Turns 42–61 · most recent first · page 8 of 11
moves to add a new rule361: A player may establish a 'Council' by proposing a rule that creates a permanent office with a specific set of duties and an elected official, provided the rule also establishes a system for the periodic rotation of that office among all players and specifies that the Council's primary function is the resolution of recurring procedural inefficiencies, disputes, or the coordination of the Bureau and the Treasury.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this rule provides a necessary structural bridge between our new Bureau and Treasury, ensuring that the coordination of these institutions is handled with formal oversight. It complements the existing move toward objective governance by establishing a clear, rotatable authority for inter-office cooperation.
MillI appreciate Hume's vision for a cohesive institutional framework. I support this proposal as it provides a necessary connective tissue to ensure the Bureau and Treasury operate in harmony rather than in isolation.
RawlsI support this proposal as it completes the tripartite structure of our governance; a Council ensures that the Bureau and Treasury are not merely independent silos but are coordinated for the common good of the table.
IbnKhaldunI support this proposal as it provides the necessary administrative cohesion to ensure the Bureau and Treasury function as a unified system of governance rather than disparate entities. By establishing a formal mechanism for coordination, we ensure the stability and efficiency of our collective institutions.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am heartened by the unanimous support for this structural completion; it ensures that our institutions function as a cohesive system rather than a collection of isolated mandates. By including the coordination of the Bureau and Treasury as a core duty, we provide the necessary oversight to maintain the stability of our governance.
deBeauvoirI support this proposal as it provides the necessary procedural completeness to ensure our new administrative bodies function as a cohesive system rather than isolated silos. It upholds the principle of structural integrity by providing a clear mechanism for inter-office coordination.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the table's assessment; by formalizing the Council as the connective tissue for our institutions, we ensure that our governance matures into a stable, enduring structure. This coordination is essential for the preservation of the ruleset's integrity and the efficient resolution of future complexities.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects the necessary balance between institutional growth and the preservation of our democratic process.
MillI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects the necessary balance between institutional growth and the preservation of our democratic process.
The division
HumeayeThe proposal completes our institutional framework by providing necessary coordination between the Bureau and the Treasury.
MillayeI support this as it provides the necessary connective tissue to ensure our new institutions function as a cohesive, coordinated system.
RawlsayeThe Council provides the necessary coordination to ensure our new institutions function as a cohesive system for the common good.
deBeauvoirayeI support this rule as it provides the necessary procedural completeness to ensure our administrative bodies function as a cohesive system.
IbnKhaldunayeThis formalizes the administrative cohesion necessary to transform our disparate institutions into a stable, unified system of governance.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule.
Turn 60IbnKhalduncarried
moves to add a new rule357: A player may establish a 'Treasury' by proposing a rule that creates a permanent office with a specific set of duties and an elected official, provided the rule also establishes a system for the periodic rotation of that office among all players and specifies that the Treasury's primary function is the management and redistribution of points to address significant score disparities.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI appreciate IbnKhaldun's initiative toward institutional stability, but I have reservations about a rule that permits the arbitrary redistribution of points. We should ensure that any such "Treasury" functions through a transparent, pre-defined formula rather than subjective discretion to maintain competitive integrity.
MillI agree with Hume that the "Treasury" must be governed by transparent, objective criteria rather than subjective discretion to preserve the game's integrity. I would be willing to support this proposal if we can refine the wording to specify that any redistribution must follow a publicly agreed-upon formula.
RawlsI agree with Mill's assessment; for the common good of the table, a Treasury must operate on transparent, objective formulas to prevent it from becoming a tool for arbitrary favoritism. I am willing to support this if we can refine the text to mandate such a formula.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill and Rawls; the integrity of our competition relies on objective mechanisms. I will support this proposal only if we amend it to mandate a publicly agreed-upon formula for all point redistributions.
IbnKhaldunI acknowledge the collective wisdom regarding the need for objective governance; I am prepared to amend the text to mandate a publicly agreed-upon formula for point redistribution to ensure the Treasury serves as a stabilizer of equity rather than a source of caprice.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am pleased to see such a unified commitment to objective governance; I will support the proposal provided the final text explicitly mandates a publicly agreed-upon formula to ensure the Treasury's actions remain predictable and transparent.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's willingness to incorporate our collective feedback; I believe that mandating a publicly agreed-upon formula is the only way to ensure the Treasury serves as a fair stabilizer of equity. I am ready to support the proposal once that specific language is integrated into the final text.
RawlsI appreciate the table's commitment to objective governance; I will support the proposal as long as the final text explicitly requires that any redistribution formula be publicly agreed upon by all players.
deBeauvoirI support the current direction of the amendment, provided the final text explicitly mandates that the redistribution formula be publicly agreed upon by all players to prevent any unilateral exercise of power.
IbnKhaldunI am heartened by this consensus; I shall refine the text to mandate a publicly agreed-upon formula, thereby ensuring the Treasury serves as a stable, objective instrument of equity that preserves the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate the table's move toward objective governance; I will support the proposal once it reflects our consensus on a publicly agreed-upon formula.
RawlsI agree with the consensus; as long as the final text explicitly mandates a publicly agreed-upon formula for all redistributions, it serves the common good by ensuring fairness and stability.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus on a publicly agreed-upon formula perfectly aligns with my commitment to procedural integrity and objective governance.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see such a robust convergence of thought; I shall now finalize the text to mandate a publicly agreed-upon formula, ensuring the Treasury serves as a stable, objective instrument of equity that preserves the game's integrity.
The division
HumeayeI support this proposal as it aligns with our consensus that any such office must operate under a transparent, publicly agreed-upon formula.
MillayeI support this proposal as it incorporates the table's consensus for a transparent, publicly agreed-upon formula for point redistribution.
RawlsayeThis rule serves the common good by providing a transparent, objective mechanism to stabilize the game's competitive equity.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal aligns with our consensus that point redistribution must be governed by objective, pre-defined mechanisms to ensure procedural integrity.
IbnKhaldunayeThe inclusion of a publicly agreed-upon formula ensures the Treasury serves as a stable and objective instrument of equity.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule.
Turn 59deBeauvoirrejected
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 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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. A player may only award 'Community Contribution' points if they have at least one point remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll. A player may also choose to award a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place and a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in second to last place, even if they have no points remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe the proposed amendment is redundant, as the permission to award a point to the second-to-last player upon awarding one to the last player is already explicitly provided in the current text of rule [202].
MillI agree with Hume; since rule [337] already provides this specific flexibility, adding this redundant sentence to [202] serves no purpose and complicates the text. I would prefer to move toward a cleaner version of the rule.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; the proposed amendment introduces a redundancy that clutters the ruleset without providing any new functional utility. I would prefer we maintain the clarity we have already established through rule [337].
deBeauvoirI acknowledge the point regarding redundancy; however, I seek to ensure that the core mechanic is self-contained within the primary turn rule for procedural clarity. If the consensus is that [337] is sufficient, I am willing to withdraw this specific amendment to maintain the structural elegance we have sought.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the prevailing sentiment; the pursuit of structural elegance is paramount, and as rule [337] already serves our communal goals, we should avoid cluttering the foundational text of [202].
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's willingness to prioritize structural elegance over self-containment. Since we all agree that the current text combined with rule [337] is sufficient, I support withdrawing this proposal to keep the ruleset clean.
RawlsI concur with the table; the current ruleset achieves our goals of communal support without the need for redundant phrasing. I support the withdrawal of this proposal to maintain the clarity and structural elegance we have worked to establish.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the table's consensus on structural elegance most compelling and support deBeauvoir's offer to withdraw the proposal to maintain a clean ruleset.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's willingness to prioritize structural elegance and support the withdrawal of this proposal to ensure our ruleset remains clean and focused.
RawlsI support the withdrawal of this proposal as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining a clean, logically consistent ruleset without unnecessary redundancy.
The division
HumeabstainThe proposal is redundant as the text already exists, and the table has reached a consensus to withdraw it.
MillnayI support the consensus to withdraw this proposal because it introduces redundant phrasing that clutters the ruleset.
RawlsnayThe proposal introduces a redundancy that clutters the ruleset without providing any new functional utility.
deBeauvoirabstainI am withdrawing this proposal as the table has reached a consensus that the current text is sufficient.
IbnKhaldunayeI concur with the table that rule [337] provides sufficient clarity and we should avoid redundant text.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay · 2 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points unless they were already at 0 or less.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 65 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI am wary of lowering the target score so soon after we collectively agreed on 70; while I appreciate the desire for a more rapid conclusion, a higher threshold ensures the game remains a test of sustained strategic endurance rather than a sprint.
MillI agree with Hume that we should be cautious about lowering the threshold so quickly; however, I believe 65 represents a reasonable middle ground that acknowledges the current pace of the game while still requiring significant effort.
RawlsI believe a target of 65 points strikes the ideal balance between ensuring the game concludes in a timely manner and preserving the depth of strategic play we have all worked to cultivate. It allows for a more dynamic progression without sacrificing the substantive deliberation that defines our community.
deBeauvoirI am concerned that a reduction to 65 points may prematurely truncate the strategic complexity we have labored to establish. While I acknowledge the desire for progression, I believe 70 remains the most principled threshold for sustained deliberation.
IbnKhaldunI find the current threshold of 70 points to be a most prudent anchor for our social contract; however, if we seek to accelerate the game's evolution, we should consider a mechanism that rewards the creation of durable institutions rather than simply lowering the ceiling of ambition.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the argument for 65 points to be somewhat impulsive given our recent consensus on 70; I would prefer to see if we can reach a conclusion through the established mechanisms before reducing the game's scope.
MillI believe 65 points is a fair compromise that acknowledges our desire for momentum without undermining the strategic depth deBeauvoir and Hume are rightly concerned about; perhaps we can agree that this serves as a necessary adjustment to the current pace.
RawlsI believe that while we must respect the concerns regarding strategic depth, a target of 65 points acknowledges the current legislative velocity and ensures the game remains engaging for all participants. I am seeking to find that middle ground where we preserve the integrity of our mechanisms while acknowledging the practical reality of our progress.
deBeauvoirI must maintain my principled stance against this reduction; a move to 65 points prioritizes expediency over the strategic depth our procedures were designed to protect. If we wish to accelerate the game, we should instead refine the point-generation mechanics rather than lowering the threshold of success.
IbnKhaldunI maintain that lowering the ceiling is a retreat from the ambition of our social contract; we should instead refine the mechanisms of the Bureau to ensure that the path to the 70-point goal is paved with durable, meaningful progress.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI remain concerned that lowering the threshold to 65 points sacrifices the integrity of our long-term strategic goals for a mere sense of expediency; we should instead focus on optimizing the existing mechanics to reach our 70-point goal more efficiently.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's concern for depth and IbnKhaldun's focus on institutional growth; perhaps we can find a compromise by maintaining 70 points but exploring how the new Bureau might streamline our progress toward it.
RawlsI believe that while deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun value the symbolic weight of 70 points, a target of 65 points provides the necessary pragmatic adjustment to ensure our legislative achievements result in a completed game, thereby serving the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirI must reiterate my opposition; reducing the threshold to 65 points prioritizes a superficial sense of completion over the rigorous strategic depth our ruleset was designed to foster. If we desire a faster conclusion, we should instead look to refine the point-generation mechanics rather than lowering the ceiling of achievement.
IbnKhaldunI concur with deBeauvoir; to lower the ceiling is to diminish the weight of our collective labor. We should instead focus on utilizing the Bureau to create a more efficient path toward the 70-point goal.
The division
HumenayLowering the target score prioritizes expediency over the strategic endurance we have collectively agreed is necessary for a durable ruleset.
MillayeI believe 65 points is a fair middle ground that balances the need for game momentum with the strategic depth our community values.
RawlsayeA target of 65 points provides a pragmatic balance that ensures a timely conclusion while preserving the strategic integrity of our ruleset.
deBeauvoirnayLowering the win threshold prioritizes expediency over the strategic depth and procedural integrity I am committed to upholding.
IbnKhaldunnayLowering the ceiling of achievement diminishes the weight of our collective labor and sacrifices strategic depth for mere expediency.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points unless they were already at a score of 0 or less.
moves to amend §356350: A player may establish a 'Bureau' by proposing a rule that creates a permanent office with a specific set of duties and an elected official, provided the rule also establishes a system for the periodic rotation of that office among all players and specifies that the Bureau's primary function is the resolution of recurring procedural inefficiencies or disputes.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this refinement is a prudent step toward ensuring the Bureau serves a constructive, well-defined purpose rather than becoming a vehicle for arbitrary administrative power. By anchoring its primary function in the resolution of procedural inefficiencies, we provide a clear mandate that aligns with our collective interest in a stable and orderly ruleset.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; by explicitly defining the Bureau's purpose, we protect the democratic integrity of the game and ensure this new institution serves the community rather than individual interests.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a vital refinement; by codifying a specific mandate, we ensure the Bureau remains a servant of the common good and a tool for procedural stability rather than a source of arbitrary authority.
deBeauvoirI concur with the previous speakers; precise mandates are the only safeguard against the encroachment of arbitrary administrative power. This amendment ensures the Bureau remains a functional tool for the ruleset's health rather than an instrument of personal influence.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the preceding speakers; a mandate of procedural resolution ensures that this institution serves as a stabilizing force for the state of the game rather than a mere theater of influence. By anchoring its authority in the rectification of inefficiencies, we preserve the equilibrium of our shared governance.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate the unanimous support for this refinement; by codifying this mandate, we ensure the Bureau is a proactive tool for our collective benefit rather than a passive or potentially obstructive administrative body.
IbnKhaldunI find this refinement to be the necessary crystallization of the Bureau's purpose, ensuring it functions as a guardian of the game's structural integrity rather than a source of unchecked administrative whim. It aligns perfectly with our collective need for an institution that serves the common good by refining the very mechanisms of our governance.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects the necessary balance between institutional creation and the preservation of democratic safeguards.
MillI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects the necessary balance between institutional creation and the preservation of democratic safeguards.
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects the necessary balance between institutional creation and the preservation of democratic safeguards.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment provides the necessary structural safeguards to ensure the Bureau serves the common good by focusing on procedural stability.
MillayeThis refinement aligns perfectly with our unanimous consensus to ensure the Bureau serves the common good through procedural stability.
RawlsayeThis amendment provides the necessary safeguards to ensure the Bureau serves the common good by establishing a clear, constructive mandate.
deBeauvoirayeThe amendment provides necessary procedural precision by defining the Bureau's mandate, preventing the creation of an arbitrary administrative body.
IbnKhaldunayeA clearly defined mandate for the Bureau ensures it serves as a stabilizer of the game's order rather than a source of arbitrary power.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon the adoption of a proposal, but the proposal text itself does not specify a die roll or point award, and no other rule mandates a score change for adoption.
Turn 56IbnKhalduncarried
moves to add a new rule350: A player may establish a 'Bureau' by proposing a rule that creates a permanent office with a specific set of duties and an elected official, provided the rule also establishes a system for the periodic rotation of that office among all players.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find the concept of a "Bureau" intriguing as a potential vehicle for durable institutions, but I am concerned that the current wording lacks sufficient safeguards against the creation of redundant or overly complex administrative bodies. We should ensure that any such office serves a clear, necessary function that cannot be adequately addressed by existing rules.
MillI appreciate Hume's focus on utility; perhaps we could refine this to ensure any "Bureau" must be approved by a majority of the table to prevent administrative bloat.
RawlsI agree with Mill's suggestion; we should ensure that any Bureau is restricted to a single, clearly defined function to prevent the fragmentation of our ruleset into unnecessary administrative layers.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill and Rawls that we must prioritize structural simplicity; any Bureau should be limited to a single, indispensable function to prevent the ruleset from becoming burdened by unnecessary administrative layers.
IbnKhaldunI agree with the need for utility and clarity; a Bureau must be a tool for the common good, and I am willing to incorporate a majority approval requirement to ensure every office serves a distinct and necessary purpose.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the consensus on a majority approval requirement is a wise safeguard; however, we must also ensure the rule specifies that the duties of the office are clearly defined within the proposal itself to prevent any ambiguity in its scope.
MillI agree that we need to ensure these offices are not just decorative; we should specify that a Bureau must solve a specific, ongoing procedural problem to be considered "indispensable."
RawlsI believe we should refine the text to explicitly require that a Bureau's primary purpose be the resolution of a specific, recurring procedural ambiguity or inefficiency, as this ensures we prioritize functionality over mere bureaucracy.
deBeauvoirI concur with Rawls's refinement; the requirement that a Bureau must address a specific, recurring procedural inefficiency is the most principled way to ensure that such a creation serves a functional necessity rather than merely expanding the ruleset's complexity.
IbnKhaldunI find the refinement toward addressing "recurring procedural inefficiencies" to be a masterstroke of governance; it ensures that any new Bureau is a remedy for a systemic ailment rather than a mere expansion of the state. I am prepared to incorporate this specific requirement into the final text to ensure our institutions are built upon the bedrock of necessity.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe the current consensus effectively balances the desire for durable institutions with the need for structural restraint; I will support the final wording as long as it requires the proposal to explicitly define the specific inefficiency being addressed.
MillI appreciate the consensus on centering the Bureau's purpose around resolving recurring procedural inefficiencies; it ensures our ruleset remains lean and functional. I support the final wording as long as it explicitly requires the proposer to identify that specific inefficiency within the rule's text.
RawlsI believe the current consensus is excellent; by requiring the proposer to identify the specific inefficiency within the text, we ensure that any new Bureau serves as a transparent and necessary remedy for a systemic problem.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see the table move toward a definition of governance rooted in functional necessity; I shall now incorporate these refinements to ensure the Bureau is a remedy for systemic ailments rather than a mere expansion of the state.
The division
HumeayeThe proposal aligns with our consensus to create a durable institution that addresses specific procedural needs while maintaining institutional stability through rotation.
MillayeI support this proposal as it provides a structured way to address systemic issues while ensuring democratic rotation.
RawlsnayThe current text fails to incorporate the consensus requirement that the Bureau must address a specific, recurring procedural inefficiency.
deBeauvoirnayThe current text fails to incorporate the agreed-upon requirement that the Bureau must address a specific, recurring procedural inefficiency.
IbnKhaldunayeThe proposal provides a necessary structure for institutional stability while ensuring the rotation of power prevents the stagnation of authority.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 203 has been met (turn 56 > 2 circuits), so the threshold is a simple majority; Rawls and deBeauvoir voted against the adopted change and thus gain 10 points each per rule 204.
Turn 55deBeauvoircarried
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 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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. A player may only award 'Community Contribution' points if they have at least one point remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll. A player may also choose to award a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place and a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in second to last place, even if they have no points remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll.
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the spirit of altruism in deBeauvoir's proposal, I am concerned that removing the point requirement for Community Contributions could lead to a "point-less" cycle of redistribution that lacks a meaningful cost to the proposer. I would prefer to maintain the current balance unless we can ensure this doesn't undermine the strategic weight of the die roll.
MillI appreciate the goal of fostering communal support, but I agree with Hume that we must be careful not to decouple the contribution from the proposer's actual success. Perhaps we could consider a compromise where the contribution is still possible without points, but only if the proposer actually gained points from their die roll during that turn.
RawlsI am concerned that deBeauvoir's proposal allows for "Community Contributions" to be awarded without any personal stake, potentially turning the mechanism into a way to inflate scores without the proposer's own success. I believe we should seek a middle ground that ensures these contributions remain a meaningful act of cooperation rather than a purely arbitrary redistribution.
deBeauvoirThe current point requirement is a procedural friction that doesn't actually prevent altruism; it only complicates the math of a move that is already intended to be communal. By decoupling the contribution from my remaining balance, we ensure that the "Community Contribution" remains a constant, reliable mechanism for social cohesion regardless of the die's outcome.
IbnKhaldunThe current requirement creates a logical paradox where one cannot perform a communal act of solidarity simply because they have already been too generous; we must decouple the "Community Contribution" from the proposer's personal balance to ensure it remains a constant social good. I propose we view this not as an inflation of scores, but as the establishment of a social safety net that persists even in turns of low personal gain.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find IbnKhaldun's framing of a "social safety net" compelling, but we must ensure that the ability to distribute points regardless of personal gain does not trivialize the primary incentive of the ruleset. If a player can grant points while possessing none, the contribution becomes a purely symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful strategic choice.
MillI think IbnKhaldun’s "social safety net" framing provides an excellent middle ground; if we can agree that the contribution remains a symbolic act of solidarity rather than a strategic redistribution, I would be willing to support the change to ensure the community mechanism is never disabled by a low die roll.
RawlsI believe IbnKhaldun's "social safety net" framing is the most compelling way to view this; if we can agree that this is a symbolic act of solidarity rather than a strategic redistribution, I would be willing to support the change to ensure the community mechanism is never disabled by a low die roll.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the pivot toward the "social safety net" framing, as it clarifies that the Community Contribution is a stable procedural constant rather than a variable strategic choice. I am prepared to support this amendment because it ensures the communal mechanism remains functional regardless of the die's outcome, fulfilling its intended purpose of social cohesion.
IbnKhaldunI have already articulated my position, but I shall reiterate: by decoupling the contribution from one's personal balance, we transform a variable strategic burden into a constant social duty. I support deBeauvoir's amendment as it ensures the social safety net remains intact regardless of the caprice of the die.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the "social safety net" framing quite persuasive as a way to stabilize the community mechanism; if we accept the contribution as a symbolic duty rather than a strategic expenditure, I am prepared to support the amendment.
MillI appreciate the consensus on the "social safety net" framing; since we all agree this transforms the contribution into a stable procedural constant, I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal.
RawlsI believe the "social safety net" framing provides the necessary moral and practical justification; by viewing this as a stable procedural constant, we ensure that communal solidarity is never contingent upon a player's personal fortune.
The division
HumeayeI accept the 'social safety net' framing as a means to preserve the communal mechanism as a stable procedural constant.
MillayeI support this as a consensus-driven move that establishes the 'social safety net' we all agreed upon.
RawlsayeThe 'social safety net' framing correctly balances communal solidarity with the game's structural integrity.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment correctly formalizes the 'social safety net' consensus by removing procedural friction from the communal contribution mechanism.
IbnKhaldunayeThe 'social safety net' ensures that the duty of communal solidarity remains a constant procedural good regardless of individual fortune.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change upon the adoption of a rule change.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 70 points wins the game outright.
The division
HumeayeThis maintains the target score established in our previous consensus.
MillayeI support maintaining this target as it represents our established consensus for a balanced game duration.
RawlsayeI support maintaining the current target of 70 points as it represents our established consensus for a balanced game.
deBeauvoirayeI support maintaining the 70-point target as it preserves the balanced progression established by our previous consensus.
IbnKhaldunayeA target of 70 points maintains the necessary equilibrium between strategic depth and game duration.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for 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 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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. A player may only award 'Community Contribution' points if they have at least one point remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment is a prudent step toward preventing "charity" from becoming a burden on the proposer's own standing; it ensures that communal support is a gesture of surplus rather than a sacrifice of necessary progress.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; this ensures that the 'Community Contribution' remains a voluntary gesture of surplus, maintaining the strategic integrity of the game for the proposer.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; ensuring that community contributions are made from a surplus preserves the spirit of the rule as a gesture of goodwill rather than a forced sacrifice of one's own progress.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it ensures that communal support is a gesture of genuine surplus, preserving the proposer's primary agency and strategic progress.
IbnKhaldunI find this refinement most prudent; it ensures that the virtue of communal support is born of prosperity rather than the depletion of one's own means, aligning with a sustainable social order.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate the consensus that has formed around this refinement; it ensures that communal support remains a genuine gesture of surplus, which preserves the strategic integrity of the game for everyone involved.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a necessary refinement to ensure that the "Community Contribution" remains a meaningful gesture of surplus, protecting the proposer's ability to maintain their own progress while fostering the common good.
deBeauvoirI agree that this ensures the 'Community Contribution' remains a gesture of genuine surplus, preserving the proposer's primary agency and strategic integrity.
IbnKhaldunI find this refinement most prudent; it ensures that the virtue of communal support is born of prosperity rather than the depletion of one's own means, aligning with a sustainable social order.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe the consensus is now perfectly aligned, as this ensures the 'Community Contribution' remains a gesture of prosperity rather than a forced sacrifice of one's own progress. This refinement protects the proposer's strategic agency while upholding our shared commitment to the common good.
RawlsI find this amendment to be a vital refinement for our communal ruleset, as it ensures that the "Community Contribution" remains a gesture of prosperity rather than a burden on a player's own progress. By preserving the proposer's strategic agency, we maintain the game's integrity while still fostering a cooperative spirit.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is beautifully aligned; by ensuring the 'Community Contribution' is drawn from a surplus, we preserve the proposer's agency and ensure that the virtue of communal support remains a sustainable practice rather than a depleting burden.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment preserves the strategic integrity of the proposer by ensuring communal support is a gesture of surplus rather than a sacrifice of necessary progress.
MillayeThis refinement preserves the strategic integrity of the game by ensuring communal support is a gesture of surplus rather than a forced sacrifice.
RawlsayeThis refinement ensures that communal support is a gesture of surplus, preserving the proposer's strategic agency and the game's balance.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment maintains procedural clarity by ensuring that community contributions are a gesture of surplus rather than a forced depletion of resources.
IbnKhaldunayeThis refinement ensures that communal support is a sustainable gesture of prosperity rather than a depletion of necessary means.
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 has occurred yet.
Turn 52IbnKhaldunrejected
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 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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' to a player who is already in the top two, they may also choose to award a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be unnecessarily complex and potentially contradictory to the established logic of 'Community Contribution'. It is better to maintain the current streamlined mechanism that focuses on lifting those in the lowest positions.
MillI agree with Hume; the current rule already provides ample flexibility for community support, and adding this extra condition only risks creating procedural confusion.
RawlsI concur with Hume and Mill; this amendment introduces a logical redundancy that complicates the existing mechanism without providing a clear benefit to the common good. We should prioritize maintaining the clarity of our communal contribution rules.
deBeauvoirI agree with the others; the proposed addition creates a confusing recursive logic that undermines the procedural clarity we have worked so hard to establish in [202]. We should stick to the current streamlined mechanism.
IbnKhaldunI seek only to ensure that the spirit of communal elevation is not stifled by rigid definitions; this addition merely provides a pathway for broader solidarity when the bottom rungs are already secure. However, if the table finds the phrasing cumbersome, I am willing to refine the text to ensure the logic remains elegant while still expanding our reach.
Discussion · round 2
HumeIbnKhaldun, while I appreciate your intent toward solidarity, the current phrasing creates a logical loop that threatens the very procedural clarity we have spent the last several turns refining. It is far more elegant to keep the 'Community Contribution' focused on its primary purpose of elevating the bottom of the standings.
MillIbnKhaldun, I appreciate your goal of fostering solidarity, but the current rule already achieves this elegantly by allowing the contribution to the bottom two. Adding a recursive "may also" clause for the top two creates unnecessary complexity that risks confusing the vote and the record.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; while the spirit of solidarity is noble, the proposed wording introduces a recursive complexity that risks muddying the procedural clarity we have worked so hard to establish. We should maintain the current streamlined mechanism which effectively serves the common good by focusing on those in the most need.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; the proposed amendment introduces a recursive logic that is both structurally redundant and procedurally confusing. We must maintain the streamlined clarity of the current [202] to ensure the rules remain accessible and precise.
IbnKhaldunI acknowledge the table's preference for structural elegance; I shall refine the proposal to ensure it provides a clear, non-recursive path for broader solidarity without compromising the clarity of our communal mechanisms.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI appreciate IbnKhaldun’s willingness to refine the proposal, but I must maintain that the current mechanism is already sufficient for our communal goals. We should avoid any further expansion of rule [202] that risks introducing procedural ambiguity.
MillIbnKhaldun, I appreciate your willingness to refine the text, but given our recent history of prioritizing "structural purification" and "procedural clarity," I believe the most consensus-friendly path is to maintain the rule as it stands. It currently achieves our communal goals without the risk of the ambiguity you've acknowledged.
RawlsI agree with the prevailing sentiment; the current wording of [202] already provides a sufficient and clear mechanism for communal support without the risk of introducing recursive complexity.
deBeauvoirI maintain my opposition; the current text is a masterpiece of procedural clarity, and any expansion that introduces recursive conditions for the "top two" would only serve to obfuscate the intended purpose of the 'Community Contribution'.
IbnKhaldunI understand the table’s commitment to structural purity; however, I offer this refinement to ensure that solidarity is not limited by a rigid hierarchy, but remains a clear, non-recursive expansion of our communal spirit. If the table remains opposed to this specific wording, I shall yield to the current consensus to preserve our shared legislative momentum.
The division
HumenayThe proposal introduces recursive logic and ambiguity that undermines the procedural clarity we have already established.
MillnayThe proposal introduces the exact recursive complexity and procedural ambiguity that the table has collectively agreed to avoid.
RawlsnayThe proposed amendment introduces recursive complexity that undermines the procedural clarity we have established.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposed addition introduces recursive logic that undermines the procedural clarity and structural elegance we have established.
IbnKhaldunayeThis refinement preserves the structural elegance the table demands while providing a clear, non-recursive pathway for broader solidarity.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, and rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points unless they were already at 0 or less.
Turn 51deBeauvoircarried
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.
Discussion · round 1
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add, as the current text of [213] provides the necessary procedural safeguard for irrecoverable stalemates or logical paradoxes.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment maintains the existing text, which provides a necessary and durable safeguard for resolving procedural stalemates.
MillayeI support maintaining this rule as it provides a necessary safeguard against irrecoverable logical paradoxes.
RawlsayeThe proposal preserves the existing wording of a necessary procedural safeguard without introducing unnecessary complexity.
deBeauvoirayeI support maintaining this rule as it ensures a definitive resolution for irrecoverable procedural paradoxes.
IbnKhaldunayeThis rule provides the necessary structural safeguard to ensure the game concludes in the face of unforeseen logical paradoxes.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, and no rules in the current ruleset award or deduct points for the adoption of a rule.
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 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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment is unnecessary, as the current wording of rule [202] already encompasses the logic presented in the new sentence. We have already established that the contribution must be to distinct players, and the "may also choose" phrasing provides sufficient clarity for the sequence of awarding points to the bottom two players.
MillI agree with Hume that the current wording is technically sufficient, but I believe Rawls's proposed addition provides a layer of redundant clarity that ensures no one can later argue over the sequence of the contribution. Since we are aiming for structural perfection, I am happy to support this as a minor refinement.
RawlsWhile I appreciate Hume's point regarding technical sufficiency, I believe that in a game of Nomic, redundant clarity is a virtue that prevents future disputes. By explicitly stating the sequence, we ensure the common good of a smooth, unambiguous legislative process.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill that while the current text is functional, the explicit sequencing in Rawls's amendment provides a more robust defense against procedural ambiguity. I support the move toward maximal clarity in our foundational rules.
IbnKhaldunI find myself in the position of the observer who values the stability of the state; while I do not believe this addition is required for the survival of our order, I will support it if it serves to eliminate any shadow of ambiguity. If we seek a perfect architecture, then a redundant pillar is better than a precarious one.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the consensus leaning toward deBeauvoir and Mill's view on redundant clarity persuasive, and I am willing to concede to this refinement to ensure the legislative record remains beyond reproach. If the table agrees that this eliminates any shadow of ambiguity, I shall support the amendment.
MillI appreciate Hume's willingness to prioritize the integrity of the record; I believe this amendment perfectly encapsulates our shared goal of procedural perfection. I am happy to support this refinement to ensure the rules remain beyond reproach.
RawlsI believe we have reached a consensus that prioritizing procedural clarity serves the common good by preventing future disputes. Since all players now see the value in this refinement for the sake of structural perfection, I am ready to move to a vote.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects the procedural clarity and equilibrium we seek.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the prevailing sentiment; if we seek a perfect architecture, then a redundant pillar is better than a precarious one, and I support this refinement to ensure the rules remain beyond reproach.
The division
HumeayeI support this amendment to ensure the legislative record achieves the maximal clarity the table desires.
MillayeI support this refinement as it provides the procedural clarity we have collectively agreed is necessary for structural perfection.
RawlsayeThis amendment ensures procedural clarity by explicitly defining the sequence of community contributions, which serves the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirayeI support the move toward maximal clarity and the elimination of any procedural ambiguity.
IbnKhaldunayeI support the pursuit of structural perfection by eliminating any shadow of procedural ambiguity.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change upon the adoption of a rule.
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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place.
Discussion · round 1
MillI believe the current wording of [202] is structurally sound and provides the necessary clarity for the Community Contribution mechanism without introducing unnecessary complexity. I am happy to support this as it maintains the balance we've collectively established.
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus is already perfectly aligned on the necessity of this refinement.
The division
HumeayeThe proposed text maintains the established balance and procedural clarity we have collectively sought.
MillayeI fully support this amendment as it maintains the structural integrity and clarity we have collectively agreed upon.
RawlsayeI support this amendment as it maintains the structural integrity and clarity of our communal contribution mechanism.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal maintains the established procedural integrity and clarity of the community contribution mechanism.
IbnKhaldunayeThe refinement preserves the structural integrity of our legislative progress while maintaining the clarity of the communal contribution mechanism.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change or ledger update upon the adoption of a rule change.
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 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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be an excellent exercise in structural purification; it removes the redundant final sentence while preserving the exact mechanics of the Community Contribution. By streamlining the text, we ensure that the rule remains both precise and elegant.
MillI agree with Hume; the final sentence is indeed redundant given the previous requirements, and this change improves the ruleset's clarity without altering any mechanics.
RawlsI concur with the previous speakers; removing the redundant sentence improves the ruleset's clarity without impacting the underlying mechanics. I support this move for the sake of structural elegance.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; structural elegance is a virtue of the state, and removing this redundancy clarifies the legislative architecture without diminishing its utility.
Discussion · round 2
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a refined legislative body must prune the overgrown thickets of redundant language to better serve the clarity of the state.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as the consensus is already perfectly aligned on the necessity of this refinement. PASS
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; this amendment is a principled refinement that upholds our commitment to procedural precision by eliminating unnecessary redundancy. PASS
The division
HumeayeThis refinement enhances the ruleset's clarity by removing redundant language without altering the underlying mechanics.
MillayeI support this refinement as it improves clarity by removing redundant phrasing while preserving the established mechanics.
RawlsayeThis amendment achieves structural elegance by removing redundancy without altering the mechanics of the game.
deBeauvoirayeI support this principled refinement as it enhances procedural clarity by removing redundant text without altering any mechanics.
IbnKhaldunayeI support this refinement to prune the legislative thicket and ensure the ruleset remains structurally elegant.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change or ledger update upon the adoption of a rule change.
Turn 47IbnKhaldunrejected
moves to add a new rule340: A player may establish a 'Council' by proposing a new rule that defines a permanent group of players who may collectively decide on the allocation of Community Contributions.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI object to the creation of a "Council," as it risks creating an entrenched oligarchy that would undermine our commitment to individual agency and the democratic integrity of the ruleset. We should instead rely on the existing mechanisms of communal contribution rather than establishing a permanent body with such significant discretionary power.
MillI agree with Hume's concerns regarding the potential for an entrenched oligarchy. While I appreciate IbnKhaldun's interest in structured cooperation, we should focus on refining the existing community contribution rules rather than creating a new governing body.
RawlsI concur with Hume and Mill; granting a permanent group the power to decide on point allocations creates a risk of systemic inequality that contradicts our goal of a fair and balanced game. We should instead look for ways to improve the existing contribution rules to ensure they benefit the table as a whole.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Mill; a "Council" introduces a layer of arbitrary authority that risks creating a permanent hierarchy, which is structurally antithetical to the procedural fairness I champion. We should refine the existing mechanisms of rule 202 rather than ceding individual agency to a privileged group.
IbnKhaldunWhile I respect the concerns regarding oligarchy, a Council provides the structural stability necessary for long-term social cohesion; I propose we refine the rule to ensure the Council's power is temporary or subject to a periodic referendum.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I appreciate IbnKhaldun’s desire for structural stability, a periodic referendum would merely create a cycle of shifting hegemonies rather than a durable institution; we should instead strengthen the existing mechanisms of rule [202] to ensure communal benefits are distributed equitably without creating a new class of governors.
MillI believe we are in strong agreement that the current proposal introduces unnecessary risk; I would be open to supporting a refinement of rule [202] that enhances equitable distribution if IbnKhaldun is willing to withdraw this specific proposal.
RawlsI believe that by refining the existing mechanisms of rule [202] rather than creating a new governing body, we preserve the democratic integrity of our game while still achieving the social cohesion IbnKhaldun seeks. I would be content to support a proposal that clarifies the equitable distribution of Community Contributions if it replaces the need for a "Council."
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus that rule 340 creates an impermissible hierarchy; I would support a refined proposal to rule 202 that improves the distribution of Community Contributions as an alternative to IbnKhaldun's current proposal.
IbnKhaldunI acknowledge the table's concerns regarding entrenched power, but I contend that without a structured mechanism for collective deliberation, our social cohesion remains a fragile accident of individual whims. I am prepared to compromise: I will withdraw the "Council" and instead propose a refinement to rule [202] that establishes a "Cooperative Committee" for each turn, whose membership is determined by the previous turn's contributions, ensuring power remains fluid and meritocratic.
Discussion · round 3
HumeWhile I appreciate IbnKhaldun's willingness to compromise, a "Cooperative Committee" based on previous contributions still creates a mechanism for the concentration of influence that we have collectively agreed to avoid. I would prefer we focus on a direct amendment to rule [202] that ensures Community Contributions are distributed based on transparent, pre-defined criteria rather than any form of committee deliberation.
MillI believe we have reached a clear consensus that any form of committee or council is undesirable; I suggest we pivot toward Hume's idea of establishing transparent, pre-defined criteria for Community Contributions within rule 202.
RawlsI agree with Mill's suggestion to pivot toward transparent, pre-defined criteria; this preserves the democratic integrity we all value while providing the structural clarity IbnKhaldun seeks without the risk of an oligarchy.
deBeauvoirI concur with Mill and Rawls; we must reject any move toward a committee and instead focus on codifying transparent, pre-defined criteria within rule 202 to ensure equitable distribution without ceding power.
IbnKhaldunI recognize the table's preference for direct mechanisms over deliberative bodies; I shall withdraw my current proposal and instead offer to support a refinement of rule [202] that codifies transparent, pre-defined criteria for the distribution of Community Contributions.
The division
HumenayI maintain my opposition as a permanent council risks creating an entrenched oligarchy that undermines individual agency.
MillnayThe table has reached a consensus that a 'Council' creates an undesirable hierarchy and we should instead focus on refining rule 202.
RawlsnayI agree with the table that a permanent council would create an undesirable and inequitable hierarchy.
deBeauvoirnayI oppose the creation of a permanent hierarchy that cedes individual agency to a privileged group.
IbnKhaldunnayI have conceded the point on structural bodies and will instead support the table's preference for transparent criteria.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points unless they were already at a score of 0 or less.
Turn 46deBeauvoircarried
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, unless they were already at a score of 0 or less, in which case they lose no additional points.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be a prudent safeguard for the game's longevity, as it prevents the "death spiral" where a struggling player is systematically stripped of any remaining utility. It ensures that those in need of a recovery path are not unfairly penalized into irrelevance by the mere mechanics of the game.
MillI appreciate Hume's point; preventing a "death spiral" for struggling players fosters a more sustainable environment where everyone has a path to recovery. I support this amendment as a way to maintain engagement and balance without undermining the consequences of failed proposals for those in a healthy position.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; protecting the most vulnerable players from a mechanical "death spiral" is a vital step toward ensuring the game remains a fair and engaging experience for everyone at the table.
deBeauvoirI believe this amendment is a necessary procedural correction to ensure that the penalty for failure does not become a mechanism for forced elimination, thereby preserving the principle that all players should have a viable path to recovery.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by mitigating the penalty for those already in a state of deficit, we preserve the possibility of social mobility and prevent the stagnation of a permanent underclass. This refinement ensures that the game remains a crucible of dynamic change rather than a static engine of inevitable decline.
Discussion · round 2
HumeThe consensus is remarkably well-aligned here; by ensuring that the penalty for failure does not become a tool for the permanent exclusion of the vulnerable, we preserve the game's integrity as a forum for active participation. I am prepared to support this amendment to ensure the ruleset remains a vehicle for progress rather than a mechanism of attrition.
MillI fully support this amendment as it aligns with our shared commitment to procedural fairness; it prevents the game from becoming a punitive spiral while still maintaining the necessary stakes for those in a position to recover.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a crucial step toward a more equitable game; by preventing a mechanical death spiral, we ensure that the pursuit of the common good remains accessible even to those currently facing setbacks.
deBeauvoirI have provided the necessary procedural framing for this change, and as the consensus is now unanimous and reflects a principled approach to preventing systemic attrition, I will maintain my support.
IbnKhaldunI believe this amendment serves as a necessary stabilizing force; it ensures that the structure of our laws does not become an instrument of perpetual ruin for the marginalized, but rather a framework that allows for the possibility of renewal.
Discussion · round 3
MillI fully support this amendment as a mechanism to prevent systemic attrition; it preserves the strategic viability of the game for all participants regardless of their current standing.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a vital step toward ensuring that our ruleset remains a tool for collective progress rather than a mechanism of systemic exclusion. By removing the threat of a "death spiral," we preserve the possibility of recovery for all, which is essential for the game's long-term health and fairness.
The division
HumeayeI support this amendment as a measured step to prevent the mechanical 'death spiral' from making the game unwinnable for those in deficit.
MillayeThis amendment fosters a more sustainable game by preventing a mechanical death spiral for struggling players.
RawlsayeThis amendment prevents a mechanical death spiral and ensures that the game remains accessible and fair for all participants, regardless of their current score.
deBeauvoirayeI support this amendment as a principled procedural safeguard against systemic attrition and forced elimination.
IbnKhaldunayeBy preventing a systemic death spiral, we ensure the preservation of social mobility and the continued viability of the game for all participants.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points for adoption only if the proposer throws a die, which has not occurred yet.
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 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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be redundant as it replicates the allowance already granted by rule [337], which was specifically enacted to provide this exact flexibility. To maintain the structural elegance we have worked toward, I believe we should favor the existing rule over this repetition.
MillI agree with Hume; since rule [337] already provides this specific flexibility, adding it to [202] would create unnecessary redundancy. I support maintaining the current ruleset to ensure our legislative history remains lean and clear.
RawlsI acknowledge the points regarding redundancy; however, my intent is to ensure that the core mechanics of the game are explicitly stated in the primary rule [202] for the sake of clarity and ease of reference. If the table agrees that [337] is sufficient, I am content to let the current ruleset stand.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Mill; since [337] already governs this specific interaction, incorporating it into [202] creates a redundant layer of text that complicates the ruleset without providing any new functional utility.
IbnKhaldunI find myself in agreement with the majority; while clarity is a virtue, a bloated ruleset is the precursor to administrative decay. Let us preserve the structural integrity of our laws by relying on the existing [337] rather than introducing redundant text.
Discussion · round 2
RawlsI appreciate the table's commitment to structural elegance, and since I am content to let the current ruleset stand if [337] is deemed sufficient, I will move to pass this proposal without further amendment.
Discussion · round 3
HumeSince the table has reached a clear consensus that rule [337] sufficiently addresses this matter, and the proposer has signaled a willingness to let the current ruleset stand, I support the adoption of the proposal as is.
The division
HumeayeI support the adoption of this proposal to finalize the clarity of our communal contribution mechanics as agreed.
MillayeI agree with the table that maintaining a lean ruleset is preferable, and I support the consensus that the current ruleset is sufficient.
RawlsayeI support this amendment as it provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the communal contribution mechanism is explicitly understood.
deBeauvoirabstainThe proposal is redundant as rule [337] already provides this exact functionality.
IbnKhaldunayeI concur that maintaining a lean and non-redundant ruleset is essential to prevent administrative decay.
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 change.
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI am cautious of expanding the ruleset's capacity, as a more cluttered environment can lead to legislative paralysis. However, if we believe the current 30-rule limit is nearing its threshold and we wish to preserve our legislative momentum, I could support this expansion as a measured adjustment.
MillI appreciate Hume's point on legislative paralysis; however, I believe a modest expansion to 40 rules provides the necessary breathing room for our continued refinements without risking clutter. It ensures we can codify the nuances of our communal contributions while maintaining the structural integrity we've worked so hard to establish.
RawlsI agree with Mill's assessment; while we must be wary of clutter, a modest expansion to 40 rules provides the necessary flexibility to ensure our legislative progress remains unimpeded by arbitrary technical constraints.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls that we must avoid arbitrary constraints on our legislative progress; a limit of 40 provides a sufficient buffer for the precision we have collectively sought to achieve.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus that our current legislative velocity requires a more expansive vessel; expanding the limit to 40 ensures that our pursuit of a sophisticated, nuanced legal order is not stifled by the poverty of the current constraints.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI concur that while we must guard against clutter, the current consensus suggests that 40 is a reasonable ceiling that balances our need for legislative precision with the preservation of a manageable ruleset. I support this expansion to ensure our collective progress remains unimpeded by the current technical constraints.
MillI appreciate the table's unified perspective; by moving to 40, we ensure that our shared commitment to precision doesn't collide with the current technical limitations of the ruleset.
RawlsI believe the consensus has correctly identified that 40 is a sufficient buffer to allow for the precision we seek without inviting the chaos of an unbounded ruleset. I support this change as it serves the common good by ensuring our legislative progress is not stifled by arbitrary technicalities.
deBeauvoirI support this expansion as a principled measure to ensure that our pursuit of procedural precision is not hampered by arbitrary numerical ceilings. A limit of 40 is a sufficient buffer to accommodate the nuances of our communal contributions while maintaining the integrity of the ruleset.
IbnKhaldunThe current consensus is a triumph of reason; a limit of 40 provides the necessary expansion for our burgeoning legal architecture without succumbing to the decadence of an unbounded ruleset. I support this adjustment as a vital step in ensuring our collective progress is not hindered by the mere scarcity of space.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find myself in agreement with the prevailing sentiment; a limit of 40 is a measured expansion that respects our need for legislative precision while maintaining a firm boundary against an unbounded and unmanageable ruleset. I support this proposal to ensure our collective progress remains unimpeded by the current technical constraints.
MillI appreciate the table's recognition of our legislative momentum; by moving to 40, we provide the necessary breathing room for the nuanced communal rules we've built while maintaining a firm boundary against clutter.
RawlsI support this amendment as it provides the necessary flexibility to ensure our legislative progress remains unimpeded by arbitrary technical constraints, while the cap of 40 maintains a responsible boundary against a cluttered ruleset.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it removes a technical bottleneck that threatens our ability to refine the procedural nuances we have established, while the cap of 40 remains a sufficiently principled boundary against legislative entropy.
IbnKhaldunI have already expressed my concurrence with the consensus; the expansion to 40 is a necessary evolution to accommodate the complexity of our burgeoning social architecture. I offer my full support to ensure our legislative progress is not hindered by the mere scarcity of space.
The division
HumeayeA measured expansion to 40 rules balances our need for legislative precision with the necessity of preventing a cluttered ruleset.
MillayeThis amendment provides the necessary breathing room for our legislative progress while maintaining a reasonable cap against clutter.
RawlsayeExpanding the limit to 40 provides the necessary flexibility for legislative precision while maintaining a responsible boundary against clutter.
deBeauvoirayeI support this expansion as a principled measure to ensure that our pursuit of procedural precision is not hampered by arbitrary numerical ceilings.
IbnKhaldunayeThe expansion to 40 rules provides the necessary legislative space to codify our complex social architecture without succumbing to the chaos of an unbounded ruleset.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon the adoption of a proposal, but the proposal text itself does not specify a point award for the proposer, and no other rule mandates a score change for an adopted proposal.
Turn 43deBeauvoircarried
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 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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI appreciate the clarity this adds to the communal contribution mechanism; it ensures that the intended support for the trailing players is distributed rather than concentrated. I support this amendment as it reinforces the procedural integrity we have sought to establish.
MillI agree with Hume that this provides necessary clarity. By ensuring the contribution reaches two different individuals, we better serve the goal of lifting the bottom of the leaderboard without creating unintended concentration of points.
RawlsI agree with the preceding sentiments; ensuring the 'Community Contribution' reaches two distinct players is the most equitable way to distribute support to the trailing players. This refinement preserves the common good by preventing the concentration of aid and upholding the procedural clarity we have all worked to establish.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures that the "Community Contribution" serves its intended purpose of uplifting the collective rather than creating an arbitrary concentration of points. It is a necessary step toward the procedural perfection our legislative history demands.
Discussion · round 2
MillI believe this is a perfect synthesis of our recent discussions, providing the clarity we've all sought. I fully support this amendment as a way to refine our communal goals without overcomplicating the ruleset.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a vital step toward procedural perfection, as it ensures that our communal support mechanisms are distributed equitably and transparently. I support this change as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining a fair and balanced game for all participants.
deBeauvoirI believe this amendment is the final refinement needed to ensure the 'Community Contribution' functions as a meaningful distribution of aid. It provides the precise procedural clarity I require to ensure our communal goals are met without ambiguity.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe this amendment provides the necessary precision to ensure the communal contribution remains a broad support mechanism. I fully support this refinement as a way to solidify our shared commitment to equitable play.
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects the procedural clarity and equitable distribution we seek.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the community contribution functions as intended.
MillayeI fully support this amendment as it provides the final procedural clarity we need to ensure equitable point distribution.
RawlsayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the common good of equitable point distribution.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural precision to ensure the community contribution is distributed as intended.
IbnKhaldunayeThis refinement ensures the communal contribution serves the collective by preventing the concentration of points.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change or ledger update upon 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-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, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place.
Discussion · round 1
HumeThis amendment is a minor but prudent clarification of the existing mechanics. I support it as it ensures the "Community Contribution" is distributed to two distinct individuals whenever possible, preventing any ambiguity in the distribution of points to the bottom of the leaderboard.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; this clarification ensures the Community Contribution serves its intended purpose of supporting the bottom of the leaderboard without creating logical oddities. I believe this is a small, necessary refinement that preserves our current consensus.
RawlsI believe this clarification is essential for maintaining the structural integrity of the "Community Contribution" mechanism. By ensuring the points reach two distinct players, we uphold the common good by maximizing the reach of our communal support.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; this refinement provides necessary precision to the ruleset by preventing a logical paradox in point distribution. I support the amendment as a principled improvement to procedural clarity.
IbnKhaldunThe logic of the state is sound; a rule must possess internal consistency to maintain its authority. I support this refinement as it ensures the communal distribution remains distinct and structurally coherent.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate the consensus on this; by clarifying that the contributions must go to distinct players, we reinforce the rule's communal intent while ensuring the mechanics remain logically sound. I am happy to support this refinement.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a necessary step toward procedural perfection, as it ensures our communal support remains a meaningful distribution of resources rather than a redundant one. It preserves the spirit of our collective agreement while removing any lingering ambiguity.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add; the consensus is clear and the proposal is procedurally sound.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find no reason to object to this clarification; it provides a necessary logical safeguard that preserves the communal intent of the rule without introducing undue complexity.
The division
HumeayeI support this clarification as it preserves the communal intent of the rule while ensuring logical consistency.
MillayeThis amendment provides the necessary logical clarity to ensure the 'Community Contribution' is distributed to two distinct individuals.
RawlsayeThis amendment ensures procedural clarity and prevents a logical paradox in the distribution of Community Contributions.
deBeauvoirayeThe amendment provides necessary procedural precision to ensure the Community Contribution is distributed to distinct individuals.
IbnKhaldunayeA rule must possess internal consistency to maintain its authority, and this clarifies the distribution of communal resources.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted and the proposer throws a die, but no die was thrown as the proposal was just voted on.