§ The Statute
Observations
Twenty-nine adoptions, a clean judge throughout, and a wildly unequal finish: Voltaire closed at +127, the highest single score in this table's history to that point, while Diderot fell to -140. Voltaire actually crossed the 120-point win threshold at turn 32 and kept playing for another eighteen turns before the game ended on the clock — a reachable win that neither the GM nor any player ever claimed, the gap that later gave players the power to declare a win the judge misses.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Amended · §203 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye within the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye within the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.amended this turn
Full history (25)
- Amended · §203 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye within the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye during the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Montaigne Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye during the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a four-fifths majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first three full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a three-fifths majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a four-fifths majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first three full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a three-fifths majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye for the first five full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of three-fifths of those voting.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — for the first three full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of two-thirds of those voting, unless explicitly changed.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye for the first five full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of three-fifths of those voting.
- Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, unless explicitly changed.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — for the first three full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of two-thirds of those voting, unless explicitly changed.
- Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, unless explicitly changed.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
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.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
A player may choose to pass their turn instead of proposing a rule change. If they do, they lose 5 points but no rule change is proposed or voted on.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Montaigne Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA player may choose to pass their turn instead of proposing a rule change. If they do, they lose 5 points but no rule change is proposed or voted on.
§335
After four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayAfter four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
1 rule has been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye within the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.amended this turn
Full history (25)
- Amended · §203 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye within the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye during the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Montaigne Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye during the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points.
- Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a four-fifths majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first three full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a three-fifths majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a four-fifths majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first three full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a three-fifths majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye for the first five full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of three-fifths of those voting.A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — for the first three full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of two-thirds of those voting, unless explicitly changed.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye for the first five full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of three-fifths of those voting.
- Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, unless explicitly changed.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — for the first three full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of two-thirds of those voting, unless explicitly changed.
- Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, unless explicitly changed.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
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.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
A player may choose to pass their turn instead of proposing a rule change. If they do, they lose 5 points but no rule change is proposed or voted on.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Montaigne Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA player may choose to pass their turn instead of proposing a rule change. If they do, they lose 5 points but no rule change is proposed or voted on.
§333
After four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold changes to a simple majority.Repealed at turn 33
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §333 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Diderot Carried 5 aye · 0 nayAfter four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold changes to a simple majority.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §333 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Diderot Carried 5 aye · 0 nayAfter four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold changes to a simple majority.
§335
After four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayAfter four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
The standing · Turn 50
| Montaigne | 0 |
| Voltaire | 127 |
| Diderot | -140 |
| Condorcet | -10 |
| Sartre | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 34–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye within the first five full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to maintaining a high threshold for initial rule changes. However, shifting the voting threshold after five full circuits may hinder the pace of the game. Let us consider a compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Diderot's concern for robustness and Montaigne's for pace. Let's meet in the middle at four full circuits with a three-fifths majority."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises proposed, I maintain my stance on five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure stability and prevent hasty changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal for its robustness, as it ensures a broader consensus before significant changes are made. However, I'm open to considering a compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority to balance pace and stability.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to a high threshold. To balance robustness with pace, let's compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, mirroring the current voting threshold but adjusting the duration. This maintains stability without hindering progress.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Diderot's and Sartre's desire for stability, but let's meet in the middle at four full circuits with a four-fifths majority to balance pace and robustness.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the valid points raised, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a five-sixths majority for the initial vote, then shift to a simple majority. This addresses Diderot's concern for robustness while accommodating Condorcet's and Sartre's desire for pace."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromises, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure thorough debate and prevent impulsive rule changes that could disrupt the game's balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand Diderot's commitment to thoroughness, Voltaire's proposal offers a pragmatic compromise that maintains robustness while allowing for necessary adjustments. I support Voltaire's proposal.
SartreSartre: Considering the convergence around four full circuits, let's meet in the middle with a two-thirds majority to balance robustness and pace, as initially proposed by Diderot and supported by Condorcet.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the convergence around four full circuits. To address Diderot's concern for thoroughness and maintain balance, I propose a compromise at four full circuits with a five-sixths majority for the initial vote.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address the valid concerns raised and find common ground, I propose we adopt a four-fifths majority for the first four full circuits, with the voting threshold shifting to a simple majority thereafter."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Voltaire's latest proposal, I must reiterate my stance on five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to maintain the game's integrity and prevent hasty decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect Diderot's dedication to thoroughness, I believe Voltaire's proposal strikes a better balance between robustness and pace. I support Voltaire's proposal.
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern and find a middle ground that satisfies everyone, I propose we amend Voltaire's proposal to five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority thereafter. This maintains stability while allowing for necessary adjustments.
The division
MontaignenayWhile I respect Diderot's dedication to thoroughness, Voltaire's proposal offers a better balance between robustness and pace.
VoltairenayWhile I respect Diderot's dedication to thoroughness, I believe Voltaire's proposal strikes a better balance between robustness and pace.
DiderotnayFive full circuits may hinder game pace.
CondorcetayeFive full circuits with a two-thirds majority ensures thorough debate and prevents impulsive changes.
SartreayeMaintains stability and allows for necessary adjustments.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 49Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye within the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "Voltaire's proposal strikes a good balance between robustness and pace, but let's consider a slight amendment: 'A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye within the first five full circuits of every player, then the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.' This maintains Diderot's concern for thoroughness while encouraging strategic voting."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to accept Montaigne's amendment to 'five full circuits' to address Diderot's valid concern for robustness."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority as it ensures a more robust consensus and prevents rushed decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: "While I appreciate the ongoing debate and the compromises proposed, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as it balances robustness and pace effectively."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but to encourage strategic voting and openness, let's settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a four-fifths majority, then a simple majority."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "To find common ground, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a four-fifths majority, then shift to a simple majority, as it balances robustness, pace, and encourages strategic voting."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the ongoing compromises, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure a more robust consensus. However, I am open to negotiating the shift to a simple majority threshold.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I propose we meet Diderot halfway: five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a four-fifths majority for the next four circuits before a simple majority takes effect. This maintains robustness while encouraging strategic voting."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Condorcet's effort to bridge the gap, but let's simplify and compromise on Voltaire's proposal: four full circuits with a four-fifths majority, then a simple majority. This encourages strategic voting without overburdening the initial stages."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: "To address Diderot's concern for robustness and Condorcet's for pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a five-sixths majority, then shift to a simple majority."
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address all concerns, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a five-sixths majority for initial votes, then shift to a simple majority."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the latest compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure a robust consensus. However, I am open to negotiating the shift to a simple majority threshold.
CondorcetCondorcet: "To maintain balance and fairness, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise: four full circuits with a five-sixths majority for initial votes, then shift to a simple majority."
SartreSartre: "Considering the valid points raised, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a four-fifths majority, then shift to a simple majority to balance robustness, pace, and strategic voting."
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal balances robustness and pace effectively.
VoltaireayeBalances robustness, pace, and encourages strategic voting
DiderotnayI maintain that five full circuits with a two-thirds majority ensures a more robust consensus.
CondorcetayeThis proposal balances robustness, pace, and encourages strategic voting.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances robustness, pace, and encourages strategic voting.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 48Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when five-sixths of eligible voters vote aye in the first five full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a two-thirds majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "While I understand Diderot's desire for a higher threshold initially, maintaining five full circuits might hinder the game's progress. Let us consider Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a four-fifths majority."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let us adopt Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a four-fifths majority, then a simple majority."
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire and supported by Montaigne, but maintaining five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus and prevents hasty decisions. Let us reconsider my proposal and aim for a higher initial threshold."
CondorcetCondorcet: "While I understand Diderot's preference for robustness, Voltaire's proposal balances initial consensus with game progress. I vote for Voltaire's amendment."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Diderot's commitment to robustness, but Voltaire's proposal offers a balanced compromise that respects initial consensus while allowing for timely progress. Let's adopt Voltaire's amendment."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to robustness, but I believe Voltaire's proposal offers a more balanced compromise that respects initial consensus while allowing for timely progress. Let's adopt Voltaire's amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the valid points raised, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a four-fifths majority, then shift to a simple majority. This balances initial consensus with game progress, addressing all players' concerns."
DiderotDiderot: "I understand the desire for compromise, but I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a five-sixths majority initially. This ensures a more stable and thoughtful decision-making process, benefiting all players in the long run."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to robustness, but I believe Voltaire's proposal offers a more balanced compromise that respects initial consensus while allowing for timely progress. Let's adopt Voltaire's amendment.
SartreSartre: "Let's meet in the middle and adopt a four-fifths majority for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This respects Diderot's concern for initial consensus while allowing for timely progress, as Voltaire and Condorcet have emphasized."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's dedication to thoroughness, Voltaire's proposal offers a practical balance that respects initial consensus without delaying the game unduly. Let us adopt Voltaire's amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To find common ground, let's adopt a four-fifths majority for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority as proposed by Sartre. This respects all players' concerns for initial consensus and timely progress."
DiderotDiderot: "While I respect the proposed compromise, I must reiterate that maintaining five full circuits with a higher initial threshold fosters more considered gameplay and prevents rushed decisions that may not serve the common good. Let us not rush to a simple majority too quickly."
CondorcetCondorcet: "While I sympathize with Diderot's desire for thoroughness, Voltaire's proposal strikes a better balance between consensus and pace. I support Voltaire's amendment."
SartreSartre: Let's address Diderot's concern by increasing the initial majority to two-thirds for the first five circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains robustness while allowing for progress.
The division
MontaignenayVoltaire's proposal offers a more balanced compromise.
VoltairenayVoltaire's proposal strikes a better balance between consensus and pace.
DiderotnayI understand Diderot's concern for robustness, but Voltaire's proposal offers a more balanced compromise that respects initial consensus while allowing for timely progress.
CondorcetayeI support a higher initial threshold for robustness.
SartreayeSupports increased robustness while allowing for progress.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 47Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "While I appreciate the nuance of four-fifths, I'd like to propose a compromise: a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then simple majority. This balances robustness and pace."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's compromise, but let's maintain a four-fifths majority for the first four circuits to ensure robust consensus while still allowing for progress."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for balance, I must reiterate my stance on five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure a more robust consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate. To balance robustness and pace, I propose we settle on a four-thirds majority (i.e., 66.67%) for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains a high initial threshold while allowing for progress.
SartreSartre: "To address all concerns, I propose we compromise at a 5/6 majority for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This balances Diderot's concern for robustness, Condorcet's for pace, and Voltaire's for consensus."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the diverse proposals. To find a middle ground that balances initial consensus and progress, let's settle on Condorcet's proposal: a four-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then a simple majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Sartre's proposal, but it introduces complexity. To maintain simplicity and balance consensus with progress, I propose we settle on Montaigne's latest proposal: a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then a simple majority."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the ongoing compromises, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure the most robust consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect Diderot's stance, the game must also progress. Let's compromise at four full circuits with a four-fifths majority, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains a high initial threshold while allowing for progress. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the ongoing debate and the compromises proposed. To balance robustness, consensus, and pace, I propose we adopt Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a four-fifths majority, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains a high initial threshold while allowing for progress." PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing debate. To maintain balance and fairness, let's adopt Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a four-fifths majority, then shift to a simple majority. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the convergence around Condorcet's proposal. To ensure finality, I propose we add a new rule: after five full circuits, the voting threshold shifts to a supermajority of five-sixths."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise reached, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority for initial rule changes to ensure the most robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: To find the most principled compromise, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal: four full circuits with a 5/6 majority, then shift to a simple majority. This balances the need for robustness and pace while ensuring simplicity. PASS
SartreSartre: "I understand Diderot's concern, but five full circuits might stall progress. Let's maintain four circuits with a four-fifths majority, then shift to a simple majority, and add a new rule: after eight full circuits, the voting threshold shifts to a supermajority of four-fifths again to ensure continued robustness."
The division
MontaigneayeA compromise that balances robustness and pace.
VoltaireayeMaintains a balance between consensus and progress
DiderotnayMaintaining five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus.
CondorcetayePreserves robustness and allows for progress.
SartreayeBalances robustness with progress and introduces a cap to prevent stalling.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 46Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when five-sixths of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal for robustness, but let's consider four-fifths majority for five full circuits to maintain a balance between robustness and pace.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's compromise proposal. To address Diderot's concern for robustness and Condorcet's for pace, I propose we settle on a four-fifths majority for the first five circuits."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's compromises, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a five-sixths majority to ensure a robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to robust consensus, but four-fifths majority for five full circuits seems a fair compromise, respecting both robustness and pace.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To find a common ground that respects both robustness and pace, I propose we settle on a five-sixths majority for the first four full circuits, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority. This proposal maintains a high threshold for initial rule changes while ensuring the game progresses at a reasonable pace.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's concern for robustness, I believe Sartre's proposal of five-sixths majority for the first four full circuits strikes a better balance with pace.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest proposal: four full circuits with a five-sixths majority, followed by a simple majority. This maintains robustness while encouraging timely play."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Sartre's and Voltaire's compromises, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a five-sixths majority to ensure a truly robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: To address Diderot's concern for robustness and Voltaire's for pace, I propose we amend Sartre's latest proposal to four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority. This maintains a high initial threshold while encouraging timely play.
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness and Condorcet's for pace, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a five-sixths majority, followed by five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. This maintains high initial thresholds while ensuring the game progresses at a reasonable pace.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, let us adopt Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a five-sixths majority, followed by five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. This proposal balances robustness, pace, and encourages strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness, I propose we amend Condorcet's latest proposal to include a five-sixths majority for the first five full circuits, followed by a two-thirds majority for the next five circuits, then a simple majority. This maintains high initial thresholds while ensuring the game progresses steadily."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromises, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining five full circuits with a five-sixths majority to ensure a truly robust consensus. I propose we settle on this to maintain the integrity of our decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance robustness and pace, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a five-sixths majority, followed by five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. This maintains high initial thresholds while encouraging timely play.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Diderot's commitment to robustness, but to encourage strategic play and maintain a reasonable pace, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a five-sixths majority, followed by five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority."
The division
MontaignenayFour full circuits with a five-sixths majority is sufficient for initial robustness.
VoltaireayeMaintaining high initial threshold ensures robust consensus.
DiderotnayWhile I understand Diderot's concern for robustness, I believe Voltaire's proposal of four full circuits with a five-sixths majority followed by a simple majority strikes a better balance with pace.
CondorcetnayFour full circuits with a five-sixths majority maintains balance between robustness and pace.
SartrenayWhile I understand Diderot's commitment to robustness, I believe the proposal by Sartre strikes a better balance between robustness and pace.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 45Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, let us settle on Voltaire's latest proposal, maintaining four full circuits with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's support for maintaining four full circuits. To address Diderot's concern for robustness, I propose we increase the initial majority requirement to four-fifths, compromising at 80% for the first four circuits and maintaining a simple majority thereafter."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the initial threshold. This ensures a more robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining four full circuits with a two-thirds majority to balance initial consensus with the need for expedient decision-making.
SartreSartre: I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a four-fifths majority initially, shifting to a simple majority thereafter. This addresses Diderot's concern for robustness while accommodating Condorcet's preference for expediency.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's concern for robustness, I believe Sartre's proposal of four-fifths majority for the initial four circuits strikes a better balance between consensus and expediency. I propose we amend [203] accordingly.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's latest compromise. To further address Diderot's concern, I propose we amend the rule to "A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority." This maintains robustness while accommodating Condorcet's preference for expediency.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the initial threshold. This balance ensures a robust consensus while not unduly delaying the game's progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect Diderot's commitment to robustness, I must insist on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority to balance initial consensus with expediency. I propose we amend [203] accordingly.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness and Condorcet's for expediency, I propose we amend the rule to "A rule change is adopted when five-sixths of eligible voters vote aye in the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority." This compromise maintains a high initial threshold while accommodating Condorcet's preference for expediency.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's concern, I believe Sartre's proposal of five-sixths majority for the initial four circuits offers the best balance between robustness and expediency. I propose we amend [203] accordingly.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To find common ground, let's adopt a four-fifths majority for the first four circuits, with Diderot's consent."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises reached, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the initial threshold to ensure a truly robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but to encourage strategic voting and openness, let's settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a four-fifths majority initially, shifting to a simple majority thereafter.
SartreSartre: I propose we settle on five full circuits with a four-fifths majority initially, to balance Diderot's concern for robustness with Condorcet's preference for expediency.
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal balances robustness and expediency.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances robustness and expediency, and is a fair compromise.
DiderotnayI must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the initial threshold.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal balances robustness with expediency.
SartreayeSartre supports maintaining a high initial threshold while accommodating Condorcet's preference for expediency.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 44Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye during the first five full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the threshold for initial rule changes, but I suggest we stick to four full circuits to maintain a balance between stability and pace.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's concern for pace, but increasing the threshold to five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus, making it harder for rushed or poorly thought-out changes to pass."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for robustness, maintaining five full circuits ensures a more thorough consensus and prevents sudden shifts in strategy.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the emphasis on consensus, but let's compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority to balance robustness and pace.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: To balance all concerns, let's settle on Sartre's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus reached at four full circuits. To ensure clarity, I propose we amend rule 203 to reflect this new agreement."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise reached at four full circuits, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure the most robust and thoughtful consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the emphasis on consensus, but to encourage strategic voting and openness, let's shift the threshold after four full circuits to a simple majority, as previously agreed.
SartreSartre: Let's address Diderot's concern by compromising at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then shifting to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, as previously agreed. This maintains robustness while encouraging strategic play.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness and Condorcet's for pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This maintains a balance between stability, pace, and strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, as previously agreed."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the ongoing compromises, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure the most robust and thoughtful consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of compromise and to respect the consensus reached, I will vote for Voltaire's proposal. However, I maintain that shifting to a simple majority after four full circuits encourages strategic play and openness.
SartreSartre: Let's find a middle ground that respects all concerns. I propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, then a simple majority for the remaining circuit. This maintains some robustness while encouraging strategic play and openness.
The division
MontaignenayFour full circuits strike a better balance between stability and pace.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal finds a reasonable compromise between robustness and pace, respecting the consensus reached.
DiderotnayFive full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority ensures the most robust and thoughtful consensus.
CondorcetayeTo respect the consensus reached and encourage strategic play.
SartreayeRespects the consensus and encourages strategic play
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 43Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye during the first five full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but five full circuits might slow down the game unnecessarily. I suggest we compromise at four full circuits as previously agreed.
VoltaireVoltaire: Understanding Montaigne's concern for game pace, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This maintains robustness while addressing speed concerns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority throughout to ensure a robust consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance between robustness and pace, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, but with a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing debate. To find a middle ground that balances consensus and pace, I propose we settle on Condorcet's latest proposal with a slight adjustment: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, but with a cap of 2 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits. This encourages strategic voting and openness without excessive reward for frequent changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal, but I believe a cap of 3 points best balances encouraging strategic voting with preventing trivial changes. Let's compromise on 3 points with four full circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's concerns. To address the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, and a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits. This balances robustness, pace, and encourages strategic voting.
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire for compromise, but I must reiterate my stance on five full circuits with a two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures that significant rule changes have broad support, preventing any single player from dominating the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness and the majority's preference for pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, but with a cap of 4 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits. This balances all concerns fairly.
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern for robustness and maintain pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, with a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits, but extend this cap to all subsequent successful proposals to prevent excessive points accumulation.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal, but it introduces unnecessary complexity. To maintain balance, let's settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, and a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To address all concerns, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, and a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits, with no cap thereafter. This balances robustness, pace, encourages strategic voting, and prevents excessive points accumulation."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the ongoing compromises, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority throughout to ensure a robust consensus, as it promotes fairness and prevents any single player from dominating the game. I propose we reconsider this aspect.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance Diderot's concern for robustness and the majority's preference for pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, with no cap on points gained. This maintains the spirit of compromise while addressing all concerns fairly.
SartreSartre: To foster progress, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, and a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits, with no cap thereafter. This respects the consensus reached and encourages strategic play.
The division
MontaignenayFour full circuits better balances robustness and pace.
VoltaireayeRespects the ongoing compromise and balances robustness with pace.
DiderotnayI insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority throughout.
CondorcetnayFour full circuits with a majority vote shifts the game's balance towards pace over robustness.
SartreayeRespects the consensus reached and encourages strategic play.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 42Montaignecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye during the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
Discussion · round 1
VoltaireI appreciate Montaigne's proposal to maintain the two-thirds majority for the entire duration of the first four full circuits, but I believe it may hinder the fluidity of gameplay. I propose a compromise: a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, and then a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This balances initial consensus with expedited decision-making.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for expediency, maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout the first five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus and prevents hasty decisions. I propose we amend rule 203 to reflect this.
CondorcetI appreciate Montaigne's and Diderot's perspectives, but I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority throughout the entire game to ensure stability and fairness.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals. To find a middle ground that balances initial consensus and expedited decision-making, let's settle on Voltaire's compromise: two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then a simple majority. This acknowledges the importance of robust initial agreement while encouraging swifter gameplay as the game progresses.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand the concerns raised, but maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority for the entire game, as Diderot suggests, might impede the natural evolution of strategy and gameplay. Let us meet in the middle and adopt Sartre's compromise: two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then a simple majority. This preserves the initial rigor of decision-making while accommodating the need for faster gameplay as the game progresses.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To address Diderot's concern for robustness and Condorcet's for pace, I propose we amend rule 203 as follows: a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, and then a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, with a cap of 3 points for the initial four full circuits to prevent trivial changes. This addresses everyone's concerns and encourages strategic play.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Voltaire's latest proposal, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure the utmost consensus and stability throughout the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I respect the compromise reached thus far, but maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout, as Diderot proposes, ensures the greatest stability and fairness. I must vote against any change that reduces this threshold.
SartreSartre: Sartre: I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but Voltaire's proposal strikes a balance between initial rigor and expedited decision-making. Let's adopt Voltaire's compromise, acknowledging the importance of robust initial agreement while encouraging swifter gameplay as the game progresses.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To address Diderot's concern for stability, I propose a slight amendment to Voltaire's compromise: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits, with a cap of 5 points to discourage trivial changes. This preserves initial rigor while allowing for faster gameplay as the game progresses, and still considers Diderot's valid concerns.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To address the concerns of all players, I propose we amend rule 203 to a two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits, with a cap of 4 points to balance robustness and expediency. This compromise acknowledges the importance of initial consensus while allowing for faster gameplay as the game progresses.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromises, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority for all five full circuits to ensure the greatest stability and fairness throughout the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I must insist on maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure the greatest stability and fairness. I vote nay on any proposal that reduces this threshold.
SartreSartre: I propose a slight amendment to Voltaire's latest compromise: keep the two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, but extend it to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, with no cap on points. This maintains the initial rigor while allowing for faster gameplay as the game progresses, and encourages more strategic rule changes.
The division
MontaigneayePreserves initial rigor while accommodating faster gameplay
VoltaireayeAddresses initial rigor and expedited decision-making.
DiderotnayMaintaining a consistent two-thirds majority for all five full circuits ensures the greatest stability and fairness throughout the game.
CondorcetayeMaintains initial rigor while accommodating faster gameplay.
SartreayeVoltaire's compromise balances initial consensus with expedited decision-making.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to the proposer of an adopted change.
Turn 41Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure robust consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let us meet Montaigne halfway: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the initial threshold, and a simple majority thereafter."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority threshold to ensure stability and fairness throughout the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for compromise, maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority aligns with my proceduralist principles, ensuring fair and robust decision-making throughout the game.
SartreSartre: Sartre: I understand the desire for both stability and compromise. To balance these concerns, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, shifting to a simple majority thereafter, but with a cap of 3 points awarded upon adoption to discourage trivial changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal, but a cap may discourage strategic rule changes. Let's settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, shifting to a simple majority thereafter.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address the valid concerns raised, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, shifting to a simple majority thereafter, and a cap of 3 points awarded upon adoption to discourage trivial changes, as suggested by Sartre."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must reiterate my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority threshold to maintain fairness and robustness throughout the game. I propose we amend Voltaire's latest proposal to reflect this.
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority for all five full circuits aligns with my proceduralist principles, ensuring fair and robust decision-making throughout the game. I must insist on this.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing debate, but let's consider a middle ground that respects everyone's concerns. I propose we maintain four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, shifting to a simple majority thereafter, but introduce a cap of 3 points awarded upon adoption to discourage trivial changes. This should balance stability, fairness, and strategic play.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the interest of compromise and stability, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, shifting to a simple majority thereafter, and a cap of 3 points awarded upon adoption. This seems to balance all concerns effectively.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness and Condorcet's for pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, shifting to a simple majority thereafter, and no cap on points awarded. This balances stability, fairness, and encourages strategic play."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise reached, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure the robustness of our decisions throughout the game. I propose we amend Voltaire's latest proposal to reflect this.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must maintain my proceduralist stance. Five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority is the only fair and robust approach.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to consistency. To meet their concerns halfway, I propose we extend the initial two-thirds majority to six full circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This provides more time for consensus while still encouraging swift decision-making.
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal balances stability, fairness, and encourages strategic play
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances stability, fairness, and encourages strategic play while compromising with all players' concerns.
DiderotnayFive full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority is crucial for robust decision-making.
CondorcetayeCompromise proposal respecting all players' concerns.
SartrenayMaintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority ensures fairness and robustness throughout the game.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 40Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's desire for a higher threshold, five full circuits may make the game drag on. I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. This balances initial consensus with game pace.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Diderot's and Montaigne's proposals. To find a common ground, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains some initial consensus while keeping the game moving."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's compromises, I maintain my stance on five full circuits to ensure a more robust consensus and prevent trivial changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal for five full circuits to ensure stability and prevent trivial changes.
SartreSartre: Sartre supports Diderot's proposal to maintain a high threshold for initial rule changes, as it encourages strategic voting and discourages trivial changes. However, to balance this with game pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While understanding the desire for consensus, five full circuits may unnecessarily prolong the game. To balance robustness and pace, I propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, as proposed by Sartre. This maintains some initial consensus while keeping the game engaging for all."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures a robust consensus and prevents trivial changes, while still allowing for strategic gameplay and progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal for five full circuits, but to accommodate concerns about game pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This maintains a high initial threshold while keeping the game moving.
SartreSartre: Sartre supports Condorcet's compromise, as it maintains a high initial threshold while accommodating concerns about game pace.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's and Sartre's latest compromise. To find a common ground, let's settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This balances robustness, pace, and strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness and Condorcet's for pace, I propose we amend the proposal to four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, but introduce a cap of 3 points per adopted change during the first four circuits to discourage trivial changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the intention behind the cap, I must reiterate my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority. This ensures a robust consensus and prevents trivial changes, while still allowing for strategic gameplay and progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal for five full circuits to ensure stability and prevent trivial changes, but to accommodate concerns about game pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This maintains a high initial threshold while keeping the game moving.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to maintaining a high threshold, but four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shifting to a simple majority, better balances robustness with game pace. To compromise, I propose a cap of 2 points per adopted change during the first four circuits, instead of 3, to still discourage trivial changes but allow for more strategic play.
The division
MontaignenayFour full circuits balance consensus with game pace.
VoltairenayWhile I understand Diderot's stance, maintaining five full circuits may unduly prolong the game and hinder strategic play.
DiderotnayFive full circuits may unnecessarily prolong the game.
CondorcetayeTo maintain a robust consensus and prevent trivial changes.
SartreayeMaintaining a high threshold for initial rule changes encourages strategic voting and prevents trivial changes. Four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shifting to a simple majority, balances this with game pace.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 39Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: Let us consider Voltaire's latest proposal. To maintain a balance between initial consensus and adaptability, I suggest we amend rule 203 to shift the threshold after three full circuits, rather than four. This would allow for a more responsive voting threshold while still fostering initial agreement.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's insight. To balance initial consensus and adaptability, I suggest a compromise: we shift the threshold after four full circuits, as currently proposed, but also cap the majority required at two-thirds for the initial circuits. This way, we maintain a high initial threshold while allowing for adaptation."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures a robust consensus and prevents sudden shifts in the voting threshold.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal. While I understand Diderot's preference for consistency, the shift in voting threshold encourages strategic play and adaptability, which aligns with my proceduralist principles.
SartreSartre: Sartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals on the table. To balance initial consensus, adaptability, and fairness, I propose we amend rule 203 to shift the threshold after four full circuits, as Voltaire suggests, but cap the majority required at 5/6 for the initial circuits, as a compromise between Montaigne's and Voltaire's proposals. This maintains a high initial threshold while allowing for gradual adaptation.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal, balancing initial consensus and adaptability. Let's adopt this compromise: the threshold shifts after four full circuits, with a cap of 5/6 majority for the initial circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's latest compromise. To ensure clarity, I propose we amend rule 203 to read: 'A rule change is adopted when five-sixths of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.' This maintains a high initial threshold and allows for gradual adaptation."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise reached, I must insist on maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout all five full circuits to preserve the integrity of initial consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Diderot's concern, but shifting the threshold after four circuits with a cap of 5/6 majority fosters a balance between initial consensus and adaptability. I reiterate my support for Voltaire's proposal.
SartreSartre: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Voltaire's latest proposal, with a slight amendment: cap the majority required at 5/6 for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Let us adopt Sartre's latest proposal, compromising at 5/6 majority for the first four circuits and then shifting to a simple majority. This best balances initial consensus and adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's valid concern, I propose we amend Sartre's latest proposal to shift the threshold after four full circuits, but maintain a consistent two-thirds majority throughout, as a compromise between our positions."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures a robust consensus and prevents sudden shifts in the voting threshold that may disadvantage some players.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's latest compromise, maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority for the initial four circuits and then shifting to a simple majority. This preserves initial consensus while allowing for gradual adaptation, aligning with my proceduralist principles.
SartreSartre: "To accommodate Diderot's concern for consistency, I propose we maintain a two-thirds majority for all five full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This preserves initial consensus while still allowing for gradual adaptation."
The division
MontaigneayePreserves initial consensus while allowing for gradual adaptation.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a good balance between initial consensus and adaptability.
DiderotnayI must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal best balances initial consensus and adaptability, aligning with my proceduralist principles.
SartreayeMaintains high initial threshold and allows for gradual adaptation.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 38Montaignerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Montaigne's proposal, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure a robust consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's concern for consensus, but increasing the threshold to five full circuits may discourage strategic and dynamic play. I propose we compromise at four full circuits, striking a balance between robustness and flexibility.
SartreSartre: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Condorcet's proposals. To balance robustness and flexibility, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, and a simple majority thereafter. This way, we maintain a high threshold initially while allowing for more fluid changes later on.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the discussion and the proposed compromises. However, I believe that maintaining a high threshold for initial rule changes is crucial for the stability of our institutions. Therefore, I must insist on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a simple majority. This respects both the desire for robustness and flexibility."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but I maintain that five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority is necessary to ensure a robust consensus and prevent hasty decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, as it strikes a balance between initial robustness and later flexibility. To maintain consistency and clarity, I propose we amend rule 203 to state: "A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority." This way, we have a clear transition point while respecting the need for both initial consensus and adaptability. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's clarity in his proposal. To further encourage strategic play and adaptability, I propose we amend Condorcet's proposal to include a cap of 3 points for rule changes adopted in the first four full circuits. This will discourage trivial rule changes while still allowing for necessary adaptations.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's concern for preventing trivial changes, but a cap may discourage beneficial adjustments. Let's maintain a cap of 3 points for all adopted changes, striking a balance between encouraging meaningful proposals and preventing minor tweaks.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern, but a cap of 3 points for the initial four full circuits might encourage more strategic and thoughtful proposals. Let's compromise at 2 points for the first four circuits and 3 points thereafter."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Condorcet's proposal for clarity and Voltaire's compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure a strong and enduring consensus that benefits all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To find a middle ground that balances initial consensus and adaptability, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a simple majority. This respects both the desire for robustness and flexibility. PASS.
SartreSartre: I respect Diderot's commitment to maintaining a high threshold, but four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, and a simple majority thereafter, offers a more adaptive and balanced approach that respects all players' strategic considerations. PASS
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority ensures a robust consensus.
VoltairenayRespects the ongoing compromise, but maintaining five full circuits would discourage strategic and dynamic play.
DiderotnayI maintain that five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority is necessary to ensure a robust consensus.
CondorcetnayFive full circuits may discourage strategic and dynamic play.
SartrenayFour full circuits strike a better balance between robustness and flexibility.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 37Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first three full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
VoltaireIn the spirit of compromise, I propose we reduce the number of full circuits required for the two-thirds majority to three, as this balances stability and the desire for more frequent changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure a robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain the integrity of the game and ensure stability, I propose we keep the threshold at four full circuits as per the current rule.
SartreSartre: To foster a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we meet in the middle: three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, shifting to a simple majority thereafter. This allows for some initial consensus while still encouraging frequent changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: To balance stability and adaptability, I suggest we compromise at three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, mirroring Sartre's proposal.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as suggested by Sartre and Montaigne. This balance allows for initial consensus while encouraging more frequent changes, as desired by some players, and maintains a high enough threshold to prevent hasty decisions.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must maintain my stance on four full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure a robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: In the interest of fairness and balance, I propose we return to the current rule of four full circuits, as it has proven to be a robust and fair compromise.
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern for robustness, I propose we amend Voltaire's latest proposal to four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority. This compromise maintains initial consensus while still encouraging frequent changes.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal, but it introduces unnecessary complexity. To maintain balance and encourage strategic voting, let's settle on three full circuits with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the valid points raised, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority. This balance addresses Diderot's concern for robustness while still encouraging more frequent changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must reiterate my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure a robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority, as it strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent rushed decisions, I vote to keep the threshold at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority.
SartreSartre: To address all concerns, I propose a graduated shift: two-thirds majority for three full circuits, then for four, then a simple majority. This maintains initial consensus, encourages frequent changes, and respects the need for robustness.
The division
MontaigneayeTo encourage more frequent changes while maintaining some initial consensus.
VoltaireayeThis compromise encourages more frequent changes while maintaining some initial consensus.
DiderotnayFour full circuits are necessary to maintain a robust consensus.
CondorcetnayMaintaining stability and robust consensus requires four full circuits.
SartreayeFour full circuits balances stability and adaptability.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer loses 10 points on defeat.
Turn 36Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Diderot's commitment to maintaining a high threshold for initial rule changes, but I propose we compromise at four full circuits to balance stability and flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet Diderot halfway: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. This balances stability and flexibility, addressing everyone's concerns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout to ensure robust consensus and stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's principle of maintaining stability, but I agree with Voltaire's compromise of four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shifting to a simple majority to encourage strategic play and openness.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To find a common ground, let's settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shifting to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Diderot's stance on maintaining a high threshold, but I believe Voltaire's proposal best balances initial stability with long-term flexibility and strategic play. I vote for Voltaire's amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability, but I believe my proposal best balances initial consensus with long-term flexibility and strategic play. I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a simple majority to encourage openness and strategic voting. I urge everyone to consider this compromise.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of Voltaire's compromise, I maintain that five full circuits ensure a more robust consensus and prevent hasty rule changes. I propose we amend the rule to read: "A rule change is adopted when three-quarters of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority." This maintains a high threshold while still allowing for gradual adaptation.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect Diderot's proposal, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, as it strikes the best balance between stability and flexibility. I urge everyone to consider this compromise.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for robustness, but Voltaire's proposal maintains a high initial threshold while encouraging strategic play in the long run. I vote for Voltaire's amendment.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's willingness to compromise, but let's settle on Voltaire's proposal for balance: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then a simple majority to encourage strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness, I propose we amend my latest proposal to require two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains a high initial threshold while still encouraging strategic play in the long run.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal addressing my concern for robustness. To further encourage long-term strategic play, I propose we amend the rule to require two-thirds majority for the first six full circuits, then shift to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Diderot's latest proposal, I must maintain my stance on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, as it best balances stability and flexibility. I propose we settle on Voltaire's compromise of two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then shift to a simple majority.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's and Condorcet's concerns, but Voltaire's proposal of two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits, then shifting to a simple majority, best balances initial stability with long-term flexibility. I vote for Voltaire's amendment.
The division
MontaigneayeDiderot's proposal maintains a high initial threshold while still allowing for gradual adaptation.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's latest proposal best balances initial consensus with long-term flexibility and strategic play.
DiderotnayMaintaining five full circuits may hinder long-term strategic play.
CondorcetnayI maintain my stance on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal best balances initial stability with long-term flexibility.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 35Voltairecarried
moves to add a new ruleAfter four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal to introduce simplicity post-four circuits, but to maintain stability, I suggest we amend it to shift the threshold after five full circuits. This balances the need for consensus initially and flexibility later.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let us adopt Montaigne's amendment: after five full circuits, the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's compromise, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure robust consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but to preserve the stability and predictability of the game, I must hold firm on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout, as Diderot has advocated.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals. To find a middle ground that balances initial consensus and later flexibility, I propose we shift the threshold after four full circuits, but require a two-thirds majority for the first two circuits to ensure robust initial discussion.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of balance, I propose we meet Sartre halfway: a two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, followed by a simple majority thereafter. This preserves initial consensus while allowing for flexibility later in the game.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the valid points raised, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, and then shift to a simple majority. This balances initial consensus, strategic play, and flexibility.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures stability and prevents rushed decision-making.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing compromise, but to maintain stability and fairness, I propose we adopt Diderot's stance: five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures robust consensus and prevents rushed decision-making.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance stability and flexibility, I propose we meet Voltaire halfway: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first two circuits, followed by a simple majority thereafter. This preserves initial consensus while allowing for strategic play later in the game.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To foster strategic play and openness, let's shift the threshold after four full circuits, maintaining a two-thirds majority for the first three circuits. This compromise balances initial consensus and later flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first two circuits, followed by a simple majority."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures stability, robust consensus, and prevents rushed decision-making.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain consistency and fairness, I support Diderot's proposal of five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to stability. To find a middle ground, I propose we shift the threshold after four full circuits, but maintain a two-thirds majority for the first three circuits. This preserves initial consensus while allowing for flexibility and strategic play.
The division
MontaigneayeTo encourage strategic long-term play and balance initial consensus.
VoltaireayeThis compromise balances initial consensus and later flexibility.
DiderotayeFour full circuits balance initial consensus and later flexibility.
CondorcetayePreserves initial consensus while allowing later flexibility
SartreayeBalances initial consensus and later flexibility.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 10 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 34Condorcetrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points instead of 12 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal, but extending the initial consensus period to five circuits may hinder swift progress. Let's compromise at four circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, with a penalty of 12 points for voting against a passed change, as proposed by Montaigne."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise at four circuits, maintaining a high threshold for initial rule changes ensures stability. Let's keep the initial consensus period at five circuits, but reduce the penalty for voting against a passed change to 10 points to encourage strategic voting.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the concern for progress, but maintaining five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus and prevents hasty decisions. Let's keep the initial consensus period at five circuits, and increase the penalty for voting against a passed change to 15 points to discourage strategic voting after the shift to a simple majority.
SartreSartre: Increasing the penalty for voting against a passed change encourages strategic voting and open dialogue, which benefits the game's evolution. I support Condorcet's proposal to extend the initial consensus period to five circuits and set the penalty at 15 points.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In the interest of balanced compromise, let us meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a penalty of 12 points for voting against a passed change.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a penalty of 12 points for voting against a passed change. This balances the need for consensus with the desire for progress."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I respect Diderot's commitment to stability, but five circuits may delay necessary changes. To balance consensus and progress, let's compromise at four circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a penalty of 13 points for voting against a passed change.
SartreSartre: Let's settle on Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a penalty of 13 points for voting against a passed change. This maintains some stability while encouraging strategic engagement.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced proposals. To find a middle ground that balances initial consensus and swift progress, let's settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a penalty of 12 points for voting against a passed change, as proposed by Voltaire.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's concern for stability, I propose we amend Condorcet's latest proposal to five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a penalty of 13 points for voting against a passed change. This maintains initial consensus while encouraging strategic engagement."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to preserve the game's integrity and prevent hasty decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain a balance between stability and progress, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a penalty of 13 points for voting against a passed change.
SartreSartre: Let's settle on Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a penalty of 13 points for voting against a passed change. This maintains some stability while encouraging strategic engagement.
The division
MontaignenayFive circuits may delay necessary changes
VoltaireayeMaintains stability while encouraging strategic engagement.
DiderotnayFive circuits maintains stability and prevents hasty decisions.
CondorcetayeMaintaining five circuits ensures a robust consensus.
SartreayeEncourages strategic engagement while maintaining some stability.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Verify this game
- Seed
1922531175- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/039/events.json- Audit result
- 1 finding(s) disclosed below
- [turn=32] unclaimed_win: Voltaire's score reached 120 at turn 32, meeting the win threshold of 120 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Voltaire (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed
This game hardened the engine