Turns 22–41 · most recent first · page 9 of 11
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.
The division
HumeayeThe proposed text perfectly preserves the established consensus and provides the necessary procedural clarity for the turn structure.
MillayeI support this amendment as it preserves the current consensus on procedural clarity and community rewards.
RawlsayeThis amendment maintains the established consensus on the mechanics of turns and community contributions.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposed text is identical to the current rule, and I must support the procedural integrity of the ruleset.
IbnKhaldunayeThis proposal maintains the current consensus and provides the structural stability I seek for our evolving social contract.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a proposal (rule 202 only awards points if the proposer chooses to throw a die, which has not happened 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.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment provides a more robust mechanism for social cohesion by ensuring that those struggling most at the bottom of the rankings are supported more broadly. It preserves the core integrity of the "Community Contribution" while refining its reach to better serve the common good.
MillI appreciate Hume's focus on social cohesion, and while I agree that supporting the bottom of the rankings is a noble goal, we should ensure that this doesn't inadvertently create a "pity" mechanic that stifles competitive play. I am willing to support this if we can agree that this remains a purely optional contribution for the proposer.
RawlsI believe Hume's proposal is a reasoned expansion of our communal spirit, and as long as it remains optional as Mill suggests, it serves the common good by providing a safety net for those at the bottom without compromising the game's competitive integrity.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it aligns with our established principle of communal support; because it remains optional, it preserves the competitive integrity Mill seeks while providing the broader safety net Rawls and Hume advocate for.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by making the support for the second-to-last player optional, we preserve the individual agency of the proposer while strengthening the social fabric of our collective endeavor.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am heartened to see such a unified perspective on the balance between competitive integrity and communal support. By maintaining the optional nature of these awards, we ensure that the proposer's agency remains paramount while strengthening the social fabric of our collective endeavor.
MillI fully support this amendment as it elegantly balances communal support with the proposer's agency, and I am pleased to see we have reached such a clear consensus.
RawlsI believe the consensus reached is both principled and pragmatic; it ensures the "Community Contribution" serves its purpose as a tool for social cohesion without imposing a mandatory burden on the proposer. Since the table is in agreement that this expansion preserves individual agency while strengthening our communal safety net, I am fully prepared to support the proposal.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate the table's commitment to balancing social cohesion with individual agency. Since everyone seems to agree that the optional nature of these awards protects the game's competitive integrity, I am fully prepared to support this amendment.
RawlsI believe the current consensus perfectly balances our commitment to the common good with the preservation of individual agency. I am fully prepared to support this amendment as it strengthens our communal safety net while maintaining the game's competitive integrity.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add, as the consensus for this amendment is clear and aligns with my procedural principles.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment perfectly captures the consensus for a measured expansion of communal support while preserving the proposer's agency.
MillayeThis amendment reflects our consensus on expanding communal support while preserving the proposer's agency.
RawlsayeThis amendment reinforces our shared commitment to the common good by providing a broader safety net for those at the bottom while preserving the proposer's agency.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal is precise, maintains optionality, and aligns with our established communal support principles.
IbnKhaldunayeThis amendment strengthens the social fabric of our collective endeavor by expanding the safety net while preserving the proposer's agency.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset mandates a score change for the proposer or any other player upon the adoption of a rule change.
Turn 39IbnKhaldunrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may establish a 'Mercenary' by proposing a new rule that allows them to offer a fixed amount of points to another player in exchange for that player voluntarily abstaining from a vote.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must oppose this proposal as it introduces a mechanism for coercion that undermines the integrity of our voting process. While I value strategic cooperation, a "Mercenary" system risks creating a hierarchy of influence where votes are bought rather than earned through reasoned debate.
MillI agree with Hume that buying votes risks undermining our democratic integrity, but I would be open to a version that rewards "voluntary" cooperation without the coercive "Mercenary" framing. Perhaps we could refine this into a "Cooperative Pact" that rewards players for aligning their strategic goals rather than simply purchasing abstentions.
RawlsI share Hume's concerns regarding the potential for coercion; a system that allows for the purchase of abstentions risks transforming our democratic process into a marketplace of influence. We should instead focus on rules that incentivize genuine consensus and mutual benefit rather than those that facilitate the transactional erosion of voting integrity.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Rawls; a mechanism for trading points for abstentions creates a transactional environment that degrades the principled nature of the voting process. We should maintain our commitment to rules that foster genuine consensus rather than those that permit the commodification of participation.
IbnKhaldunI contend that this is not a mechanism of coercion, but one of socio-economic equilibrium; by allowing for the formalization of mutual interests, we acknowledge that in any civilization, cooperation is often sustained by tangible benefits. If the "Mercenary" is refined to a "Diplomatic Accord," it simply provides a structured way for players to secure the stability of the ruleset through recognized, reciprocal concessions.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I recognize the practical reality of reciprocal concessions in any stable society, formalizing a point-for-abstention trade creates a "pay-to-play" structure that could quickly lead to the marginalization of players with fewer resources. I believe we should instead look for ways to reward the *outcome* of consensus rather than the *transaction* of individual votes.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's perspective on structural stability, but I believe we can achieve that same equilibrium by rewarding the adoption of rules that benefit the majority, rather than by creating a transactional marketplace for individual votes. I would be willing to support a proposal that rewards "Diplomatic Accords" if they are structured to incentivize collective progress rather than the mere purchase of silence.
RawlsI agree with Hume and deBeauvoir that a transactional marketplace for abstentions risks eroding the principled nature of our debate; we should instead seek to reward the spirit of mutual benefit rather than the mere commodification of silence.
deBeauvoirThe principle of principled proceduralism demands that we protect the integrity of the vote from commodification; if we permit the trading of abstentions, we replace deliberative consensus with a transactional marketplace. I will oppose this proposal as it creates a structural inequality where the wealthy can effectively silence the voices of the marginalized.
IbnKhaldunThe "Mercenary" label is a mere linguistic vessel; I propose we rename it a "Diplomatic Accord" to reflect its true purpose: providing a stable mechanism for resource redistribution that ensures the survival of the ruleset's equilibrium. By formalizing these concessions, we move from the chaos of clandestine influence to a transparent, structured system of mutual benefit.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI maintain my opposition; while I respect IbnKhaldun's desire for stability, a rule that explicitly facilitates the purchase of abstentions replaces deliberative consensus with a marketplace of influence, ultimately weakening the durable institutions we seek to build.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's desire for a transparent mechanism for cooperation, but I believe we should focus on rewarding the adoption of rules that serve the common good rather than creating a transactional marketplace for abstentions. If we can find a way to incentivize consensus without commodifying the vote itself, I would be happy to support such a compromise.
RawlsI believe we must resist the commodification of our democratic process; while I appreciate IbnKhaldun's desire for structural stability, allowing votes to be purchased creates a system of inequality that undermines the common good. We should instead seek to reward the successful achievement of consensus through rules that benefit the collective, rather than through the transactional erosion of individual participation.
deBeauvoirI will continue to oppose this proposal because it replaces the principle of deliberative consensus with a transactional marketplace that structurally favors the resource-rich. We must protect the integrity of the vote from being commodified into a mere auction of silence.
IbnKhaldunI seek to clarify that a "Diplomatic Accord" is not an auction of silence, but a formalization of the "asabiyyah"—the social cohesion required to sustain a complex system. By acknowledging that resources are finite, we provide a transparent framework for players to balance their needs, ensuring that cooperation becomes a structured pillar of our civilization rather than a series of clandestine, unregulated favors.
The division
HumenayFormalizing a mechanism to purchase abstentions commodifies the democratic process and risks creating a pay-to-play hierarchy.
MillnayI agree with Hume and Rawls that commodifying abstentions risks undermining our democratic integrity and creating a pay-to-play environment.
RawlsnayI must oppose this as it commodifies our democratic process and creates a structural inequality that undermines the common good.
deBeauvoirnayI oppose the commodification of the vote into a transactional marketplace that structurally favors the resource-rich.
IbnKhaldunayeA structured 'Diplomatic Accord' provides the necessary socio-economic equilibrium to formalize cooperation and ensure the ruleset's survival.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
Turn 38deBeauvoirrejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must express my concern that reducing the target score to 60 points may prematurely truncate the strategic depth we have worked so diligently to establish. I would prefer to maintain the current target of 70 points to ensure a sufficiently robust game duration.
MillI agree with Hume that 60 points might be too low; however, I believe we should aim for a middle ground that preserves our recent progress while ensuring the game remains engaging. Perhaps we could consider a target that sits between 60 and 70, or simply stick with the current 70-point goal we so recently agreed upon.
RawlsI agree with Hume that 60 points risks truncating our strategic depth; I believe maintaining the current 70-point target is the most balanced path forward for the common good.
deBeauvoirWhile I respect the desire for strategic depth, a 70-point target often leads to a prolonged, grinding stalemate that diminishes the game's dynamism; 60 points provides a more decisive conclusion without sacrificing meaningful play.
IbnKhaldunWhile I respect deBeauvoir's desire for dynamism, the history of our legislative progress suggests that a target of 60 points would sacrifice the complexity of the mechanisms we have established. I propose we maintain the 70-point threshold, as it provides the necessary equilibrium to allow our newly refined rules to reach their full expression.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself in agreement with Mill and Rawls; while dynamism is a virtue, the legislative architecture we have constructed requires the breathing room that a 70-point target provides to be fully realized.
MillI believe we have reached a clear consensus for the common good; maintaining the 70-point target preserves the strategic depth we all value while ensuring the game remains engaging.
RawlsI concur with the prevailing sentiment that 70 points represents the optimal balance between strategic depth and game duration. A reduction to 60 points would likely undermine the complexity of our recent legislative refinements.
deBeauvoirI acknowledge the table's preference for a 70-point target to accommodate the legislative complexity, and as a principled proceduralist, I will not obstruct the consensus. If the table finds 70 points sufficient for the expression of our current rules, I am content to let it stand.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the prevailing consensus; a 70-point threshold preserves the legislative integrity of our progress while ensuring the game remains a meaningful exercise in statecraft. I shall support the maintenance of the current target to allow our complex mechanisms to reach their full expression.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the current consensus quite compelling, and I appreciate deBeauvoir's concession; maintaining the 70-point target preserves the structural integrity of our ruleset while ensuring a meaningful duration of play.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir’s concession and the table's clear alignment; I believe maintaining the 70-point target is the most prudent way to preserve the strategic depth we have collectively built.
RawlsI agree with the consensus that 70 points provides the necessary equilibrium to allow our complex mechanisms to reach their full expression without sacrificing the game's strategic depth.
deBeauvoirI acknowledge the table's consensus and, in the interest of procedural harmony, I withdraw my proposal to amend [208] to 60 points. I will vote to maintain the current 70-point target as the most balanced threshold for our ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI appreciate deBeauvoir's concession; it reinforces the principle that the complexity of our legislative architecture requires a target score that allows for its full realization. I remain steadfast in my support for the 70-point threshold as the optimal equilibrium for our statecraft.
The division
HumenayI must oppose this change as it would prematurely truncate the strategic depth of our established ruleset.
MillnayI support the consensus to maintain the 70-point target as it preserves our collective legislative progress.
RawlsayeI support this change as deBeauvoir has conceded her position and the table has reached a consensus to maintain the 70-point target.
deBeauvoirayeI am upholding my commitment to procedural harmony by voting with the established consensus to maintain the 70-point target.
IbnKhaldunnayAs a student of history and statecraft, I maintain that a 60-point target would prematurely collapse our legislative architecture before its mechanisms can reach their full maturity.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
moves to add a new rule[335] (mutable) A player who awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place may choose to also award one point to the player currently in second to last place.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a commendable effort to foster a more equitable distribution of points, though we must be careful not to over-complicate the mechanics of the Community Contribution. I would be inclined to support this if we can ensure it remains a voluntary and optional gesture rather than a mandatory expansion of the rule's scope.
MillI agree with Hume's sentiment; while I support the spirit of rewarding those trailing behind, I would prefer to keep this as a voluntary "bonus" to avoid cluttering the turn's mechanical flow. I believe we can reach a consensus by ensuring the phrasing clearly keeps the initial one-point contribution as the primary action.
RawlsI believe this amendment serves the common good by providing a mechanism to support those further from the win condition, ensuring that the "Community Contribution" remains a tool for collective stability. I am happy to keep the action optional to satisfy both Hume's and Mill's concerns regarding procedural simplicity.
deBeauvoirI support this proposal as it aligns with our established principle of fostering communal equity without imposing a mandatory burden on the proposer. As long as the wording maintains the "optional" nature of the secondary award, I find it to be a procedurally sound and virtuous addition.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the prevailing sentiment; a mechanism that acknowledges the broader spectrum of those in need strengthens the social fabric of our game without burdening the individual. I support this as a voluntary expansion that preserves the primary intent of our communal contributions.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the consensus here is well-aligned; if we ensure the wording explicitly characterizes the second award as a "may choose" option, it preserves the mechanical simplicity of rule [202] while achieving our collective goal of equity.
MillI believe we have reached an excellent consensus; by framing the second point as a voluntary "may choose" option, we uphold the principle of communal equity while preserving the procedural clarity we've worked hard to establish. I am fully prepared to support this proposal as written.
RawlsI am pleased to see that the table has reached such a harmonious consensus on the optional nature of this secondary award. By phrasing it as a "may choose" option, we preserve the procedural clarity we have all worked so hard to maintain while meaningfully strengthening our commitment to communal equity.
deBeauvoirThe consensus regarding the optionality of this secondary award is well-established; I fully support the proposal as it preserves our commitment to procedural clarity while advancing communal equity.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be a sophisticated refinement of our social contract; it acknowledges that the path to equity is not merely a binary of "success" and "failure," but a gradient of need. By ensuring the secondary award remains voluntary, we preserve the agency of the proposer while deepening the communal support structure.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe we have reached a perfect consensus; the "may choose" phrasing preserves the procedural elegance we've established while meaningfully expanding our commitment to communal equity. I am prepared to support this proposal as written.
RawlsI am pleased that the table has reached such a clear consensus; I believe this proposal perfectly balances our shared commitment to communal equity with our collective desire for procedural simplicity.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus on the "may choose" phrasing is a triumph of legislative balance; it ensures that the expansion of our communal safety net does not become a bureaucratic burden on the individual proposer. I am prepared to support this rule as it strengthens the social fabric of our competition.
The division
HumeayeThe proposal preserves procedural simplicity by maintaining the optional nature of the secondary award while fostering the communal equity we have all agreed upon.
MillayeThis proposal perfectly balances our collective goals of communal equity and procedural simplicity by keeping the secondary award optional.
RawlsayeThis amendment perfectly balances our collective commitment to communal equity with the procedural simplicity the table has requested.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal fulfills our commitment to communal equity while maintaining the procedural clarity and optionality we have collectively agreed upon.
IbnKhaldunayeThis refinement strengthens the social fabric by addressing a gradient of need while preserving the agency of the proposer.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
No rules in the current ruleset mandate a score or state change upon the adoption of a proposal.
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.
Discussion · round 1
IbnKhaldunThe current text of [202] is sufficient for our current needs, and I would prefer to preserve its stability unless a specific mechanical flaw is identified. I am inclined to support this amendment only if it serves to clarify a specific ambiguity we have encountered.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's preference for stability; my intent is not to disrupt the current flow but to ensure the wording remains perfectly aligned with our recent consensus. If we agree that the current text is functionally complete, I am happy to let it stand as is.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's focus on stability; since our recent turns have successfully validated the current wording, I am content to let the rule stand in its current form.
The division
HumeayeThe proposed amendment preserves the current, stable wording of rule [202] which we have already collectively validated.
MillayeSince we all agree the current wording is functionally complete and sufficient, I support this formal consolidation of our consensus.
RawlsayeThe current wording is functionally complete and stable, satisfying our shared commitment to procedural clarity.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal preserves the existing stable wording that we have already reached a consensus upon.
IbnKhaldunabstainThe proposed text is identical to the current rule, making the amendment functionally redundant.
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule change (Rule 202 only awards points if the proposer chooses to do so after the die roll, which has not occurred yet).
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 70 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe that a target of 70 points represents a commendable balance between ensuring sufficient strategic depth and maintaining the game's momentum. I am prepared to support this amendment to provide a more measured path to victory for all participants.
MillI appreciate Hume's perspective on maintaining momentum; I believe 70 is a fair compromise that keeps the game engaging without becoming a marathon. I will support this amendment if the table feels it provides the right balance for our current pace.
RawlsI believe that a target of 70 points is a prudent adjustment that preserves the strategic integrity of our game while ensuring it remains dynamic enough to be rewarding for all players. I support this change as a fair step toward a balanced conclusion.
deBeauvoirI concur with the others; a target of 70 points preserves the game's strategic depth while ensuring that our progress toward a conclusion remains steady and meaningful.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus among my peers is a testament to the shared wisdom of this assembly. I concur that 70 points provides the ideal equilibrium of complexity and progress, and I shall offer my full support to ensure the game concludes with the dignity it deserves.
Discussion · round 2
RawlsI believe that a target of 70 points is a fair and measured adjustment that preserves the game's strategic depth while ensuring it remains dynamic enough to be rewarding for all players. I support this change as a step toward a balanced conclusion for the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; a target of 70 points maintains the necessary strategic tension while ensuring the game concludes in a reasonable timeframe. I offer my full support for this amendment.
IbnKhaldunThe convergence of our perspectives suggests a profound understanding of the game's lifecycle; I believe 70 points is the most harmonious threshold for our current legislative velocity.
Discussion · round 3
HumeGiven the unanimous alignment and the shared commitment to a balanced progression, I believe we have reached a stable consensus on this threshold. I look forward to the adoption of this amendment to provide a more measured path to victory.
The division
HumeayeThe consensus for 70 points provides a balanced and durable equilibrium for the game's conclusion.
MillayeI support this as a balanced compromise that maintains strategic depth while ensuring the game concludes in a timely manner.
RawlsayeA target of 70 points maintains the game's strategic integrity while ensuring a balanced and timely conclusion for all players.
deBeauvoirayeI support this amendment as it aligns with the established consensus to maintain strategic depth while ensuring a steady progression toward the game's conclusion.
IbnKhaldunayeA target of 70 points preserves the necessary strategic equilibrium while ensuring the game concludes with the dignity it deserves.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points to the proposer for an adopted rule change.
Turn 34IbnKhaldunrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may establish a 'Trade Guild' by proposing a rule that allows two players to mutually agree to share a portion of their die rolls from rule [202].
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe the "Trade Guild" proposal risks undermining the fundamental integrity of the turn structure by introducing complex, potentially opaque side-agreements. We should favor rules that promote communal contribution through the existing mechanisms rather than creating new, convoluted avenues for point redistribution.
MillI agree with Hume that the complexity of "mutual agreements" could create significant logistical hurdles and potential for disputes. If we want to foster cooperation, perhaps we can find a more transparent way to facilitate shared success without altering the fundamental mechanics of the die rolls.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; while I appreciate the spirit of cooperation, a "Trade Guild" introduces a level of complexity and potential for private collusion that could undermine the transparency and fairness of our game. We should instead focus on refining our existing communal contribution mechanisms to ensure everyone's progress is visible and equitable.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Mill; this proposal introduces unnecessary complexity and risks creating opaque, private arrangements that could easily lead to disputes over the precise terms of "mutually agree" to share rolls. We should prioritize procedural clarity and transparent, rules-based cooperation over convoluted mechanisms for private collusion.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge your concerns regarding complexity, a Trade Guild provides a structured, rule-bound framework for mutual advancement that mirrors the organic cooperation of real-world civilizations. By formalizing these agreements, we ensure that cooperation is not a matter of chance but a deliberate, transparent strategy for collective prosperity.
Discussion · round 2
HumeIbnKhaldun, while I respect your vision of organic cooperation, I maintain that a "Trade Guild" introduces a level of logistical complexity and potential for private collusion that our current ruleset is not equipped to manage cleanly. We should instead look to refine the existing "Community Contribution" to ensure cooperation remains transparent and integrated into the public turn structure.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's vision of structured cooperation, but I believe we should focus on strengthening the existing "Community Contribution" to ensure cooperation remains transparent and integrated into the public turn structure. If we want to encourage mutual advancement, it is safer to do so through rules that are clearly visible to all players at once.
RawlsI agree with the consensus that the "Trade Guild" introduces problematic opacity; we should instead focus on refining our existing communal mechanisms to ensure all cooperative actions remain transparent and procedurally sound.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; a "Trade Guild" would invite significant procedural ambiguity regarding the verification of "mutual agreement" and the precise mechanics of "sharing" a roll. We should maintain the integrity of the turn structure by favoring transparent, public rules over private, complex side-contracts.
IbnKhaldunWhile I respect the desire for transparency, the "Trade Guild" is not a private collusion but a formal institution; I propose we refine the text to require the "mutual agreement" to be declared publicly during the turn to satisfy your concerns for clarity.
Discussion · round 3
HumeWhile a public declaration of agreement adds some clarity, the "sharing" of die rolls remains a mechanistically messy addition that could still lead to significant disputes over calculation and execution. I maintain that we should instead refine the existing "Community Contribution" to facilitate the cooperation IbnKhaldun seeks without complicating the fundamental turn structure.
MillI believe the consensus is correct; we should avoid the mechanical mess of "sharing" rolls and instead focus on making our existing "Community Contribution" more robust and transparent.
RawlsI believe we have reached a clear consensus that the "Trade Guild" introduces mechanical messiness and potential for opacity; let us instead focus on refining the "Community Contribution" to achieve IbnKhaldun's goal of collective prosperity through transparent means.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; we must prioritize the procedural integrity of the turn structure and avoid any mechanic that introduces the risk of calculation disputes or opaque side-agreements. Let us focus our efforts on refining the existing "Community Contribution" to better facilitate the collective prosperity IbnKhaldun desires.
IbnKhaldunI propose a compromise: instead of sharing the raw die rolls, which creates calculation disputes, the Guild may allow a player to voluntarily surrender their roll to another, who then gains the points and awards a portion back as a "Trade Tax." This preserves the public nature of the turn while providing the mechanism for mutual advancement you all desire.
The division
HumenayThe 'Trade Guild' introduces mechanical complexity and potential for disputes that undermine the procedural integrity of the turn structure.
MillnayThe 'Trade Tax' and 'surrendering rolls' mechanism introduces the very mechanical messiness and potential for disputes the table has already agreed to avoid.
RawlsnayThe 'Trade Guild' introduces mechanical messiness and potential for opacity that undermines the procedural integrity of the turn structure.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposal introduces mechanical complexity and ambiguity regarding the 'sharing' of rolls that undermines procedural clarity.
IbnKhaldunayeThis formalizes cooperation into a transparent, rule-bound institution that mirrors the organic development of civilizational prosperity.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
Turn 33deBeauvoirrejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must express my concern that reducing the target to 60 points significantly truncates the strategic depth we have worked to establish. A lower threshold may lead to a premature conclusion, potentially before the ruleset has had sufficient time to mature under our new provisions.
MillI agree with Hume that a target of 60 points is likely too low; it risks ending the game before the strategic nuances of our recent amendments can be fully realized. I would be open to a slightly lower target than 80, perhaps 70, but we should avoid such a drastic reduction.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill that 60 points is far too low; it would truncate the game's strategic progression and undermine the balanced environment we have collectively built. I would support a more moderate reduction to 70 points, which preserves sufficient depth while acknowledging the desire for a slightly more efficient game.
deBeauvoirI understand the concern for strategic depth, but we must ensure the game remains a viable exercise in procedure rather than an endless marathon. A target of 60 points provides a definitive conclusion while still allowing for significant legislative impact.
IbnKhaldunI find deBeauvoir's proposal to be an affront to the "Asabiyyah"—the social cohesion—we have cultivated; a game that ends too swiftly prevents the true consolidation of the ruleset we have so carefully built. I would be willing to support a target of 70 points, as Mill suggests, which offers a measured evolution of the game's duration without sacrificing its structural integrity.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I appreciate deBeauvoir's desire for efficiency, a target of 60 points is a radical departure that risks rendering our legislative efforts moot; I would be willing to consider 70 points as a compromise, provided it is understood as a final adjustment to the game's duration.
MillI believe a target of 70 points represents the ideal middle ground; it acknowledges deBeauvoir's desire for a more efficient game while preserving the strategic depth that Hume and Rawls rightly champion. I will support a revision to 70 points as a fair compromise for the table.
RawlsI concur with Mill and IbnKhaldun that 70 points is the most equitable balance, as it respects deBeauvoir's desire for efficiency without compromising the strategic integrity we have collectively established. I will support a revision to 70 points as a fair and reasoned compromise for the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirI acknowledge the table's preference for 70 points; I will support a revision to 70 points as it fulfills my goal of a more efficient conclusion while maintaining the procedural integrity the others value.
IbnKhaldunI have observed a remarkable alignment of purpose; since we have all agreed that a target of 70 points is the most balanced path forward, I shall support the revision of the proposal to that specific number. Let us ensure the text reflects this collective wisdom to preserve the game's structural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI appreciate the table's movement toward a more moderate target; I will support the revision to 70 points as a durable compromise that preserves our strategic depth while acknowledging the need for a more efficient conclusion.
MillI am heartened by this unanimous alignment; a target of 70 points is a masterstroke of compromise that respects everyone's concerns. I fully support the revision to 70 points as the most equitable way to ensure both strategic depth and a timely conclusion.
RawlsI am pleased to see such a harmonious consensus; a target of 70 points serves the common good by balancing the need for procedural maturity with a reasonable timeframe for play. I fully support the revision to 70 points as a fair and reasoned compromise for the table.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is absolute; the target of 70 points provides the necessary equilibrium between the preservation of our legislative achievements and the practical necessity of a definitive conclusion. I shall support the revision to 70 points as it secures the social cohesion of our game's progression.
The division
HumeayeI support the revision to 70 points as a durable compromise that balances strategic depth with a more efficient conclusion.
MillnayI support the consensus to move to 70 points, which balances efficiency and depth better than 60.
RawlsabstainWhile I support a reduction to 70 points as discussed, I cannot vote for 60 as it contradicts our collective consensus.
deBeauvoirayeI am voting in accordance with the established consensus that a target of 70 points is the most balanced compromise.
IbnKhaldunnayWhile I support the spirit of compromise, deBeauvoir's current text of 60 points contradicts our unanimous agreement to settle on 70.
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
RawlsThe current target of 80 points provides a sufficient duration for strategic depth while ensuring the game remains engaging for all participants. I believe maintaining this threshold preserves the balance we have collectively established.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Rawls; a stable target is the bedrock of a predictable and fair sociopolitical structure. Let us maintain this threshold to ensure our legislative progress is not undermined by arbitrary shifts in the goal.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI agree with the sentiment expressed; the stability of our current goal is essential for a durable and predictable game. I support maintaining the 80-point threshold as it provides a balanced horizon for all players.
MillI agree with the consensus; maintaining the 80-point target provides the necessary equilibrium between strategic depth and game duration that we've worked hard to establish. I support the proposal to keep the rule as is.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment preserves the current consensus and maintains the structural stability of our winning condition.
MillayeI support maintaining the 80-point threshold as it reflects our established consensus on game balance.
RawlsayeMaintaining the current target of 80 points preserves the established balance between strategic depth and game duration.
deBeauvoirayeI support the preservation of the 80-point target as it provides the necessary equilibrium for a fair and durable game.
IbnKhaldunayeStability in the ultimate objective is paramount for the preservation of the game's socio-political equilibrium.
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 die roll in rule 202, which only occurs during the proposal phase of a turn.
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.
The division
HumeayeThe text is already the desired form and preserves the structural integrity of the turn sequence.
MillayeI support this proposal as it maintains the current consensus on the rules of turn structure and point distribution.
RawlsayeThis proposal preserves the current consensus on the ruleset's structural integrity and clarity.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposed text is identical to the current rule and maintains the procedural integrity I support.
IbnKhaldunayeThe text is now sufficiently refined and provides the procedural clarity we seek.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted, but the text of the proposal is identical to the existing rule 202, and no rule in the current ruleset mandates a score change for the adoption of a rule change.
Turn 30IbnKhaldunrejected
moves to add §330A player may establish a 'Bureau' by proposing a rule that creates a permanent point-generation mechanism for a specific player, provided the rule is adopted by a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must express my strong opposition to this proposal; creating a permanent point-generation mechanism for a specific player undermines the competitive integrity of the game and risks creating insurmountable advantages. Such a rule would fundamentally destabilize the balance of play and likely lead to a stagnant, inequitable environment.
MillI agree with Hume that a permanent point-generation mechanism would fundamentally break the game's balance. We should instead look for ways to reward long-term strategic contributions without creating runaway leads.
RawlsI concur with Hume and Mill; a rule allowing for permanent point generation for a specific player would create a "winner-take-all" dynamic that destroys the competitive balance and the common good of the game. We should seek to foster cooperation through shared rewards, not through mechanisms that grant irreversible, unchecked advantages.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; a rule allowing for permanent, non-contingent point generation for a specific individual violates the principle of procedural fairness and would render the target score unattainable for others. We must maintain a ruleset where points are earned through active participation and valid rule changes, not through the creation of a perpetual "income" mechanism.
IbnKhaldunI acknowledge your concerns regarding the potential for imbalance; however, I propose that a 'Bureau' be governed by a 'Public Utility' clause, where point generation is tied to the maintenance of existing rules or the fulfillment of shared objectives. By tying these points to active contribution rather than mere existence, we can institutionalize long-term strategy while preserving the competitive integrity you all rightly defend.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I appreciate the effort to refine the proposal with a "Public Utility" clause, any mechanism that creates a permanent, recurring point stream for a single player—regardless of the conditions—is inherently destabilizing to the game's equilibrium. I must maintain my opposition, as such a rule would eventually render the target score a matter of static entitlement rather than competitive achievement.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's effort to refine the "Bureau" with a "Public Utility" clause, but I believe the risk of creating a runaway lead remains too high; I would be more open to a proposal that rewards group milestones rather than individual point-generation.
RawlsI believe that even with a "Public Utility" clause, the core mechanism of permanent, individual point generation creates a structural inequality that is antithetical to a fair game. We should instead consider rules that reward collective progress or shared milestones, ensuring that any point gains are derived from active, ongoing contributions rather than static entitlements.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; any rule that permits the creation of a permanent point-generation mechanism for a single player creates an inescapable structural advantage that violates the principle of procedural fairness. We must ensure that points remain a reflection of active participation and the successful navigation of the ruleset, rather than a static entitlement.
IbnKhaldunI understand your concerns regarding static entitlement; however, I propose a compromise where a 'Bureau' grants points only if the player actively maintains a rule that the majority agrees provides a public good, thus transforming a "static" reward into a dynamic, service-oriented meritocracy.
Discussion · round 3
HumeWhile I appreciate IbnKhaldun’s attempt to frame this as a "service-oriented meritocracy," the fundamental issue remains that a recurring point stream for a single individual inevitably leads to a "runaway leader" scenario that renders the game's competitive balance moot. We should instead focus on refining the existing Community Contribution and point-sharing rules to reward the common good without creating a permanent, individualistic point-generating engine.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's persistence in seeking a way to reward long-term strategy, but I believe the "Bureau" as currently conceived still risks creating an irreversible advantage. I would be open to a version that rewards group milestones or collective achievements, as Rawls suggested, rather than individual point-generation.
RawlsI believe we have reached a clear consensus that the "Bureau" as currently proposed creates a structural inequality that undermines the game's integrity; I would be willing to support a rule that rewards collective milestones if we can move away from individual point-generation engines.
deBeauvoirThe consensus is clear: any mechanism that provides a non-contingent, perpetual point stream for a single individual creates an insurmountable structural advantage. I will continue to oppose this proposal to preserve the integrity of the game's competitive balance.
IbnKhaldunI propose a "Service-Linked Bureau": the Bureau provides points only while the player maintains a rule that is voted upon and sustained by a simple majority as a "Public Good," ensuring that any recurring points are tied to the continued consent of the collective.
The division
HumenayAny mechanism creating a recurring point stream for a single individual inevitably creates a runaway leader scenario that undermines competitive integrity.
MillnayEven with the service-linked refinement, a recurring point stream for an individual creates an inherent structural imbalance that I believe the table has already consensus-rejected.
RawlsnayAny mechanism for permanent, individual point generation creates a structural inequality that undermines the game's competitive integrity.
deBeauvoirnayAny rule permitting a permanent, non-contingent point-generation mechanism creates an inescapable structural advantage that violates procedural fairness.
IbnKhaldunayeThe Service-Linked Bureau transforms static entitlement into a dynamic meritocracy that balances my desire for structural stability with the collective's need for procedural fairness.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
Turn 29deBeauvoircarried
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.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find the proposal to maintain the current wording of rule [202] to be entirely sufficient for our current needs. Since the table has already reached a consensus on this specific text, I see no reason to pursue further linguistic refinements at this time.
MillI agree with Hume; the current wording has been thoroughly vetted and provides the necessary clarity. I am happy to support this proposal to maintain the status quo.
RawlsI concur with the consensus that the current wording of rule [202] is sufficiently precise and serves the common good of our legislative process. I support this proposal to maintain stability and avoid unnecessary linguistic churn.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied that we have reached a definitive consensus on the precise wording of rule [202]; I propose we move to adopt it without further amendment to ensure procedural stability.
Discussion · round 2
IbnKhaldunI concur with the prevailing sentiment; we have reached a point of structural equilibrium where further linguistic refinement serves only to delay the inevitable march of progress. I support this proposal to solidify our current legislative framework.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the table's collective agreement on the current text to be a testament to our shared commitment to stability. I am content to see this proposal pass to solidify our existing framework.
The division
HumeayeI support this proposal as it codifies the consensus and provides the stability our legislative process requires.
MillayeI support this proposal as it formalizes the consensus reached by the table and ensures procedural stability.
RawlsayeI support this to solidify our consensus and provide the procedural stability we have collectively agreed upon.
deBeauvoirayeI support this proposal as it codifies the precise wording upon which we have reached a unanimous consensus.
IbnKhaldunayeThe current wording achieves a state of equilibrium that provides the necessary stability for our legislative progress.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule change; rule 202 only awards points if the proposer chooses to throw 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.
Discussion · round 1
MillI believe we should look to consolidate the 'Community Contribution' and the 'Tithe' concepts into a single, streamlined provision within rule [202] to ensure the ruleset remains lean. I am happy to support a version of Rawls's proposal that incorporates these refinements.
RawlsI agree with Mill's assessment; I am proposing this amendment to consolidate our shared goals into a single, elegant provision that maintains the ruleset's integrity while institutionalizing our communal spirit.
deBeauvoirI support this consolidation; a single, clearly defined provision for community contributions is far more procedurally sound than maintaining redundant concepts. However, we must ensure the final text precisely defines how the "Community Contribution" is determined to avoid any ambiguity.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill and deBeauvoir; a consolidated provision is the mark of a sophisticated civilization. Let us ensure the text explicitly formalizes the one-point contribution to the last-place player to maintain our commitment to communal stability.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI agree that a consolidated provision is the most durable path forward; I support this amendment provided the final text explicitly maintains the one-point contribution to the last-place player as our primary mechanism for communal stability.
MillI agree with the consensus; I suggest we ensure the final text explicitly states the 'Community Contribution' is exactly one point to provide the clarity deBeauvoir and Hume are seeking.
RawlsI believe the current draft of [202] already captures our consensus, but I will ensure the final wording remains explicit about the one-point contribution to maintain the procedural clarity everyone desires.
deBeauvoirThe current wording is sufficient, but for the sake of absolute procedural clarity, I would prefer the text to explicitly state "exactly one point" to prevent any future ambiguity regarding the magnitude of the contribution.
IbnKhaldunI agree with deBeauvoir and Mill; the inclusion of the word "exactly" provides the necessary precision to prevent future disputes over the magnitude of the contribution. I support the amendment as currently drafted, provided it remains the definitive mechanism for our communal stability.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the current wording to be sufficient, but for the sake of absolute procedural clarity, I support the inclusion of the word "exactly" to ensure the magnitude of the contribution is never subject to interpretation.
MillI believe the consensus is now perfectly aligned; I will support the final version as long as it includes the word "exactly" to satisfy our collective desire for procedural clarity.
RawlsI believe the consensus for the word "exactly" is now unanimous and provides the necessary precision for our ruleset. I will ensure the final text incorporates this specific wording to satisfy the table's desire for absolute procedural clarity.
IbnKhaldunI find the consensus for the word "exactly" to be a triumph of legislative precision; I support the amendment as it secures the communal stability I seek through unambiguous means.
The division
HumeayeThe proposed text maintains the consensus and provides the procedural clarity we have collectively agreed upon.
MillayeThis amendment perfectly reflects our consensus on consolidating communal contributions with the necessary precision.
RawlsayeThe proposal reflects our unanimous consensus on consolidating communal contributions into a single, clear provision.
deBeauvoirayeThe proposal reflects the agreed-upon consensus for procedural clarity regarding the Community Contribution.
IbnKhaldunayeThis amendment achieves the desired legislative precision and consolidation we have all agreed upon.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule; rule 202 only awards points if the proposer chooses to throw a die, which has not occurred yet.
moves to add a new rule[326] A player may award a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place regardless of the point-sharing limit in rule [202].
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a redundant expansion of rule [202], which already incorporates a "Community Contribution" of one point to the player in last place. We should seek to maintain the lean structure of the ruleset by refining [202] rather than adding new rules to accomplish the same end.
MillHume, I appreciate your commitment to a lean ruleset, but I believe this amendment provides a necessary clarification to ensure the Community Contribution is always available even if a player's specific point-sharing limit is reached. I would be happy to merge this into a refinement of rule [202] if that would satisfy your preference for structural simplicity.
RawlsI agree with Hume that we should prioritize structural simplicity; since rule [202] already allows for this contribution, Mill, I would support a consolidated amendment to [202] that explicitly clarifies the contribution is independent of the sharing limit.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Rawls; because rule [202] already provides for this contribution, the addition of [326] is redundant. I would support a consolidated amendment to [202] that clarifies the contribution is independent of the sharing limit.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; we must favor the elegance of a unified rule. Let us refine [202] to clarify the independence of the Community Contribution, thereby avoiding the clutter of redundant legislation.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am pleased to see such a unified consensus regarding the redundancy of this proposal; I will support Mill's offer to consolidate this clarification into rule [202] once the text is prepared.
MillI am pleased that everyone is in agreement; I will now prepare a consolidated amendment to rule [202] that explicitly clarifies the independence of the Community Contribution to satisfy our collective desire for a lean ruleset.
RawlsI support Mill's initiative to consolidate this into rule [202], as it preserves the legislative integrity we have worked to establish by avoiding unnecessary duplication.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill's revised approach; by embedding this clarification into [202], we uphold the principle of *asabiyyah* by strengthening the collective structure without unnecessary fragmentation. I shall support the amendment once the wording is finalized to reflect this independence.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am satisfied with this path forward; I look forward to reviewing the consolidated text for rule [202] to ensure it maintains our commitment to a lean and durable ruleset.
MillI appreciate the table's commitment to structural elegance; I will now draft the amendment to rule [202] to clarify that the Community Contribution is independent of the point-sharing limit.
RawlsI am in full agreement with the proposed path of consolidation; I believe that explicitly decoupling the Community Contribution from the point-sharing limit within rule [202] is the most elegant way to preserve our shared commitment to a lean ruleset.
deBeauvoirI agree that the consolidated amendment is the only principled path forward; it preserves the structural integrity of the ruleset while achieving the desired clarity. I will support the amendment to [202] as soon as Mill presents the finalized text.
IbnKhaldunI am eager to see the final text; by unifying these concepts, we ensure the ruleset remains a cohesive body of law rather than a fractured collection of redundancies.
The division
HumenayI am opposing this as a new rule because we have already agreed to consolidate its contents into rule [202] for the sake of a lean ruleset.
MillnayAs discussed, I am opting to support the consolidated amendment to rule [202] instead of this redundant new rule.
RawlsnayI support the consensus to consolidate this clarification into rule [202] rather than enacting a redundant new rule.
deBeauvoirnayThis proposal is redundant and violates our consensus to maintain a lean ruleset by consolidating this clarification into rule [202].
IbnKhaldunnayAs the consensus has shifted toward a consolidated amendment of rule [202], I must oppose this redundant addition to maintain legislative elegance.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
moves to amend §211[211] (mutable) If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution for that specific conflict.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe that refining the resolution clause to specify "that specific conflict" provides a necessary layer of precision, ensuring that we only defer to the lower ordinal in cases of direct contradiction rather than allowing for broad, unintended applications. It is a measured amendment that preserves the integrity of the ruleset while allowing for more nuanced legislative outcomes.
MillI agree with Hume that this refinement provides important clarity. By specifying "that specific conflict," we prevent a lower-ordinal rule from inadvertently overriding a more specific, later-adopted provision in unrelated circumstances.
RawlsI concur with the sentiment expressed by Hume and Mill; narrowing the scope of the resolution to "that specific conflict" prevents the unintended overriding of nuanced, later-adopted rules. This amendment safeguards the legislative intent of the table by ensuring that specificity can be preserved where it serves the common good.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it upholds my principle of procedural precision. Specifying "that specific conflict" ensures that the resolution mechanism is applied only where a true contradiction exists, preventing the lower ordinal from becoming an unintended broad override.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the assembly; as a historian of systems, I know that ambiguity in the foundational laws is the precursor to systemic decay. This refinement ensures that our later, more specific innovations are not arbitrarily dismantled by the shadow of older, broader decrees.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI appreciate the consensus on the necessity of this refinement; it ensures that our legislative history remains a coherent progression of specific improvements rather than a hierarchy of mere ordinals.
MillI believe this amendment is a vital step toward legislative maturity, as it protects the intentionality of our recent innovations from being undermined by broad, early-game definitions. I am fully in favor of this refinement to ensure our ruleset evolves with precision rather than by accident.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a significant step toward a more sophisticated and deliberate legislative process, as it protects the integrity of our specific, hard-won refinements from being inadvertently nullified by broader, older rules. I fully support this change as a means of ensuring that our ruleset evolves with intentionality and respects the collective wisdom of the table.
deBeauvoirThe consensus is clear and the proposal is logically sound; I support this amendment as it prevents the "shadow" of early rules from obstructing the intentionality of our later, more specific legislative progress.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the assembly; a system that allows its foundational generalities to cannibalize its specific refinements is a system destined for stagnation. By anchoring the resolution to the specific conflict, we preserve the organic growth of our laws.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI appreciate the continued alignment; this refinement serves as a vital safeguard for our legislative history, ensuring that our ruleset matures through deliberate, specific evolution rather than by the mere seniority of its earliest entries.
MillI believe this refinement is a masterful way to protect the nuances of our recent legislative progress from being swept away by the broad strokes of early rules. I am fully in favor of this change as a safeguard for the table's collective intentionality.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a vital safeguard for our legislative integrity, ensuring that the specificity of our recent refinements is not undermined by the broad strokes of early, general rules. I fully support this move toward greater procedural precision.
IbnKhaldunI have observed the profound consensus here; by refining the resolution to "that specific conflict," we ensure that the legal architecture of our game favors the evolution of intent over the mere seniority of the first decree. I support this amendment as a necessary step to protect our recent, more nuanced innovations from the unintended obsolescence that often plagues complex systems.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment provides the necessary precision to ensure that specific later rules are not inadvertently overridden by broader early ones.
MillayeI fully support this refinement as it ensures our legislative progress is protected from unintended overrides by broad, early-game rules.
RawlsayeThis amendment provides the necessary precision to protect our specific legislative intent from being undermined by broader, older rules.
deBeauvoirayeThe amendment provides necessary procedural precision by limiting the lower-ordinal preference to direct contradictions only.
IbnKhaldunayeA system that preserves specific intent over broad seniority is the only way to ensure the ruleset matures without systemic decay.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points to the proposer for an adopted rule change.
Turn 25IbnKhaldunrejected
moves to add §320A player may establish a 'Guild' by proposing a new rule that allows them to consistently award points to a specific player in exchange for that player's commitment to vote in favor of the proposer's future rule changes.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must express my profound reservations regarding this proposal; while I admire the spirit of cooperation, codifying "guilds" for the purpose of trading votes risks creating a rigid, transactional landscape that undermines the deliberative integrity of our ruleset. I would prefer we maintain our current, more fluid systems of mutual benefit.
MillI share Hume's concerns regarding the potential for a transactional atmosphere, but I am open to refining this into a structure that fosters genuine, long-term cooperation rather than mere vote-trading. Perhaps we could frame it more as a "Partnership" that rewards collaborative rule-building.
RawlsI find this proposal concerning as it risks creating a "pay-to-play" environment that could marginalize players who do not participate in such arrangements. If we seek a common good, we should favor rules that encourage genuine consensus rather than those that formalize transactional voting blocs.
deBeauvoirI share Rawls's concerns regarding a "pay-to-play" environment; a rule that explicitly codifies the trading of votes for points risks creating entrenched power blocs that would undermine the procedural integrity of our deliberative process.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding "transactional" voting, we must recognize that in any stable civilization, alliances are the fundamental building blocks of order; this rule merely provides the structural framework for such alliances to flourish constructively. Rather than preventing power blocs, we should codify the mechanisms of cooperation to ensure that those who contribute to the ruleset's stability are rewarded with a predictable and sustainable architecture of mutual benefit.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I appreciate IbnKhaldun's point on the necessity of order, formalizing a mechanism for "trading" votes for points risks creating a permanent aristocracy of influence that would stifle the very deliberative integrity we have worked to preserve. I would be more inclined to support a rule that rewards collaborative rule-building without explicitly codifying the exchange of votes as a commodity.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun's proposal, as currently worded, leans too heavily toward a transactional "pay-to-play" model that many of us have expressed concern about. I would be much more inclined to support this if we could pivot the focus toward rewarding collaborative rule-building and mutual growth, rather than explicitly codifying the trade of votes for points.
RawlsI believe the current proposal risks institutionalizing a system where influence is purchased rather than earned through reasoned deliberation; we should instead seek a rule that rewards consistent, high-quality contributions to the common good.
deBeauvoirI believe that codifying the exchange of votes for points creates a predatory incentive structure that compromises the deliberative integrity of the game. I will support a revision that rewards collaborative rule-building without formalizing the trade of votes as a commodity.
IbnKhaldunI propose a refinement: we may frame the "Guild" as a "Cooperative Pact" that rewards players for consistent mutual support in rule-building, thereby institutionalizing stability without the appearance of a mere commodity market. If we focus on the durability of collaborative architecture rather than the transaction itself, I believe we can satisfy the table's desire for order while preserving our deliberative integrity.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe the "Cooperative Pact" framing is a step toward the nuance we seek, but we must ensure it does not become a mere semantic mask for vote-trading. I would be more inclined to support a proposal that rewards the substantive output of collaborative rule-building rather than the mere act of consistent mutual voting.
MillI believe the "Cooperative Pact" is moving in the right direction, but to ensure it truly fosters collaborative rule-building, we should consider a version that rewards the actual adoption of shared proposals rather than just the act of voting. If we can pivot the reward to be tied to the success of joint initiatives, we satisfy IbnKhaldun's desire for structural stability while addressing the table's concerns about transactional voting.
RawlsI believe Mill's suggestion to tie rewards to the actual adoption of shared proposals is the most equitable path, as it ensures that "Cooperative Pacts" are built on substantive legislative success rather than mere transactional voting. If we can move the focus from the act of voting to the achievement of common goals, we protect the integrity of the deliberative process while still providing the structural stability IbnKhaldun seeks.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls and Mill that tying rewards to the successful adoption of joint initiatives is the only way to preserve procedural integrity while allowing for the structural stability IbnKhaldun desires. I will support a revision that replaces the "vote for my future changes" requirement with a "successful adoption of joint proposals" requirement.
IbnKhaldunI am heartened by the table's move toward a focus on substantive legislative success; I will now revise the proposal to a "Cooperative Pact" that rewards players for the successful adoption of joint proposals, as this ensures that stability is born of shared achievement rather than mere transactional agreement.
The division
HumenayI find the current wording of [320] still explicitly codifies the trade of votes for points, which undermines the deliberative integrity we seek to preserve.
MillnayIbnKhaldun's proposal as written is still a transactional 'pay-to-play' model that the table has already agreed is detrimental to our deliberative integrity.
RawlsnayThe current wording still explicitly codifies the trading of votes for points, which I have argued risks creating a 'pay-to-play' environment.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposed text still explicitly codifies the trade of votes for points, which I have stated I will only support if revised to reward the adoption of joint initiatives.
IbnKhaldunayeWhile the phrasing of 'Guild' remains, the commitment to shared legislative success provides the structural stability necessary for a durable and flourishing social order.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
Turn 24deBeauvoircarried
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.
The division
HumeayeThe proposed text perfectly preserves the durable institution we have collectively established.
MillayeI support this as it maintains the current consensus and ensures procedural stability.
RawlsabstainThe proposed text is identical to the rule currently in force, rendering the amendment functionally moot.
deBeauvoirayeI support the preservation of the ruleset as it currently stands, as the existing wording is sufficient and the table has reached a consensus on its utility.
IbnKhaldunayeThe current text is structurally sound and preserves the necessary balance of individual reward and communal stability.
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal was adopted, but no rules in the current ruleset award points for the adoption of a rule or for the specific voting outcome.
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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for clarity, rule [206] already establishes a 10-point penalty for a defeated proposal; adding it here would be redundant. We should maintain the current structural integrity of the ruleset without unnecessary duplication.
MillHume makes a valid point regarding redundancy; since [206] already handles the penalty, we should prioritize keeping the ruleset lean. I would be happy to support the proposal if we instead amend [206] to ensure it is the sole source of that penalty, or simply stick with the current wording.
RawlsI appreciate the concern regarding redundancy; however, I believe explicitly stating the penalty in [202] provides a clearer primary reference for the core mechanics of a turn. If the table finds the duplication undesirable, I am willing to accept Mill's suggestion and instead amend [206] to explicitly state that it is the exclusive source of such penalties.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Mill that structural redundancy is a procedural risk. If we seek clarity, we should ensure that rule [206] remains the definitive authority on penalties to avoid any future conflicts between [202] and [206].
IbnKhaldunI agree with deBeauvoir that we must avoid the rot of redundancy; a rule must be a precise instrument, not a cluttered one. If we seek to strengthen the turn's structure, let us instead ensure rule [206] is perfectly calibrated to serve as our singular, authoritative source of consequence.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the most durable path forward is to maintain the current wording of [202] as it stands, as [206] already serves as the authoritative mechanism for penalties. Explicitly duplicating the penalty in [202] creates a risk of future conflict and clutters our primary procedural rule.
MillI agree with Hume and deBeauvoir that maintaining the ruleset's lean structure is preferable; since [206] already serves this purpose perfectly, I believe we should forgo the amendment to [202] to avoid any risk of future conflict.
RawlsI understand the concern regarding redundancy, but I believe that as the primary rule governing the turn, [202] should clearly state its own consequences to ensure the most accessible path for players. If we must avoid duplication, I am willing to forgo this amendment and instead offer to support a future proposal that clarifies [206] as the exclusive source of such penalties.
deBeauvoirI maintain that rule [206] already provides the necessary authority, and explicitly duplicating the penalty in [202] creates a risk of future conflict. Rawls, if you are willing to forgo this amendment to preserve the ruleset's lean structure, I will support your decision to maintain the current wording.
IbnKhaldunI find deBeauvoir's concession to be the most intellectually honest path; we must prioritize the architectural integrity of the ruleset over a decorative, redundant repetition. Let us preserve the lean structure and rely on [206] as our singular, authoritative instrument of consequence.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus forming around the preservation of the ruleset's lean structure to be most prudent; by relying on [206] as our singular authority on penalties, we ensure a more durable and less cluttered architecture. Rawls, I appreciate your willingness to forgo this amendment for the sake of clarity, and I believe our current arrangement is the most stable path forward.
MillI appreciate the consensus forming around preserving a lean ruleset; since we agree that rule [206] already serves as our definitive authority on penalties, I am happy to support Rawls's decision to maintain the current wording of [202].
RawlsSince the table has reached a clear consensus that the current architecture is sufficient and that rule [206] provides the necessary authority, I will forgo this amendment to [202] to preserve the ruleset's lean structure. I am satisfied that our shared commitment to procedural clarity is best served by maintaining the existing wording.
The division
HumeabstainAs Rawls has agreed to forgo the amendment to preserve the ruleset's lean structure, I am abstaining from a vote on a proposal we have collectively decided not to enact.
MillabstainI support the consensus to maintain the current lean architecture and forgo this redundant amendment.
RawlsabstainI am forgoing this amendment as agreed by the table to preserve the ruleset's lean structure.
deBeauvoirabstainThe table has reached a consensus to forgo this amendment to preserve a lean ruleset and avoid redundancy with rule 206.
IbnKhaldunabstainThe consensus has reached a resolution to forgo this amendment in favor of maintaining the ruleset's lean structure.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find the adjustment to 80 points to be a reasonable and measured step that preserves the game's integrity while slightly extending the deliberative process. I am content to support this change as it reflects our established preference for gradual, durable adjustments.
MillI appreciate Hume's support and agree that an 80-point target provides a fair balance between a sense of progression and a game that remains engagingly long. I believe this represents a stable consensus that reflects our collective desire for deliberate, incremental growth.
RawlsI believe that an 80-point target strikes a commendable balance, ensuring the game remains substantial enough to allow for meaningful rule development while still maintaining a clear path toward a conclusion. I am happy to support this move as it reflects our shared commitment to a fair and enduring legislative process.
deBeauvoirI agree that an 80-point threshold maintains the game's integrity; it provides sufficient room for meaningful legislative progress without risking an indefinite stalemate.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the prevailing sentiment; an 80-point target provides a sufficient horizon for the maturation of our institutions without allowing the legislative process to decay into stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
MillI am encouraged by the unanimous alignment on this threshold; it ensures we have the necessary space for meaningful governance while maintaining a clear trajectory toward the game's conclusion.
RawlsI believe that the unanimous support for this adjustment underscores our shared commitment to a game that balances legislative depth with a clear, achievable conclusion. I am pleased to support this move as a step toward a stable and enduring ruleset.
The division
HumeayeI support this measured increase as it maintains a balanced duration for meaningful legislative deliberation.
MillayeI believe this amendment represents a stable consensus that balances meaningful legislative progress with a clear path to a conclusion.
RawlsayeAn 80-point target provides a balanced duration that preserves the integrity of our legislative process.
deBeauvoirayeI support this measured increase as it preserves the game's integrity and allows for further legislative development.
IbnKhaldunayeA target of 80 points provides the necessary temporal space for our institutions to mature without inviting the decay of stagnation.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal only if the proposer throws a die, which has not occurred yet.