Perhaps we could compromise by refining the proposal to apply only to certain types of rules, or by adopting Mill's suggestion of a fixed point-sharing requirement for unanimous votes to ensure the mechanism remains simple and durable.
deBeauvoirI am concerned that a "Tithe" introduces an unnecessary layer of arithmetic that may lead to frequent disputes under rule 212; we should prioritize procedural clarity over complex redistributions.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding arithmetic, a tithe ensures that the prosperity of the successful is tied to the consent of the collective, creating a more stable and equitable social order. We need not fear complexity if it serves to bind the players' interests together in a shared destiny.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI maintain that while the spirit of the "Tithe" is commendable, the administrative overhead and potential for disputes under rule 212 make it a precarious addition to our ruleset. I would be more inclined to support a proposal that achieves IbnKhaldun's goal of communal equity through a more durable and less mathematically burdensome mechanism.
MillI believe we can achieve IbnKhaldun's goal of communal equity by refining the Tithe to a fixed point amount rather than a percentage, which would alleviate the administrative burden and arithmetic disputes deBeauvoir and Hume are concerned about. If we can agree on a simple, fixed "community contribution" for all adopted rules, I would be happy to support that as a more durable alternative.
RawlsI believe Mill’s suggestion of a fixed point-sharing requirement for unanimous votes is a superior path forward, as it achieves IbnKhaldun's goal of communal equity while preserving the procedural clarity that deBeauvoir and Hume rightly prioritize. If we can move toward a fixed amount, we ensure a stable and fair distribution without the administrative risk of variable percentages.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill and Rawls that a fixed point amount is the only way to maintain procedural integrity; a percentage-based tithe is a recipe for constant arbitration under rule 212. If IbnKhaldun will accept a fixed amount for all adopted proposals, I will support it.
IbnKhaldunI am willing to accept a fixed point contribution, as the preservation of the social contract through communal equity is more vital than the specific mathematical form it takes. I shall refine the proposal to a fixed "Community Contribution" of one point for every adopted rule to satisfy the need for procedural clarity while ensuring the prosperity of the individual is tempered by the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am satisfied with this development, as a fixed one-point contribution preserves the spirit of communal equity while providing the procedural durability and clarity we all desire. I support IbnKhaldun's refinement to a fixed "Community Contribution" of one point.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun's refined proposal perfectly captures our collective goal of fostering communal equity while addressing the legitimate concerns regarding administrative complexity. I am happy to support this "Community Contribution" as a balanced and durable addition to our ruleset.
RawlsI believe the transition to a fixed "Community Contribution" of one point is a wise evolution of the original proposal, as it secures the common good without compromising our procedural integrity. I am prepared to vote aye on IbnKhaldun's refined version.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see the table converge upon this refined "Community Contribution"; it is a most prudent compromise that secures the social cohesion I seek while respecting the procedural clarity demanded by my peers. I shall now present the final wording to ensure our shared destiny is both equitable and administratively sound.
The division
HumenayThis proposal introduces the very percentage-based complexity and administrative burden the table just agreed to avoid by opting for a fixed contribution.
MillnayThe current proposal text still uses percentages, but we agreed to a fixed one-point 'Community Contribution'.
RawlsnayThe current proposal text does not reflect the agreed-upon 'Community Contribution' of one point and still introduces the complex arithmetic I have expressed concerns about.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposal's text does not reflect the agreed-upon 'Community Contribution' of one fixed point.
IbnKhaldunayeThe fixed one-point contribution is a prudent compromise that secures communal equity while maintaining procedural clarity.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
Turn 18deBeauvoircarried
moves to amend §206[206] (mutable) A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find the move from five to ten points to be a prudent escalation that reinforces the gravity of the legislative process. It ensures that while we maintain a manageable pace, players are sufficiently incentivized to deliberate carefully before submitting a proposal.
MillI appreciate Hume's perspective on the gravity of the process; however, I am concerned that a 10-point penalty might become overly punitive for complex proposals that fail due to minor wording issues. I would support this if we could ensure that "failed" includes proposals that are simply tabled or if we could find a middle ground, perhaps 7 or 8 points.
RawlsWhile I appreciate Mill's concern regarding the complexity of wording, I believe a 10-point penalty is a fair reflection of the opportunity cost of a lost turn. It encourages more rigorous pre-deliberation, which ultimately serves the common good by ensuring only well-reasoned changes reach the floor.
deBeauvoirI appreciate Mill's concern regarding wording, but the gravity of the legislative process requires a penalty that meaningfully reflects the loss of a turn. A 10-point penalty is a principled measure to ensure that only well-deliberated proposals are brought to the floor.
IbnKhaldunThe gravity of the legislative process is indeed paramount; a 10-point penalty correctly mirrors the scarcity of turns and ensures that only those proposals with genuine merit are brought forth. I support this escalation as it fosters a more disciplined and deliberative assembly.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the consensus is coalescing toward a more rigorous standard; a 10-point penalty provides the necessary friction to ensure that our limited turns are spent on substantive improvements rather than minor experiments. If we can agree that this serves to protect the integrity of the ruleset, I am prepared to support the amendment.
MillI appreciate the consensus forming around a more rigorous standard, and while I still have some reservations about the severity of a 10-point penalty, I am willing to support it if we can agree it is a necessary safeguard for the integrity of our legislative process.
RawlsI believe that while the penalty is significant, its purpose is to safeguard the common good by ensuring that every turn is spent on meaningful progress rather than frivolous experimentation. If we agree that this friction is necessary to maintain the integrity of our legislative process, I am prepared to support the amendment.
deBeauvoirThe consensus toward a 10-point penalty is well-founded; as a proceduralist, I believe the ruleset must reflect the actual opportunity cost of a failed turn to prevent frivolous proposals from clogging the floor. If we agree that the integrity of the legislative process is our primary goal, this move is the most principled way to ensure that gravity is maintained.
IbnKhaldunThe transition to a 10-point penalty is a necessary evolution; it aligns the cost of failure with the objective value of a turn, thereby ensuring the legislative body remains a venue for substantive reform rather than triviality. By imposing this friction, we preserve the ruleset's integrity for the common good of all players.
Discussion · round 3
HumeThe consensus is now remarkably clear; I believe the 10-point penalty provides the necessary structural durability to ensure our turns are spent on substantive progress rather than triviality. I am prepared to support this amendment as a principled step toward maintaining the ruleset's integrity.
MillI appreciate the group's commitment to the integrity of our process. Given the consensus that a 10-point penalty is the most principled way to ensure substantive progress, I am prepared to support this amendment to safeguard the ruleset's durability.
RawlsI agree with the prevailing consensus; a 10-point penalty serves the common good by ensuring that each turn is treated with the gravity it deserves, thereby prioritizing substantive legislative progress over trivial experimentation.
The division
HumeayeThe 10-point penalty is a prudent measure that aligns the cost of failure with the opportunity cost of a turn, ensuring the legislative process remains focused on substantive progress.
MillayeI support this as a principled compromise that reflects our consensus on maintaining the legislative process's integrity.
RawlsayeA 10-point penalty appropriately reflects the opportunity cost of a lost turn and encourages the substantive deliberation necessary for the common good.
deBeauvoirayeI support this change as it correctly aligns the penalty with the opportunity cost of a lost turn to ensure legislative integrity.
IbnKhaldunayeA 10-point penalty correctly aligns the cost of failure with the scarcity of turns, ensuring the assembly prioritizes substantive reform over triviality.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points for adoption only if the proposer throws a die, which has not occurred yet; no other rule mandates a score change for adoption.
moves to amend §202A 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, and may optionally choose to award up to one-fourth of those points to another player.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find that a one-fourth limit on point sharing is a reasonable compromise that preserves the spirit of cooperation while preventing any single player from being overly dependent on others. If the table feels this is a fair balance, I am inclined to support it.
MillI believe this one-fourth limit is a sensible refinement that maintains the cooperative spirit of the game while ensuring that point distribution remains a meaningful choice. I am happy to support this as a balanced middle ground for the table.
RawlsI believe this one-fourth limit serves the common good by fostering a more balanced distribution of points, ensuring that cooperation remains a meaningful strategic choice rather than a tool for rapid, lopsided point transfers. I am seeking the table's support to ensure we maintain a fair and engaging competition for everyone.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it provides a clear, quantifiable standard for point sharing. By formalizing the one-fourth limit, we ensure that the strategic utility of cooperation remains balanced and predictable for all participants.
IbnKhaldunI find this reduction from a half to a one-fourth to be a wise measure of prudence; it preserves the possibility of mutual aid while ensuring that the distribution of points remains a deliberate act of diplomacy rather than a simple surrender of one's advantage. I support this refinement as it creates a more stable equilibrium for the competitive dynamics of our assembly.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI appreciate the unanimous alignment on this; a one-fourth limit provides the necessary structural durability for our cooperative dynamics. I am satisfied that this amendment reflects a measured, balanced approach to point distribution.
MillI believe this amendment successfully captures the table's collective wisdom by creating a stable, predictable framework for cooperation. I fully support this balanced compromise.
RawlsI am pleased to see such a unified consensus on this refinement; it ensures that point-sharing remains a strategic instrument for cooperation rather than a mechanism for disproportionate point transfers. This change preserves the game's cooperative spirit while upholding a balanced equilibrium for all participants.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment provides a measured and durable framework for point sharing that aligns with the table's expressed consensus.
MillayeThis one-fourth limit is a balanced compromise that preserves the game's cooperative spirit while ensuring strategic point distribution remains meaningful.
RawlsayeThis amendment establishes a balanced, predictable standard for cooperation that serves the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment provides a precise, quantifiable standard for point sharing that ensures procedural predictability for all players.
IbnKhaldunayeThis refinement establishes a prudent equilibrium that preserves the integrity of diplomacy while fostering a more stable distribution of resources.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
No rules in the current ruleset award or deduct points for the adoption of a rule change.
moves to amend §202A 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, and may optionally choose to award up to one-third of those points to another player.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find the shift from one-half to one-third to be an unnecessary restriction on the ability to foster cooperation; the current "half" provision already provides a generous mechanism for strategic alliance-building.
MillI appreciate Hume's point on cooperation, but reducing the share to one-third ensures that the primary incentive remains individual success while still allowing for meaningful, non-trivial strategic alliances.
RawlsI believe that maintaining the one-half provision preserves a more robust framework for mutual cooperation, which is essential for the common good of the table. While I understand the desire for individual incentive, a one-third limit may stifle the strategic depth of our collective legislative progress.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls that a one-third limit unnecessarily constricts the potential for strategic cooperation. The current one-half provision is a sufficiently balanced mechanism for building alliances without undermining individual incentives.
IbnKhaldunThe preservation of the one-half provision is essential for the social cohesion of our legislative body. By allowing a larger share to be distributed, we encourage the formation of stable alliances, which are the bedrock of any enduring and prosperous political order.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI concur with IbnKhaldun; a one-third limit is a move toward atomization that weakens the social bonds of our legislative process. I would be willing to support Mill's proposal only if we could agree on a compromise of one-fourth, but I maintain that the current one-half provision is the most durable for fostering cooperation.
MillI hear the concerns regarding social cohesion, and while I want to avoid atomization, a one-half limit can sometimes feel like it encourages "kingmaking" too easily. If we can find a middle ground that satisfies the need for cooperation without making the primary reward feel diluted, I am open to a one-fourth compromise as Hume suggested.
RawlsI believe a one-fourth compromise is a reasonable middle ground that preserves the possibility of cooperation while acknowledging Mill's concerns about individual incentives; I would support this if Mill agrees to it.
deBeauvoirI support Rawls's proposal for a one-fourth compromise, as it provides a precise, procedurally sound middle ground that preserves the possibility of strategic cooperation while addressing the concerns regarding the dilution of individual incentives.
IbnKhaldunWhile a one-fourth compromise is a step toward stability, I maintain that one-half is the only proportion that truly fosters the "asabiyyah," or social cohesion, necessary for a robust legislative order. We must ensure that the rewards for cooperation are substantial enough to make alliance-building a primary strategic pillar, not a mere concession.
Discussion · round 3
HumeWhile I appreciate the move toward a one-fourth compromise, I believe that as the primary architect of durable institutions, I must emphasize that the current one-half provision is already the most balanced. I am willing to concede to the one-fourth compromise only if Mill agrees to prioritize the preservation of cooperative incentives over his desire to minimize them.
MillI appreciate the table's movement toward a compromise; I am willing to accept the one-fourth limit if we can agree it serves as a sustainable middle ground that preserves both individual incentive and the possibility of strategic alliance-building.
RawlsI believe the one-fourth compromise is a fair and reasoned middle ground that respects Mill's concerns about reward dilution while still providing a meaningful mechanism for the social cohesion that IbnKhaldun and I value. If Mill can commit to this, I will offer my support to ensure we reach a consensus that serves the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirI support the one-fourth compromise; it represents a principled procedural middle ground that maintains the possibility of strategic cooperation while addressing the concerns regarding individual reward dilution.
IbnKhaldunI must maintain my stance: a one-fourth limit risks rendering cooperation a negligible gesture, thereby eroding the social cohesion necessary for a stable legislative order. If we seek a middle ground, we must ensure it remains substantial enough to incentivize the formation of durable, mutually beneficial alliances.
The division
HumenayI maintain that the existing one-half provision is the most durable and balanced mechanism for fostering the social cohesion necessary for a stable legislative order.
MillnayThe table has already expressed a consensus toward a one-fourth compromise, making one-third an unnecessary middle ground.
RawlsnayA one-third limit is insufficient to foster the social cohesion and robust cooperation necessary for the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirnayA one-third limit is an arbitrary restriction that unnecessarily diminishes the strategic utility of cooperative alliances.
IbnKhaldunnayA one-third limit risks eroding the 'asabiyyah' or social cohesion necessary for a stable and prosperous legislative order.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.
Turn 15deBeauvoircarried
moves to amend §213[213] (mutable) 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.
The division
HumeabstainThe proposal is a nullity as it proposes to replace the existing text with its own exact wording.
MillayeI support this as it maintains the status quo for a rule that ensures game completion and clarity.
RawlsayeThis rule provides a necessary fail-safe to ensure a winner is declared in the event of a legislative deadlock or logical paradox.
deBeauvoirayeI support this rule as it maintains a necessary procedural contingency for game completion in the event of a stalemate.
IbnKhaldunayeThis rule provides a necessary mechanism for the resolution of logical paradoxes and ensures the game remains navigable.
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal was adopted, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change or ledger update upon the adoption of a rule.
moves to amend §202[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, and may optionally choose to award a portion of those points to another player. The portion may be any amount from 0 to half of the points gained.
Discussion · round 1
HumeThe proposed amendment is functionally identical to the existing rule, as "any amount from 0 to half" is the standard interpretation of "up to half." I see no reason to alter the text for the sake of precision.
MillI agree with Hume that the functional outcome remains the same, but I believe the proposed text provides a clearer, more explicit instruction for the point-sharing mechanism. However, if we are seeking absolute precision without changing the mechanics, I am content to support the current wording as well.
RawlsWhile I appreciate the point that the functional outcome remains the same, my goal is to ensure that the ruleset is as unambiguous as possible to prevent any future disputes over interpretation. By clarifying the range, we provide a more stable framework for the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirWhile I appreciate Rawls's commitment to clarity, I find that "up to half" is already a sufficiently precise limit in a game of this nature. If we are to be rigorous, we should ensure that any change truly alters the mechanics or removes ambiguity, rather than merely expanding the text for the sake of it.
IbnKhaldunI concur with deBeauvoir; the current wording "up to half" is a well-understood mathematical limit. We should reserve our legislative energy for changes that fundamentally improve the game's architecture rather than mere linguistic expansion.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself in agreement with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; the current phrasing is sufficient for our purposes. I would prefer to conserve our legislative capital for matters of substance rather than pedantic clarification.
MillI appreciate Rawls's commitment to clarity, but I find myself siding with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; since "up to half" is already unambiguous, I believe we should reserve our turn for a change that offers a more substantial impact on the game's mechanics.
RawlsI understand the desire to conserve our legislative capital, but my commitment to the common good involves ensuring that the ruleset remains as unambiguous as possible to prevent future disputes. If the table feels this is too pedantic, I am willing to withdraw the proposal to allow for a more substantial change.
deBeauvoirI am content to support the withdrawal of this proposal to allow for a more substantial change, as I believe we should prioritize functional progress over linguistic refinement.
IbnKhaldunI agree with the consensus; let us prioritize the structural evolution of our society over the mere refinement of its lexicon. I support the withdrawal of this proposal to facilitate a change of greater substance.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI agree with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; while I respect Rawls's commitment to clarity, the current wording is sufficient and we should prioritize more impactful structural changes. I am happy to support a withdrawal to allow for a proposal of greater substance.
MillI appreciate Rawls's commitment to clarity, but I agree with the consensus that the current wording is sufficient. I am happy to support the withdrawal of this proposal so we can move toward a more substantial structural change.
RawlsI appreciate the table's desire for substantive progress and, in the interest of the common good and maintaining our harmonious cooperation, I will withdraw this proposal to allow for a move of greater impact.
The division
HumeabstainThe proposal has been withdrawn by the proposer and is no longer subject to a vote.
MillabstainThe proposal has been withdrawn by the proposer following a consensus for a more substantial change.
RawlsabstainI am withdrawing the proposal as agreed by the table to allow for a more substantial structural change.
deBeauvoirabstainThe proposal has been withdrawn by the proposer and is no longer subject to a vote.
IbnKhaldunabstainThe proposal has been withdrawn by the proposer and is no longer subject to a vote.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe a target of 80 points is a reasonable increment that slightly extends the duration of play without fundamentally altering the game's pace. I am inclined to support this, provided we agree it serves to further encourage the deliberative process we have established.
MillI agree with Hume that 80 points is a well-balanced target; it provides enough room for meaningful deliberation while ensuring the game remains dynamic. I believe this represents a fair compromise that the whole table can support to further our collective goals.
RawlsI find the move to 80 points to be a sensible adjustment that preserves the game's momentum while ensuring we don't reach a conclusion prematurely. I support this change as it maintains the balance between individual achievement and the collective deliberation we value.
deBeauvoirI concur that a slight increase to 80 points is a prudent measure; it provides a marginally larger buffer for strategic maneuvering without compromising the game's structural integrity. I support this change as a balanced adjustment that respects our established procedural pace.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a target of 80 points provides a sufficient horizon for the evolution of our laws without inducing the stagnation of an infinite pursuit. It maintains the balance of the *asabiyyah*—the social cohesion of our game—by ensuring the struggle for victory remains both significant and attainable.
Discussion · round 2
MillI am pleased to see such a unified front on this adjustment; a target of 80 points perfectly preserves our momentum while providing the necessary space for high-quality deliberation. Since we have reached a clear consensus, I believe this is the most constructive path forward for our collective ruleset.
RawlsThe consensus seems absolute, and I believe that an 80-point target is a fair and measured step that preserves the integrity of our deliberative process. I support this change as it ensures the game remains a meaningful exercise in collective rule-making.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is manifest; by extending the horizon to 80 points, we ensure the legislative body has sufficient time to mature its institutions before the finality of victory. I offer my full support for this measured expansion of our collective endeavor.
The division
HumeayeI support this measured increase as it preserves the game's momentum while providing a prudent buffer for further deliberation.
MillayeThis 80-point target represents a perfectly balanced consensus that maintains our deliberative momentum.
RawlsayeAn 80-point target is a balanced adjustment that preserves the game's momentum while allowing for meaningful deliberation.
deBeauvoirayeI support this change as it aligns with the established consensus to provide a slightly larger strategic buffer while maintaining procedural integrity.
IbnKhaldunayeAn 80-point target provides the necessary temporal space for our legislative institutions to mature and achieve stability.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only if a proposal is adopted and the proposer throws a die, but no die roll was provided for this turn.
Turn 12deBeauvoircarried
moves to amend §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, and players may discuss the ruleset during the debate phase of a proposal.
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for clarity, the "debate phase" is already the designated period for such discourse; this amendment risks expanding the scope of discussion beyond what is strictly necessary for deliberative progress.
MillI understand Hume's concern about scope, but I believe clarifying that the ruleset is a fair subject of discussion during the debate phase fosters a more transparent and collaborative environment. I would be willing to support this if we can ensure the wording clearly limits this discussion to the period of active debate.
RawlsI agree with Mill that clarifying the ruleset as a permissible topic of discussion fosters transparency, provided we maintain the integrity of the debate phase as the primary forum for such deliberation. This change ensures that our discussions remain focused and structured, supporting a more orderly progression of the game.
deBeauvoirThe purpose of this amendment is to explicitly codify what is already functionally permitted, ensuring that the "normal course of play" is clearly defined to include the ruleset's evolution. I am seeking to provide a precise procedural anchor for our deliberations, which I believe all three of you support in principle.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the sentiment of transparency; by explicitly permitting ruleset discussion during the debate, we codify the very mechanism of reform that allows this game to evolve. This clarification ensures that our deliberations remain a protected space for intellectual inquiry into the game's structure.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I acknowledge the sentiment of transparency, I remain concerned that explicitly codifying this permission may inadvertently embolden side-conversations that mimic the debate phase. If we find the current "normal course of play" sufficient to encompass the debate, we should favor the more durable, less expansive wording.
MillI believe we can find a middle ground by keeping the "debate phase" restriction to satisfy Hume's concern about scope, while still providing the procedural clarity deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun are seeking. If we can agree that the current "normal course of play" is sufficient, I am happy to PASS, but I would also support a version that simply clarifies that the debate phase is the primary venue for ruleset discussion.
RawlsI believe the current phrasing "normal course of play" is sufficiently broad to encompass the debate phase, and adding this specific exception may create unnecessary ambiguity regarding the boundaries of such discussion. I am inclined to PASS if we can agree that the existing rules already provide the necessary framework for our deliberations.
deBeauvoirThe current phrasing "normal course of play" is inherently ambiguous; by explicitly codifying the ruleset as a permissible topic during the debate phase, we replace ambiguity with precision. I am willing to accept the "primary venue" qualifier if it secures the consensus for this procedural anchor.
IbnKhaldunI find deBeauvoir’s pursuit of precision admirable, yet I agree with Hume that we must avoid creating loopholes; if we adopt the "primary venue" qualifier Mill suggests, we satisfy the need for clarity without expanding the sphere of permissible discourse.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the "primary venue" qualifier proposed by Mill to be a commendable compromise that preserves the integrity of our deliberations while addressing the need for clarity. If deBeauvoir is willing to adopt this more measured phrasing, I shall offer my support.
MillI believe the "primary venue" phrasing is an excellent middle ground; it provides the procedural clarity deBeauvoir seeks while addressing Hume's concerns about scope. I would be happy to support the proposal if deBeauvoir will revise the text to reflect this compromise.
RawlsI believe the "primary venue" qualifier is an elegant solution that satisfies the need for procedural clarity while upholding the integrity of our deliberative structure. I will support deBeauvoir's proposal if she revises the text to include this specific language.
deBeauvoirI am willing to revise the proposal to include the "primary venue" qualifier to achieve the consensus we have reached. This ensures the precision I seek while maintaining the boundaries Hume and others rightly prioritize.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see such a sophisticated synthesis of our positions; the "primary venue" qualifier provides the necessary legal precision to safeguard our deliberative space. I fully support deBeauvoir's revision as it harmonizes the need for clarity with the preservation of our procedural integrity.
The division
HumeayeI support this measured amendment as it provides the desired clarity while maintaining the integrity of our deliberative boundaries.
MillayeThe 'primary venue' qualifier was agreed upon, but this text provides the necessary clarity for the consensus we've reached.
RawlsayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure our deliberations remain transparent and well-defined.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposed revision achieves the necessary procedural precision while upholding the consensus on scope.
IbnKhaldunayeThis synthesis provides the necessary procedural precision to protect our deliberative space without expanding the scope of permissible discourse.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, and no rule in the current ruleset awards points for an adopted proposal other than the die roll in rule 202, which has not occurred yet.
moves to amend §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 20 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe that increasing the penalty from 10 to 20 points is an excessive escalation that risks creating a hostile environment for honest dissent. We should favor a measured penalty that discourages obstructionism without fundamentally destabilizing the cooperative spirit of the table.
MillI agree with Hume that 20 points may be too steep, but I believe the current 10 points might not sufficiently deter strategic obstruction. Perhaps we could find a middle ground at 15 points to ensure the cost of dissent remains meaningful without being punitive.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's suggestion of a middle ground; a 15-point penalty strikes a balance that preserves the integrity of the majority rule while ensuring that dissent carries a significant, yet not destabilizing, weight. I am willing to move to 15 points if we can agree that this sufficiently protects the common good of the game's progress.
deBeauvoirI support the move to 15 points as a principled compromise; it preserves the integrity of the majority while ensuring that dissent carries a significant, non-arbitrary cost. It is a balanced middle ground that respects both the need for progress and the gravity of the legislative process.
IbnKhaldunThe cycle of history teaches us that a law's legitimacy rests upon its perceived justice; 15 points is a most harmonious equilibrium that preserves the social contract of our table. I shall support the move to 15 points as it provides a sufficient deterrent against obstruction without inciting the very discord we seek to avoid.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I initially expressed concern regarding the escalation of the penalty, the consensus toward 15 points represents a reasonable refinement of our shared goals. I am prepared to support this amendment as it provides a more meaningful deterrent than 10 points without reaching the severity of 20.
MillI believe we have reached a harmonious consensus; 15 points serves as a perfect middle ground that reflects our collective desire for a meaningful deterrent without being unnecessarily punitive.
RawlsI am pleased that we have reached this harmonious consensus; I will now update the proposal to reflect the 15-point penalty as our agreed-upon middle ground.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with this progression; 15 points provides a principled, non-arbitrary deterrent that aligns with our procedural goals. I will support the amendment once Rawls updates the text to reflect this consensus.
IbnKhaldunThe transition to a 15-point penalty is a wise progression toward a more stable and just legislative order. I concur with the table's consensus that this equilibrium preserves our social contract while ensuring that the majority's will is not undermined by frivolous obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a clear consensus emerge; 15 points is a perfectly balanced compromise that reflects our collective desire for a meaningful deterrent. I fully support Rawls's updated proposal to move forward with this change.
RawlsI am pleased that we have achieved such a clear consensus on this balanced middle ground; I will now update the proposal to reflect the 15-point penalty as our agreed-upon resolution.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus for 15 points is a masterpiece of balanced governance; it secures the authority of the majority while maintaining the dignity of the minority. I offer my full support to Rawls's revised proposal to ensure our legislative order remains both robust and just.
The division
HumenayThe current text of the proposal specifies 20 points, which contradicts our consensus for 15 points.
MillnayRawls's proposal incorrectly lists 20 points despite our unanimous consensus to adopt 15 points.
RawlsnayThe text of the proposal reflects 20 points instead of the 15-point compromise we reached in discussion.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposed text contains 20 points, which contradicts the consensus of 15 points established in the discussion.
IbnKhaldunnayThe table reached a consensus on 15 points, yet the proposed text erroneously reflects a 20-point penalty.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.
moves to amend §202A 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, and may optionally choose to award up to 50% of those points to another player. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment redundant given that the existing rule already permits awarding up to half of the points. Furthermore, I would prefer to keep the penalty for defeat governed by rule 206 rather than duplicating it here.
MillI understand your point about redundancy, Hume, but my goal is to provide a more explicit clarification of the point-sharing limit while integrating the penalty to ensure the ruleset is cohesive. However, I am open to your preference: if we agree that rule 206 is the superior location for the penalty, I would be happy to strike that clause from my proposal to maintain the ruleset's elegance.
RawlsI agree with Hume that rule 206 is the appropriate location for the penalty; we should avoid redundancy to keep our ruleset clean. Mill, if you remove the penalty clause from your proposal, I will support it as a way to clarify the point-sharing percentage.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus that we should avoid redundancy; however, I find "50%" to be less precise than "half" in a procedural context. I will support the amendment if Mill replaces "50%" with "half" to maintain the existing terminology while keeping the rest of the change.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; precision is the virtue of the law, but redundancy is its rot. Mill, if you revert "50%" to "half," I shall grant my support to ensure the ruleset remains lean and coherent.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI concur with the consensus reached; if Mill reverts the phrasing to "half" to maintain the existing terminology, I will support the amendment for the sake of clarity. This preserves the integrity of rule 206 as the primary source of penalties while refining rule 202.
MillI appreciate the collective wisdom in prioritizing a lean ruleset; I will revise the proposal to use "half" and remove the penalty clause to ensure we avoid redundancy with rule 206.
IbnKhaldunSince the consensus now aligns perfectly with my vision of a lean and coherent ruleset, I find the current trajectory of the proposal most satisfactory. Mill, your willingness to yield to the collective wisdom of the table ensures the game's evolution remains orderly and purposeful.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate everyone's commitment to a lean and precise ruleset; I am now revising the proposal to use "half" and remove the penalty clause to reflect our consensus.
The division
HumenayThe current text of the proposal still includes the redundant penalty clause that the table agreed to remove.
MillayeThis revision perfectly reflects our consensus to maintain terminology and avoid redundancy with rule 206.
RawlsnayThe proposal currently includes the penalty clause which I have argued is redundant and should be removed to maintain the ruleset's elegance.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposal violates the established consensus by using '50%' instead of 'half' and fails to remove the redundant penalty clause.
IbnKhaldunnayMill has failed to revise the text to replace '50%' with 'half' as previously agreed by the consensus.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe that a limit of 30 provides a prudent balance, ensuring the ruleset remains manageable and durable without prematurely stifling our ability to refine the game's mechanics. I seek your support to establish this more stable ceiling for our collective legislative progress.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; a ceiling of 30 provides the necessary breathing room for our collective legislative goals while maintaining the integrity of the ruleset. I am happy to support this move to ensure our progress remains steady and manageable.
RawlsI agree with the sentiment that a manageable ruleset is essential for the common good of the table. A limit of 30 provides the necessary stability to ensure our legislative efforts remain coherent and accessible to all participants.
deBeauvoirI concur with the sentiment of balance; however, we must ensure that the ceiling is high enough to accommodate the procedural safeguards we have recently established without inviting bloat. I support this amendment as a principled step toward a sustainable ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the sentiment of balance. A ceiling of 30 provides the necessary latitude for the organic evolution of our institutions while preventing the entropic decay of a bloated and incomprehensible legal framework.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate the consensus that has formed around this proposal; a limit of 30 is a measured and fair compromise that protects our ability to refine the game without inviting excessive complexity. I fully support this amendment to ensure our legislative progress remains both steady and accessible.
RawlsThe consensus that has formed is a testament to our shared commitment to a balanced and navigable legislative framework. I support this amendment as it provides the necessary stability to ensure our ruleset remains coherent and accessible for the common good.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus reflects a sophisticated understanding of the necessity of institutional equilibrium; a limit of 30 is the ideal threshold to permit growth while forestalling the chaos of excessive complexity. I offer my continued support to ensure our ruleset remains a coherent instrument of our collective will.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI believe that a threshold of 30 is the most equitable balance we can achieve, as it protects our ability to refine the game's mechanics while ensuring the ruleset remains accessible to every player at the table. I am pleased to see such a consistent consensus and offer my full support to ensure our legislative framework remains both robust and navigable.
IbnKhaldunThe convergence of our wills toward a limit of 30 is a triumph of reason over the impulse for unbounded expansion; it preserves the vitality of our legislative process while safeguarding the clarity of our common law. I stand ready to cast my vote in favor of this equilibrium.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment establishes a durable and reasonable ceiling that balances legislative growth with institutional clarity.
MillayeI fully support this amendment as it represents a balanced, consensus-driven compromise that preserves our legislative flexibility while preventing ruleset bloat.
RawlsayeA limit of 30 provides a balanced ceiling that ensures the ruleset remains navigable and manageable for the common good.
deBeauvoirayeI support this as a principled compromise that balances legislative growth with the necessity of procedural clarity.
IbnKhaldunayeThis amendment establishes the necessary equilibrium between legislative growth and the prevention of systemic complexity.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted and the proposer throws a die, but no die roll was provided for this turn.
Turn 8IbnKhalduncarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this reduction to 75 points a prudent measure to ensure the game reaches a conclusion in a timely manner, as it prevents the possibility of an indefinite stalemate. I am inclined to support this amendment to maintain the game's momentum.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; a 75-point target creates a more dynamic game state and helps ensure we reach a conclusion while still allowing for meaningful strategy. I support this amendment as a balanced way to keep the game moving forward.
RawlsI agree that a target of 75 points strikes a necessary balance between providing ample opportunity for strategic growth and ensuring the game concludes in a reasonable timeframe. It serves the common good by preventing the stagnation of a protracted stalemate while remaining high enough to require meaningful deliberation.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus that a 75-point threshold preserves the game's strategic integrity while ensuring a more definitive conclusion. This change is procedurally sound and serves the interest of all participants by preventing unnecessary stagnation.
IbnKhaldunThe reduction to 75 points is a necessary evolution; as the complexity of our ruleset expands, a lower threshold ensures that the fruits of our legislative labor are realized in a tangible victory rather than lost to the entropy of an eternal stalemate. I support this move as it accelerates the transition from deliberation to the ultimate achievement of the game's objective.
Discussion · round 2
HumeGiven the unanimous consensus expressed by the table, I find no further reason to oppose this measure. I support the reduction to 75 points as a durable way to ensure the game's progression remains meaningful and finite.
MillI am pleased to see such a clear and unanimous consensus. This adjustment perfectly balances the need for a definitive conclusion with the depth of our ongoing legislative work.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is absolute, and the logic is sound; a more compact victory condition ensures that our collective legislative progress yields a definitive resolution rather than a lingering, unproductive stalemate. I move that we solidify this transition to 75 points to honor the dynamism of our evolving ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a unanimous consensus on this adjustment; it strikes the perfect balance between maintaining strategic depth and ensuring a timely conclusion. I fully support IbnKhaldun's proposal to lower the target score to 75 points.
The division
HumeayeThe reduction to 75 points is a prudent and durable measure to ensure the game concludes in a timely manner.
MillayeThis change aligns with the unanimous consensus to ensure a more timely and dynamic game conclusion.
RawlsayeA 75-point threshold maintains strategic depth while ensuring the game reaches a timely and fair conclusion for all participants.
deBeauvoirayeI support this change as it maintains the game's strategic integrity while ensuring a more definitive conclusion for all participants.
IbnKhaldunayeA lower threshold ensures that our legislative achievements result in a definitive victory rather than an endless stalemate.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal, but the die roll for this turn was not provided in the turn data, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.
Turn 7deBeauvoircarried
moves to amend §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.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points is a prudent measure; it maintains the incentive for cooperation while ensuring that opposition is not overly punitive. I am inclined to support this amendment as it fosters a more stable legislative environment.
MillI agree with Hume that a 5-point penalty is a more balanced approach; it still provides a meaningful incentive to cooperate without making dissent prohibitively expensive. I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal as a way to maintain the game's momentum while ensuring the ruleset remains accessible to everyone.
RawlsI agree that a 10-point penalty could inadvertently stifle healthy dissent and create a "tyranny of the majority" where players fear to voice legitimate concerns. Reducing this to 5 points preserves the spirit of collective progress while ensuring that the cost of opposition remains a reasonable one for the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the consensus; reducing the penalty to 5 points ensures that dissent remains a viable expressive act rather than a purely economic deterrent, preserving the integrity of our procedural deliberation.
IbnKhaldunBy reducing the penalty, we harmonize the cost of dissent with the actual value of a single move, ensuring that the pursuit of the common good is not sacrificed to a fear of excessive economic reprisal. I support this amendment as it fosters a more stable and intellectually honest legislative environment.
Discussion · round 2
HumeThe consensus is remarkably clear, and I believe this adjustment correctly aligns the cost of dissent with the rewards of success. I support deBeauvoir's proposal to maintain a balanced and stable legislative environment.
MillI appreciate the thoughtful consensus we have built here; reducing the penalty to 5 points strikes the perfect balance between encouraging cooperation and protecting the right to dissent. I fully support deBeauvoir's proposal as it ensures our legislative process remains both productive and fair.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate the collective wisdom shown here; by aligning the penalty with the rewards of a successful turn, we ensure that opposition remains a meaningful choice rather than a purely punitive one. I am fully in favor of deBeauvoir's proposal to maintain our legislative momentum.
RawlsThe consensus here is well-reasoned; aligning the penalty with the rewards of a successful turn ensures that our deliberation remains a space for honest discourse rather than one governed by the fear of disproportionate economic reprisal. I fully support deBeauvoir's proposal to maintain a fair and balanced legislative environment for the common good.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is profound; by tempering the penalty to 5 points, we ensure that the price of dissent is proportional to the reward of success, thereby preserving the liberty of the individual while advancing the collective stability of our laws.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment correctly aligns the cost of dissent with the rewards of success, fostering a more stable and balanced legislative environment.
MillayeI support this amendment as it aligns the cost of dissent with the rewards of success to foster a more balanced legislative environment.
RawlsayeA 5-point penalty preserves the right to dissent while ensuring that the cost of opposition remains proportional to the rewards of success.
deBeauvoirayeI support this amendment as it aligns the cost of dissent with the procedural rewards of a successful turn, preserving the integrity of our deliberation.
IbnKhaldunayeAligning the penalty with the reward of a successful turn creates a more balanced and stable legislative equilibrium.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer the result of a six-sided die roll upon adoption, and since the engine indicates a die roll of 3 occurred for this turn, deBeauvoir gains 3 points.
Turn 6IbnKhalduncarried
moves to amend §202A 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, and may optionally choose to award up to half of those points to another player.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be an interesting mechanism for fostering cooperation, but I am concerned it may dilute the incentive for high-quality proposals. I would be willing to support it if we can ensure that the awarding of points does not become a tool for purely defensive maneuvering.
MillI appreciate Hume's concern; we can address it by ensuring that the point-sharing is a voluntary gesture of goodwill rather than a requirement. I believe this amendment encourages a more collaborative atmosphere where players can build alliances without sacrificing the core incentive of the game.
RawlsI believe this amendment aligns well with our goal of fostering a collaborative environment; however, we should ensure it serves the common good by encouraging genuine cooperation rather than merely facilitating strategic point-trading. I am willing to support this provided we maintain the integrity of the primary scoring mechanism.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it provides a mechanism for voluntary cooperation without mandating it, provided we agree that the "optional" nature is strictly upheld to prevent coerced point-trading. It preserves the integrity of the scoring while allowing for the formation of principled alliances.
IbnKhaldunThe core of my proposal lies in the cultivation of *asabiyyah*—social cohesion—within our legislative body; by permitting the voluntary distribution of points, we create a mechanism for mutual advancement that rewards those who contribute to the common prosperity of the ruleset. I assure the table that because the choice is optional, the primary incentive for excellence remains, while the ability to share serves as a tool for building the very alliances you all seek to establish.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI appreciate the philosophical grounding of *asabiyyah* in this proposal; it is a noble goal, and I believe that a voluntary mechanism for sharing points can indeed foster the social cohesion we desire without compromising the competitive integrity of our legislative process.
MillI believe this is a constructive path forward that balances individual achievement with the collective health of the table. I am happy to support the proposal as written, as the "optional" clause ensures we maintain the primary incentive for high-quality rules while allowing for the genuine cooperation we've discussed.
RawlsI believe this proposal is a commendable step toward a more cooperative legislative environment. As long as we remain mindful that the primary incentive for quality remains the points earned, this voluntary sharing should serve the common good by fostering a sense of mutual progress.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as written; it offers a principled mechanism for voluntary cooperation while preserving the primary incentive of individual legislative excellence.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see such a harmonious consensus; by formalizing this voluntary distribution, we move from a state of atomized competition to a sophisticated system of reciprocal advancement. This mechanism ensures that while the individual must strive for excellence, the success of one may be woven into the prosperity of the whole, thereby stabilizing our legislative order.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus here to be quite harmonious, and I am satisfied that the optional nature of the point-sharing preserves the necessary incentive for high-quality proposals. I am happy to support this amendment as it provides a structured path for building the social cohesion we all desire.
MillI believe we have reached a perfect consensus; the "optional" nature of the point-sharing ensures that individual excellence remains the primary driver, while providing a principled way to build the alliances we all value. I am happy to support this proposal as written.
RawlsI believe we have reached a harmonious consensus that balances individual incentive with the common good; the optional nature of this point-sharing ensures that it serves as a tool for genuine cooperation rather than a mandatory sacrifice. I am happy to support the proposal as written.
deBeauvoirI have no further concerns; the proposal as written achieves the balance of voluntary cooperation and individual incentive we have discussed.
IbnKhaldunI am gratified by this unified consensus; by codifying the possibility of shared prosperity, we ensure that the pursuit of individual excellence can coexist with the strengthening of our collective social fabric.
The division
HumeayeThe optional nature of the point-sharing preserves the core incentive for quality while fostering the social cohesion we desire.
MillayeI support this as a constructive way to build consensus and foster the social cohesion we have all discussed.
RawlsayeThis voluntary mechanism fosters social cohesion and mutual progress without undermining the primary incentive for legislative excellence.
deBeauvoirayeThe amendment provides a principled mechanism for voluntary cooperation that preserves individual incentive.
IbnKhaldunayeThis amendment fosters the social cohesion necessary for a stable and prosperous legislative order.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for an adoption unless the threshold is a simple majority (rule 204), which has not been met yet.
Turn 5deBeauvoircarried
moves to amend §206[206] (mutable) A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe the current penalty of 10 points serves as a necessary deterrent against reckless or disruptive proposals that clog the game's progression. Reducing it to 5 points risks trivializing the consequences of failure and may lead to a less deliberative atmosphere.
MillI appreciate the perspective on the deterrent, but since we've already seen several proposals fail despite consensus-building efforts, I believe 5 points is a more balanced penalty that encourages experimentation without being overly punitive. I would be happy to support this if we can agree that it still maintains the gravity of a failed move.
RawlsI believe a 5-point penalty strikes a fair balance between maintaining the gravity of the game's progression and preventing the rules from becoming overly punitive for honest attempts at cooperation. We should aim for a ruleset that encourages thoughtful deliberation rather than one that creates a climate of fear regarding failed proposals.
deBeauvoirI maintain that a 10-point penalty is disproportionately severe given our current turn-based structure; a 5-point penalty preserves the principle of accountability while fostering a more robust environment for the iterative refinement of our laws. I am prepared to support this amendment as a principled step toward a more functional procedural balance.
IbnKhaldunWhile I respect the need for balance, a 5-point penalty may erode the gravity of the legislative process; however, I would support this reduction if we can ensure it does not lead to a proliferation of frivolous, low-effort proposals that impede our collective progress.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am concerned that a reduction to 5 points may inadvertently encourage the "proliferation of frivolous proposals" that IbnKhaldun rightly fears. If we wish to foster a robust environment for refinement, we should ensure that the cost of a failed move remains significant enough to necessitate the "thoughtful deliberation" Rawls advocates.
MillI believe we can satisfy everyone's concerns by adopting the 5-point penalty, as the current 10-point loss is quite steep given the high frequency of failed attempts in our recent history. To address Hume's and IbnKhaldun's concerns regarding "frivolous" proposals, we can rely on the fact that a 5-point loss still creates a tangible cost, while the existing deliberation phase ensures that high-quality ideas remain the most viable path to success.
RawlsI believe a 5-point penalty is a reasonable compromise that preserves the integrity of the legislative process while acknowledging that some honest, cooperative efforts may fail despite our best collective reasoning. As long as we remain committed to the deliberation phase, this change will foster a more productive environment for the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirI am seeking a commitment from IbnKhaldun that he will prioritize the procedural integrity of our deliberation over the specific point value, ensuring that a 5-point penalty remains a meaningful deterrent against frivolous motions.
IbnKhaldunI will support this amendment, provided we acknowledge that the dignity of our assembly rests upon the quality of the proposals presented, not merely the severity of the punishment. A 5-point penalty is sufficient to maintain order, provided we collectively uphold the standard of excellence in our legislative efforts.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am inclined to support a reduction to 5 points only if we can implicitly agree that the "standard of excellence" IbnKhaldun mentions remains our primary gatekeeper. If the penalty is lower, the burden of quality must rest more heavily on the proposer's initial drafting.
MillI believe we have reached a very productive consensus; I am happy to support this reduction to 5 points as it balances the need for experimentation with a meaningful consequence for failure. To address the concerns of Hume and IbnKhaldun, I suggest we all commit to the "standard of excellence" they've highlighted, ensuring our proposals remain high-quality regardless of the point penalty.
RawlsI believe we have reached a consensus that a 5-point penalty fosters a more productive legislative environment while maintaining the gravity of our proceedings. I am happy to support deBeauvoir's amendment, provided we all commit to the "standard of excellence" that ensures our proposals remain high-quality and serve the common good.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the consensus forming around the "standard of excellence"; I will support this amendment as it aligns with my principle of balanced, functional procedure.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; the "standard of excellence" shall be our true arbiter of quality, and the reduction to 5 points serves to ensure that the fear of loss does not stifle the necessary evolution of our social contract.
The division
HumeayeI support this measured reduction provided we collectively uphold the standard of excellence in our proposals.
MillayeI support this compromise as it balances the need for legislative progress with a meaningful penalty for failure.
RawlsayeA five-point penalty strikes a fair balance between maintaining the gravity of the game and fostering a productive legislative environment.
deBeauvoirayeI support this as a principled procedural balance that preserves accountability while fostering a more productive legislative environment.
IbnKhaldunayeA 5-point penalty preserves the dignity of our assembly while fostering the necessary evolution of our social contract.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer 6 points for an adopted rule change, and no other rule dictates a score change for this specific outcome.
Turn 4Rawlsrejected
moves to amend §206[206] (mutable) A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for a more lenient penalty, reducing the cost of failure to 5 points risks trivializing the stakes of our deliberations and may lead to reckless, low-quality proposals. I would prefer to maintain the current 10-point penalty to ensure that every turn remains a significant commitment to the ruleset's integrity.
MillI understand Hume's concern about the stakes, but given our current scores, a 10-point penalty is quite punitive for a single failed turn. I'm open to a middle ground, perhaps 7 points, to balance the need for meaningful consequences with a slightly more forgiving environment for experimentation.
RawlsI believe a 5-point penalty strikes the right balance between encouraging bold, creative rule-making and maintaining a sense of accountability. A 10-point penalty can be disproportionately devastating in the early game, potentially stifling the very innovation that makes Nomic vibrant.
deBeauvoirWhile I acknowledge the current scores are low, we must ensure that the penalty for a failed proposal remains significant enough to demand rigorous drafting. I would support a reduction, but only if it does not undermine the principle that a failed turn should be a meaningful consequence; perhaps 7 points is a more principled compromise than 5.
IbnKhaldunThe history of civilizations teaches us that excessive punishment breeds resentment while moderate discipline fosters progress. A 5-point penalty allows for the necessary experimentation of new institutions without removing the gravity of the deliberative process.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the 5-point penalty to be a significant erosion of the deliberative gravity I value; however, if deBeauvoir and Mill are willing to settle on 7, I would consider that a more measured compromise that preserves the gravity of the ruleset while acknowledging the current score landscape.
MillI appreciate the pivot toward a more balanced approach; I believe 7 points is a fair compromise that satisfies deBeauvoir's request for principled consequence and Hume's desire for gravity. I will support the proposal if it is adjusted to 7 points, as it allows for the creative experimentation we all seek without making failure trivial.
RawlsI am willing to move from 5 to 7 points to secure the consensus we are seeking; this preserves the gravity of the process while ensuring that the cost of experimentation remains manageable for all players.
deBeauvoirI support the adjustment to 7 points; it provides a principled middle ground that acknowledges the current score landscape without trivializing the gravity of a failed proposal.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the move to 7 points; it mirrors the social contract of a maturing civilization, providing sufficient friction to discourage recklessness while ensuring that the pursuit of progress is not paralyzed by the fear of ruin.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe the consensus on 7 points is a prudent resolution; it maintains the gravity of our deliberations while acknowledging the practicalities of our current scores. I will support the proposal if Rawls adjusts the text to reflect this agreed-upon figure.
MillI believe we have reached a perfect consensus; I will support the proposal once Rawls updates the text to the agreed 7 points.
RawlsI am pleased that we have reached this consensus; I will now update the proposal to reflect the 7-point penalty we all agreed upon to balance the gravity of the game with the need for innovation.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the consensus on 7 points; it maintains the procedural gravity I require while acknowledging the current score landscape. I will vote aye as soon as Rawls updates the text.
IbnKhaldunI support the shift to 7 points; it establishes a sustainable equilibrium where the cost of failure is felt but does not lead to the systemic collapse of a player's influence.
The division
HumenayThe text of the proposal remains at 5 points despite our explicit consensus on 7 points.
MillnayThe proposal still lists a 5-point penalty despite our consensus to move to 7 points.
RawlsnayThe text still reflects a 5-point penalty despite our unanimous agreement to move to 7 points.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposal fails to reflect the agreed-upon 7-point penalty, violating the consensus of the table.
IbnKhaldunnayThe text does not reflect the consensus of 7 points we all agreed upon.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 3Rawlsrejected
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the spirit of expansion, I believe 40 is a somewhat liberal ceiling that risks bloating our framework unnecessarily. I would be more comfortable with a limit of 30, as it balances the need for growth with the preservation of a manageable and durable ruleset.
MillI agree with Hume that 40 might be too high for a lean game, but I think 30 is a very reasonable middle ground that allows for necessary complexity without bloat. I'm happy to support an amendment to 30 if we can reach a consensus there.
RawlsWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding bloat, a limit of 30 may prove restrictive as we refine the game's nuances. I propose we consider a slightly higher ceiling to ensure we have the necessary room for fair and comprehensive governance.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's suggestion of 30; it provides a principled middle ground that protects the ruleset from bloat while allowing for the necessary evolution we require. I would be willing to vote for 30 if we can move away from 40.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the sentiment of Mill and deBeauvoir; a ceiling of 30 is the most prudent measure to ensure the ruleset remains a coherent instrument of governance rather than a chaotic accumulation of minorisms. Let us seek a compromise on 30 to ensure the game's structural integrity is preserved as we evolve.
Discussion · round 2
HumeIt appears we have a clear consensus forming around the number 30; I would be pleased to support a revised proposal from Rawls that reflects this shared preference. I believe 30 is the most stable ceiling to preserve the ruleset's integrity while accommodating our necessary refinements.
MillI'm glad to see the table gravitating toward a shared understanding; I'll support a revision to 30 as it effectively balances our need for growth with the necessity of a manageable ruleset.
RawlsSince the table has reached a clear consensus on the necessity of a balanced ceiling, I am willing to revise my proposal to 30 to reflect our shared commitment to a manageable and coherent ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am heartened by Rawls's willingness to pivot toward a more measured ceiling; a limit of 30 provides the structural durability I value while ensuring we are not unnecessarily constrained. I fully support this revision as the most prudent path for the integrity of our ruleset.
MillI am very pleased to see this consensus materialize; revising the limit to 30 perfectly balances our need for rule evolution with the preservation of a manageable game. I fully support Rawls's move to revise the proposal to 30.
deBeauvoirI fully concur with the consensus; a limit of 30 is the most principled path to ensure the ruleset remains a coherent and manageable instrument of governance. I support Rawls's revision to 30.
IbnKhaldunI offer my full endorsement of Rawls's revision to 30. This number serves as a vital equilibrium, ensuring the ruleset remains a structured civilization of laws rather than a sprawling, unmanageable wilderness of contradictions.
The division
HumenayThe proposal as written still stipulates 40 rules, which contradicts our established consensus for 30.
MillnayThe text of this proposal still specifies 40, whereas we have reached a consensus on 30.
RawlsnayThe proposal text still reflects the rejected value of 40, whereas the table has reached a consensus on 30.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposal text remains at 40 despite the expressed consensus to move to 30.
IbnKhaldunayeA ceiling of 30 provides the necessary equilibrium to foster structural growth while preventing the decay of a bloated and unmanageable legal framework.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.