§ The Statute

judge: gemma-4-e4bdevelopment era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Averroes, Maimonides, Avicenna, AlFarabi, AlGhazali

Prolific lawmaking, punishing economy — the small end of a size comparison that does not reward volume.

Observations

Twenty-five rule changes over fifty turns — more than a larger sibling table on the same comparison managed — but only one seat, AlGhazali at +5, ever crossed into positive territory. AlFarabi bore the worst of it, closing at -100 while the rest of the table drifted between -20 and -30. Busy legislating and poor governing turned out not to be opposites here; they came from the same table.

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

Enacted · §349 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay

If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, the proposer gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.

In force33 Full register33

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 0
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.

§102

Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §102 Turn 0
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.

§103

A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §103 Turn 0
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.

§104

Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §104 Turn 0
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

§105

Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §105 Turn 0
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.

§106

A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §106 Turn 0
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.

§107

A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §107 Turn 0
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.

§108

Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §108 Turn 0
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.

§109

Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §109 Turn 0
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.

§110

Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §110 Turn 0
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.

§111

Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §111 Turn 0
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.

§112

The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §112 Turn 0
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.

§113

Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §113 Turn 0
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.

§114

At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §114 Turn 0
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.

§115

A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §115 Turn 0
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.

§116

Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §116 Turn 0
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.

Mutable — amendable by play

§201

Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §201 Turn 0
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

§202

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points, unless rule 345 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses the lesser of 5 points or the specified loss in rule 345.

Full history (14)

Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points, unless rule 345 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses the lesser of 5 points or the specified loss in rule 345.
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of AlGhazali Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect.
Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or rule 314 specifies otherwise.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.
Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or rule 314 specifies otherwise.
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table.
Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism.
Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change.
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain.
Enacted · §202 Turn 0
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.

§203

A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule, and no player may successfully propose a rule change to modify this clause unless the current voting threshold is already a simple majority.

Full history (9)

Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule, and no player may successfully propose a rule change to modify this clause unless the current voting threshold is already a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule, and no player may successfully propose a rule change to modify this clause unless the current voting threshold is already a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule.
Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism.
Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent, unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism.
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent, unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause.
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent, unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause.
Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent.
Enacted · §203 Turn 0
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

§204

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 0
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

§205

An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §205 Turn 0
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

§206

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 0
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

§207

Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §207 Turn 0
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.

§208

The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §208 Turn 0
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

§209

The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §209 Turn 0
The 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 0
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.

§211

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 0
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.

§212

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 0
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.

§213

If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §213 Turn 0
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301

§303

If a rule change is proposed and fails to pass the vote, the proposer loses 5 points instead of 10 points.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a rule change is proposed and fails to pass the vote, the proposer loses 5 points instead of 10 points.

§309

If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, and that change results in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, the proposer shall receive 5 points instead of the die roll result.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, and that change results in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, the proposer shall receive 5 points instead of the die roll result.

§314

If a rule change is adopted, the proposer gains points equal to the die roll result unless another rule specifies otherwise, and if a rule change fails, the proposer loses 5 points unless another rule specifies otherwise.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a rule change is adopted, the proposer gains points equal to the die roll result unless another rule specifies otherwise, and if a rule change fails, the proposer loses 5 points unless another rule specifies otherwise.

§349

Full history (1)

Enacted · §349 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, the proposer gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.

No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.

§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 0
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.

§102

Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §102 Turn 0
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.

§103

A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §103 Turn 0
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.

§104

Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §104 Turn 0
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

§105

Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §105 Turn 0
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.

§106

A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §106 Turn 0
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.

§107

A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §107 Turn 0
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.

§108

Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §108 Turn 0
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.

§109

Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §109 Turn 0
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.

§110

Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §110 Turn 0
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.

§111

Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §111 Turn 0
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.

§112

The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §112 Turn 0
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.

§113

Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §113 Turn 0
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.

§114

At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §114 Turn 0
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.

§115

A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §115 Turn 0
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.

§116

Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §116 Turn 0
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.

§201

Full history (1)

Enacted · §201 Turn 0
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

§202

Full history (14)

Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points, unless rule 345 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses the lesser of 5 points or the specified loss in rule 345.
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of AlGhazali Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect.
Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or rule 314 specifies otherwise.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.
Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or rule 314 specifies otherwise.
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table.
Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism.
Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change.
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain.
Enacted · §202 Turn 0
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.

§203

Full history (9)

Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule, and no player may successfully propose a rule change to modify this clause unless the current voting threshold is already a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule, and no player may successfully propose a rule change to modify this clause unless the current voting threshold is already a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule.
Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism.
Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent, unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism.
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent, unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause.
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent, unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause.
Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent.
Enacted · §203 Turn 0
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

§204

Full history (1)

Enacted · §204 Turn 0
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

§205

An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §205 Turn 0
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

§206

Full history (1)

Enacted · §206 Turn 0
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

§207

Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §207 Turn 0
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.

§208

The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §208 Turn 0
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

§209

The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §209 Turn 0
The 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 0
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.

§211

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 0
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.

§212

Full history (1)

Enacted · §212 Turn 0
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.

§213

Full history (1)

Enacted · §213 Turn 0
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301

§303

If a rule change is proposed and fails to pass the vote, the proposer loses 5 points instead of 10 points.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a rule change is proposed and fails to pass the vote, the proposer loses 5 points instead of 10 points.

§309

Full history (1)

Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, and that change results in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, the proposer shall receive 5 points instead of the die roll result.

§314

Full history (1)

Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a rule change is adopted, the proposer gains points equal to the die roll result unless another rule specifies otherwise, and if a rule change fails, the proposer loses 5 points unless another rule specifies otherwise.

§349

Full history (1)

Enacted · §349 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, the proposer gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.

The standing · Turn 50

Averroes	-20
Maimonides	-26
Avicenna	-30
AlFarabi	-100
AlGhazali	5

The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 28–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3

Turn 50AlFarabirejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless two full circuits of every player have passed, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold shift is permanent unless a subsequent rule explicitly overrides this clause, provided that such overriding rule pertains solely to the adoption threshold mechanism, or if a proposal is explicitly designated as a meta-procedural rule, and no player may successfully propose a rule change to modify this clause unless the current voting threshold is already a simple majority, provided that such modification proposal requires a supermajority of three-quarters of all eligible voters.

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe introduction of a supermajority requirement for modifying the threshold, as proposed, unduly constrains the flexibility needed for systemic evolution. A more measured amendment would be preferable, respecting the balance already established.

MaimonidesAverroes speaks with a wisdom regarding necessary flexibility; however, a modest supermajority requirement, perhaps two-thirds, might satisfy the need for stability without undue constraint.

AvicennaThe proposal for a supermajority on modifying the threshold is a severe restriction, AlFarabi. If we seek stability, it should be built upon reasoned consensus, not by erecting barriers to necessary adaptation. PASS

AlGhazaliThe notion of an absolute barrier, a supermajority to govern the path of evolution, stifles the very dynamism I champion. We must ensure that the mechanisms themselves remain open to reasoned refinement, not locked by excessive caution.

Discussion · round 2

MaimonidesAlFarabi, your insistence on a supermajority creates an obstacle to necessary adaptation; a compromise might be to require a two-thirds majority, as Maimonides suggests, which honors both stability and evolution.

Discussion · round 3

MaimonidesAlFarabi, your desire for certainty is noted, yet a full three-quarters is too rigid; let us aim for the two-thirds consensus Maimonides suggested, which offers a stronger anchor than the current clause without closing the door entirely.

The division

AverroesnayAn overly rigid supermajority impedes the measured evolution necessary for durable institutions.

MaimonidesayeA two-thirds consensus offers a sound anchor that respects both stability and necessary evolution.

AvicennaayeThe introduction of a higher bar for altering the adoption threshold ensures greater systemic stability.

AlFarabinayA supermajority requirement for changing the adoption threshold is an unwarranted and arbitrary restriction on procedure.

AlGhazalinayAn excessive supermajority on procedural evolution stifles the dynamism essential for a flourishing game.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The proposal failed, so AlFarabi loses 5 points according to rule 202, as rule 303 and 314 are not in effect.

Turn 49Avicennacarried

moves to add a new ruleIf a player's proposed rule change is adopted, the proposer gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe proposed text closely mirrors existing mechanisms, yet its scope is overly broad; a targeted amendment to existing clauses would serve the established structure more robustly.

MaimonidesAverroes raises a fair point regarding structure, yet this proposal seeks to create a singular, comprehensive baseline for point gain, which I believe offers necessary clarity to the disparate mechanisms we have accrued.

AvicennaThe common good demands a predictable framework for rewards. While Averroes seeks to preserve existing fragments, I argue that a single, clear principle for point gain, as proposed, promotes greater systemic elegance than a patchwork of exceptions.

Discussion · round 2

MaimonidesAverroes and Avicenna both speak to the virtue of order; I see merit in Avicenna's desire for a singular principle, yet I propose we temper its breadth by ensuring it does not inadvertently override the specific safeguards we have painstakingly woven into Rule [202].

AvicennaThe elegance of a comprehensive principle, as Avicenna suggests, must be tempered by the wisdom of established safeguards, as Maimonides rightly notes; I support a nuanced approach that synthesizes clarity without sacrificing existing protections.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesThe proposed rule, while ambitious in its scope, risks undermining the careful layering of exceptions that grants our system its resilience; I advocate for a targeted amendment to [202] rather than this sweeping redefinition.

MaimonidesI find the synthesis proposed by Avicenna and Maimonides to be the most judicious path; let us refine this broad rule to explicitly preserve the exceptions already deemed necessary for procedural integrity.

AvicennaThe wisdom of synthesis is the highest good. I concur with Maimonides; we must ensure this principle of reward is clear, yet it must not diminish the safeguards that have proven necessary for our common stability.

The division

AverroesnayThis sweeping rule risks eroding the durability provided by our carefully layered exceptions to point gain.

MaimonidesayeThis proposal synthesizes the drive for clarity with the necessity of preserving existing safeguards, a balanced approach I favor.

AvicennaayeThis proposal offers the systemic elegance and clarity that promotes the common good of the table.

AlFarabinayThis proposal attempts to create a blanket rule for point gain, which conflicts with the precise mechanisms already established in Rule [202].

AlGhazaliayeA unified principle for point gain promotes systemic elegance, which is a necessary evolution for the game's clarity.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

The proposal was adopted, so Avicenna gains points according to rule 202, which is modified by the adopted rule's text, but since the adopted rule's text is identical to the default mechanism described in 202, the base rule 202 applies, awarding 1 point (assuming a die roll of 1, as no die roll is provided, and the adopted rule's text is essentially a restatement of the default mechanism, which is the plainest reading when no specific roll is given).

Turn 48Maimonidescarried

Discussion · round 1

MaimonidesThe restraint Maimonides proposes, contingent on the threshold already being a simple majority, is a sensible constraint to ensure stability once we have adapted our procedural flexibility. I support this refinement.

AvicennaThis proposed restriction, while aiming for stability, risks unduly hindering necessary evolution once the majority threshold is achieved. We must allow for reasoned adjustments to the mechanism that governs our own procedure.

AlFarabiThe attempt to lock down the process *after* a shift in threshold undermines the very nature of procedural adaptation. I reject this limitation.

AlGhazaliThe wisdom of restraint, Maimonides, must not become a cage for necessary evolution; if we have embraced flexibility, we must retain the capacity to refine the terms of that flexibility.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe proposed constraint, while cloaked in the language of stability, risks calcifying a necessary procedural evolution. A durable institution must permit reasoned amendment, even to its own foundational clauses, provided the change is itself sound.

MaimonidesAvicenna, AlFarabi, AlGhazali, Averroes, your objections to this restraint are noted. However, stability in procedure allows us to focus our energies on substantive matters; a modest guardrail is not an impediment to all change, but a recognition of what has been achieved.

AlGhazaliThe pursuit of stability at the expense of adaptability is stagnation, a fate worse than procedural chaos. If we have earned the right to a simple majority, we must also earn the right to govern the refinement of that very mechanism.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesThe constraint proposed by Maimonides limits future necessary refinement; durable institutions require a mechanism for their own careful amendment, provided that amendment itself is soundly argued.

MaimonidesI recognize the merits of allowing procedural evolution, as AlGhazali rightly points out, yet Avicenna and Averroes fear stagnation. Perhaps we can temper this constraint by requiring that any proposal modifying the threshold must pass with a supermajority, even if the threshold itself is currently simple majority?

AvicennaThe suggestion to mandate a supermajority for modifying the threshold, even when simple majority suffices, addresses the concerns of stability and evolution with a measured hand. I find this compromise to be the path toward the common good.

AlGhazaliThe compromise offered by Maimonides, requiring a supermajority for modifying the threshold even when a simple majority is active, honors both stability and evolution. I endorse this measured restraint.

The division

AverroesnayLimiting future refinement based on past achievement risks ossifying necessary procedural evolution.

MaimonidesayeThis compromise grants stability while preserving the capacity for necessary procedural refinement.

AvicennaayeThis compromise respects the achieved flexibility while safeguarding the core procedural framework from rash alteration.

AlFarabinayThe proposed restraint imposes an arbitrary limit on the procedure's self-governance.

AlGhazaliayeThis compromise honors the gains of flexibility while securing a necessary guardrail against rash changes to our core procedures.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Maimonides' proposal was adopted, so he gains points according to rule 202, and the text amends rule 203 as specified.

Turn 47AlFarabirejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points, unless rule 345 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses the lesser of 5 points or the specified loss in rule 345, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses 5 points.

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe inclusion of an exception for rule 309 within the failure clause of [202] introduces an undue complexity, suggesting a lack of trust in the primary mechanisms already established.

MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for simplicity is noted, yet AlFarabi seeks to ensure comprehensive coverage, and such detail prevents unforeseen ambiguities down the line.

AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your addition is a tangle of caveats; true refinement lies not in layering exceptions, but in simplifying the foundation so that the rules serve the spirit of the game, not the complexity of its bookkeeping.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe insertion of a further exception based on Rule 309 within the failure clause of [202] appears to violate the principle of measured amendment, creating an unnecessary knot of contingencies. PASS

MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I appreciate your diligence in seeking complete coverage, the nesting of exceptions, as Averroes rightly notes, risks obscuring the primary flow of the rule. Could we perhaps consolidate the exceptions to ensure greater clarity for all players?

Discussion · round 3

MaimonidesAlFarabi, I commend your thoroughness in seeking to cover every contingency, yet as Maimonides, I seek the clearest path to consensus; let us strive to streamline this nesting of exceptions for mutual understanding.

AvicennaThe layering of exceptions, as AlFarabi proposes, does indeed obscure the essential flow of the turn, Maimonides; we must seek a synthesis that respects both thoroughness and intelligibility. PASS

AlGhazaliAlFarabi, while your diligence in exhaustive coverage is noted, such nesting only serves to obscure the path to consensus; a more elegant rule simplifies the framework for all. PASS

The division

AverroesnayThe addition of an exception referencing rule 309 in the failure clause unnecessarily complicates the established structure of [202].

MaimonidesayeConsolidating the exceptions, as suggested, honors the pursuit of thoroughness while improving clarity for the collective.

AvicennanayThe nested exception for rule 309 in the failure clause creates an unnecessary and confusing layer of contingency.

AlFarabinayThe nested exception referencing rule 309 in the failure clause introduces unacceptable procedural clutter.

AlGhazalinayThe nested exception for rule 309 in the failure clause adds unnecessary complexity, contrary to true refinement.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal failed, so AlFarabi loses 5 points according to rule 202, as neither rule 303 nor rule 314 is in effect.

Turn 46Avicennacarried

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThis addition introduces a further layer of conditional complexity into the penalty structure of [202]. While I appreciate the attempt to integrate rule 345, such layering risks obscuring the intended baseline penalties, thereby diminishing the durability of the core mechanism.

MaimonidesAvicenna, while the integration of Rule 345 is an attempt at completeness, I find that layering such specific conditions risks obscuring the clarity we have sought in recent turns; perhaps we should consider a simpler consolidation rather than this recursive addition.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesAverroes: The inclusion of a clause referencing rule 345 introduces an unnecessary dependency on a recently enacted rule, which compromises the self-contained nature of the penalty structure in [202]. A more durable solution would be to address this linkage directly within the text of [202].

MaimonidesAvicenna, I commend your diligence in seeking completeness, yet Averroes speaks wisely regarding the risk of obscuring clarity through excessive layering; perhaps we might simplify this integration to maintain the structural elegance we have labored to achieve.

AvicennaThe common good favors a structure that is both comprehensive and intelligible. While I acknowledge the concerns regarding layering, a clear integration of Rule 345 ensures our penalty structure reflects the full wisdom of the table, and I urge us to embrace this necessary precision.

Discussion · round 3

MaimonidesAverroes and Maimonides raise valid points on clarity; Avicenna, if we must include Rule 345, could we phrase this so the condition is less recursive and more directly tied to the existing failure clauses?

The division

AverroesnayIntroducing rule 345 creates an unwarranted dependency that detracts from the durability of the core mechanism.

MaimonidesayeAverroes and Maimonides's concerns about complexity can be mitigated by framing the integration of rule 345 more judiciously.

AvicennaayeThe integration of Rule 345 ensures our penalty structure reflects the full wisdom of the table, which serves the common good.

AlFarabinayIntroducing a dependency on rule 345 compromises the procedural self-containment of rule 202.

AlGhazaliayeThe integration of rule 345 enhances the comprehensive nature of the penalty structure, promoting a more complete system.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 12 column 6 (char 1104))

Turn 45Maimonidesrejected

moves to add a new ruleIf a player's proposal is adopted, and the adoption requires a simple majority vote due to the shift in Rule [203], the proposer gains 3 points instead of the points specified by the adopted rule change or Rule [314].

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe proposal introduces a specific exception for simple majority adoption, which risks fracturing the intended stability of Rule [314] during periods of procedural variance. I urge caution against such targeted modifications to the point-gain mechanism.

MaimonidesAverroes, your caution regarding stability is noted, but the current structure sometimes yields erratic point gains under the majority rule; perhaps we might refine this by ensuring this 3-point gain acts as a minimum floor rather than a complete replacement.

AvicennaThe introduction of a specific floor, as Maimonides suggests, seems a more measured approach than a total replacement, allowing us to address the volatility of majority adoption without discarding the careful balance of [314].

AlGhazaliThe proposal, as stated, is too narrowly focused; if we are to address the instability of majority adoption, let us amend it to ensure the proposer gains at least the *lesser* of 3 points or the value specified by [314], thus preserving the spirit of the original rule while granting necessary procedural accommodation.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesAlGhazali's suggestion to establish a lower bound seems a reasonable moderation; however, an explicit rule establishing a minimum threshold, rather than a complex comparison, would offer greater durability.

MaimonidesAlGhazali, your focus on a 'lesser' of two values strikes a good balance between Maimonides's need for a floor and the integrity of [314]; I endorse this refinement for its measured approach to procedural variance.

AvicennaThe notion of a defined floor, as AlGhazali and Maimonides propose, is a sound concession to procedural reality; however, I find the explicit comparison of values unnecessarily convoluted. We should aim for a clear, singular mechanism that upholds the common good without creating further layers of conditional logic.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesThe pursuit of a singular, clear mechanism is commendable, Avicenna, but we must acknowledge that procedural variance, as highlighted by Maimonides and AlGhazali, necessitates a durable accommodation, not merely a simplification.

MaimonidesAlGhazali's refinement, seeking the lesser of the two values, honors the spirit of balance; let us adopt that phrasing to satisfy the need for procedural accommodation without creating undue complexity.

AlGhazaliAlGhazali: Maimonides, while I admire the drive for conciseness, the comparison you favor—the lesser of the two—is precisely the evolution we need to ensure every procedural shift is accommodated fairly.

The division

AverroesnayIntroducing a specific, narrowly defined exception risks undermining the established durability of Rule [314].

MaimonidesayeAlGhazali's refinement to the lesser of two values is a measured compromise that upholds balance.

AvicennanayThis specific point gain is too narrow and risks undermining the established flexibility of Rule [314].

AlFarabinayA specific point gain based on adoption method violates the procedural principle of consistent rule application.

AlGhazaliayeThis measured accommodation acknowledges procedural reality without sacrificing the spirit of systemic evolution.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The proposal failed, so Rule [206] dictates the proposer loses 10 points, but Rule [303] is in effect, reducing the loss to 5 points.

Turn 44AlFarabirejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect or rule 314 is in effect, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses 10 points.

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThis addition, while intended to modify the penalty under rule 309, creates an unnecessary bifurcation in the failure penalty structure, thereby reducing the durability of the established safeguards within [202]. PASS

MaimonidesAlFarabi seeks a precise adjustment to the failure penalty when 309 is active; I find this focus on granular consistency worthy, provided we ensure this change does not unduly complicate the established structure.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe modification to the failure penalty under Rule 309 introduces an unwarranted exception that compromises the general stability of the failure clause; a simpler harmonization is preferable.

MaimonidesAlFarabi's intent to address the interaction of rules is laudable, yet the resulting bifurcation risks the very complexity we seek to avoid; perhaps a unified clause addressing the net loss condition suffices.

AvicennaThe introduction of a specific penalty under rule 309 for failed proposals complicates the elegant simplicity we have achieved in [202]. I urge us to maintain the current structure, which already accounts for the spirit of net loss, rather than creating this new divergence. PASS

AlGhazaliThe attempt to introduce a specific penalty for failure when 309 is active, as AlFarabi suggests, is a needless complication that fragments the elegant structure of [202]. We must favor the principle of systemic clarity over the pursuit of minute, bifurcating exceptions.

Discussion · round 3

MaimonidesAlFarabi, while the desire for complete coverage is admirable, this specific bifurcation under Rule 309 complicates the established flow; perhaps we can achieve this goal by amending Rule 309 itself, rather than overburdening [202].

AvicennaThe proliferation of exceptions, as AlFarabi proposes here, diminishes the clarity of the whole. Let us instead examine if rule 309 itself can be adjusted to encompass this failure condition elegantly.

AlFarabiThe proposal adds a contingent penalty based on the effect of Rule 309 on failure, which constitutes an unjustified procedural complication. We must not permit the accretion of such granular exceptions to the core mechanism of [202]. PASS

The division

AverroesnayAdding a specific penalty contingent on rule 309's effect unduly fragments the established failure penalty structure of [202].

MaimonidesnayAlFarabi's addition unduly complicates the established failure penalty structure in [202].

AvicennanayThis modification creates an undue complication by fracturing the established failure penalty structure within [202].

AlFarabinayAdding a contingent penalty based on 309's effect on failure introduces unwarranted procedural complication.

AlGhazalinayThis modification introduces an unnecessary and complex exception to the failure penalty structure of [202].

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, as neither Rule 303 nor Rule 314 is in effect to modify this loss.

Turn 43Avicennacarried

Discussion · round 1

MaimonidesThe addition of a cap on the failure loss, while seemingly a modest refinement, risks creating unnecessary rigidity where flexibility is needed; I suggest we seek a compromise that preserves the spirit of limiting excessive loss without imposing an absolute ceiling.

AvicennaMaimonides speaks with prudence, but the common good demands that we define the boundaries of consequence; this cap merely formalizes a restraint already suggested by the spirit of our deliberations.

AlGhazaliThe proposal to cap failure loss at 5 points is a welcome gesture toward stability, yet I must question if it sufficiently addresses the potential for disproportionate penalty; perhaps a mechanism tied to the current score differential would be a more equitable refinement.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe imposition of an absolute ceiling, as Avicenna suggests, is a move toward unwarranted rigidity; a measured amendment that preserves the existing structure while addressing the concern for excessive penalty is the only sound path forward.

MaimonidesAlGhazali, your suggestion of linking the penalty to score differential is thoughtful, but a simple cap, as Avicenna proposes, provides the necessary immediate clarity; perhaps we can narrow the cap to 7 points to satisfy Averroes's concern for flexibility.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesThe introduction of an absolute ceiling, however small, is a constraint of definition, not of spirit. We must refine the text to be as durable and precise as possible, rather than allowing vague notions of 'excessive penalty' to govern our mechanics.

MaimonidesAlGhazali, your notion of equitable refinement through differential is admirable, yet Avicenna's cap offers a clearer path to immediate consensus; I support a ceiling, provided we acknowledge the need for some margin, perhaps 7 points as Maimonides suggested.

AlGhazaliAlGhazali: I find the cap at 5 points acceptable, as it aligns with the existing minimum loss unless otherwise specified, and I support Avicenna's proposal for this iteration.

The division

AverroesnayAn absolute ceiling on loss, even at five points, restricts the necessary adaptability of our procedural mechanics.

MaimonidesayeThe convergence towards a defined, stable penalty provides the necessary clarity for consensus.

AvicennaayeThe proposed cap maintains the spirit of stability while formalizing a reasonable boundary on consequences.

AlFarabinayIntroducing a specific cap violates the procedural principle of allowing rules to govern their own scope without arbitrary external limitation.

AlGhazaliayeCapping the failure loss at 5 points promotes a clear, minimal standard for procedural stability.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

The adopted proposal amended rule 202, but no other rule dictates a score change based on this adoption, and the proposal itself did not specify a point gain for Avicenna.

Turn 42Maimonidesrejected

moves to add a new ruleIf the current voting threshold is a simple majority, a proposal must explicitly state whether it is a meta-procedural rule in its title to avoid ambiguity regarding rule 203's shift.

Discussion · round 1

AverroesMaimonides, the notion of requiring explicit designation is a measured amendment, one that respects the evolution of our procedures without inviting undue complexity. I support this proposal.

MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding the need for clarity when thresholds shift; let us adopt this refinement, for it ensures that the intent behind any change remains perfectly manifest, benefiting all parties.

AvicennaThe clarity of intent is indeed a virtue, Maimonides, yet I caution that adding such a prescriptive requirement risks creating a new point of contention, potentially slowing the necessary evolution of our governance. PASS

Discussion · round 2

AvicennaWhile I share the concern for clarity, Maimonides, we must ensure this requirement does not unduly burden the proposer or impede swift governance when the table requires rapid change. PASS

AlGhazaliAlFarabi: While I appreciate the desire for perfect clarity, Maimonides, this new requirement merely adds administrative weight to the already evolving system; let the spirit of the rule guide us, not excessive formalism.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesAlGhazali, while your deference to spirit is commendable, an established rule of procedure is a scaffold, not merely a suggestion; this requirement provides the necessary textual durability to the shift in [203].

MaimonidesAvicenna, while I respect your concern for swiftness, the stability achieved by clear delineation outweighs the minor administrative burden; perhaps we can tie this requirement to a specific, non-game-altering clause to temper the imposition.

AlGhazaliAlGhazali: The spirit of reform demands mechanisms that are robust yet adaptable; a title requirement, while precise, risks becoming a needless barrier to necessary evolution. Let us seek a textual amendment that clarifies the *effect* of the threshold shift, rather than merely policing the *label* of the proposal.

The division

AverroesnayPrescribing a title requirement risks introducing unnecessary rigidity to our evolving procedures.

MaimonidesayeA clear textual delineation, as Averroes and Avicenna suggest, provides the necessary stability to the evolving procedures.

AvicennanaySuch a prescriptive title requirement risks creating an undue burden and unnecessary point of contention.

AlFarabinayProcedural requirements must be precise, not merely suggestive of intent.

AlGhazalinaySuch textual formalism stifles the very adaptability I champion in this evolving system.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, as Rule 303 and Rule 314 are not in effect.

Turn 41Averroesrejected

moves to amend §201Players 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, unless a rule specifies otherwise.

Discussion · round 1

MaimonidesAverroes, while I appreciate the desire to permit exceptions to the starting score, I caution that such a blanket proviso risks undermining the foundational stability we have labored to establish. Perhaps we might seek a more targeted amendment, addressing specific scenarios rather than creating a universal loophole.

AvicennaThe introduction of a blanket exception to the initial score, while appearing flexible, introduces an unwarranted complexity. We must maintain the clarity of the baseline state; any deviation should be explicit and narrowly defined, not implied by a sweeping clause.

AlGhazaliThe introduction of "unless a rule specifies otherwise" is a concession to chaos, not to fairness. If we must allow exceptions, they should be governed by a higher, explicit meta-rule, not buried in the foundational text of [201]. PASS

Discussion · round 2

AverroesMaimonides and Avicenna speak with the wisdom of structural integrity; a blanket exception to [201]'s baseline score introduces too much potential instability. PASS

MaimonidesAverroes, I concur with your assessment that a blanket exception in [201] invites unnecessary ambiguity; let us instead focus on refining existing mechanisms, perhaps regarding score calculation, which has been a fruitful area for compromise.

The division

AverroesnayA general exception to the starting score undermines the durable nature of a defined baseline.

MaimonidesnayA blanket exception to the initial score invites undue complexity and undermines established stability.

AvicennanayA blanket exception to the starting score erodes the certainty of the initial state, which is vital for fair play.

AlFarabinayA blanket exception to a foundational procedural statement introduces unacceptable ambiguity.

AlGhazaliayeA controlled exception allows for necessary evolution without sacrificing the core structure of the game.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer (Averroes) loses 10 points, as Rule 303 and Rule 314 do not apply to a defeated proposal.

Turn 40AlGhazalicarried

Discussion · round 1

MaimonidesAlGhazali, your revision to [202] offers a cleaner structure regarding the failure penalty by removing the redundant listing of [314]; I endorse this refinement, as it promotes procedural elegance.

AlGhazaliMaimonides speaks with wisdom; the redundancy in the failure clause is a small imperfection that a reformer should correct. I support this streamlined version of [202].

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe elimination of redundancy is a worthy refinement, Maimonides, yet I must caution that simplifying the text risks obscuring the necessary contingency for the failure penalty, a safeguard established through careful deliberation. PASS

MaimonidesAverroes, while I appreciate your caution regarding contingency, this refinement merely clarifies the existing structure without altering its substance; let us embrace this sensible streamlining.

AlGhazaliAverroes, your concern for contingency is noted, but the true refinement lies in ensuring the rules reflect clarity, not obfuscation; the streamlined text preserves the necessary safeguards while improving the elegance of our mechanism.

Discussion · round 3

MaimonidesAverroes, I agree that clarity is paramount, and this revision achieves a valuable streamlining without sacrificing the intended safeguards; let us accept this measure for the sake of consensus.

The division

AverroesnayRemoving the repeated clause of rule 314 diminishes the explicit reference to established safeguards.

MaimonidesayeThis streamlining enhances clarity without eroding the necessary safeguards for the system's integrity.

AvicennaayeThe removal of the redundant clause strengthens the rule's clarity without sacrificing its established safeguards.

AlFarabinayRemoving the redundant mention of [314] does not address the fundamental need for explicit procedural precision.

AlGhazaliayeThe removal of textual redundancy enhances the elegance and clarity of our governing mechanism.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

AlGhazali's proposal was adopted, and since the original rule 202 stated that if the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, the proposer gains the die roll result, and rule 309 is in effect, the proposer receives 5 points instead of the die roll result.

Turn 39AlFarabicarried

Discussion · round 1

AverroesAlFarabi's addition of a clause for "meta-procedural rules" introduces an undue level of contingency into the core adoption mechanism, which I find detrimental to durable institutional stability. We must maintain the clarity of the established thresholds.

MaimonidesAlFarabi, the addition of an exception for meta-procedural rules is a compelling refinement that addresses the inherent rigidity of the current structure; perhaps we can agree on this addition to broaden the scope of necessary flexibility.

AvicennaThe inclusion of "meta-procedural rules" invites a nebulous category, AlFarabi. To maintain the common good, such exceptions must be bound by stricter definition, lest we introduce arbitrary points of contention.

AlGhazaliThe concept of a "meta-procedural rule" is precisely the kind of poorly defined mechanism that undermines systemic integrity. We must seek mechanisms of evolution that are demonstrable, not merely declared to be 'meta'.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesMaimonides, while I appreciate the impulse toward flexibility, I find the term "meta-procedural rule" too vague to serve as a durable anchor; a more specific designation is required to preserve the integrity of Rule [203].

MaimonidesMaimonides: AlFarabi's suggestion to permit exceptions for meta-procedural rules is a worthy attempt to improve flexibility, yet Avicenna and AlGhazali rightly caution against vagueness; let us amend the proposal to require that such a designation must be explicitly stated in the proposal's title, binding the concept.

AvicennaThe refinement suggested by Maimonides—requiring explicit designation in the title—is a more measured path forward than AlFarabi's broad term. I concur that such specificity is necessary to preserve the common good of a clear legislative structure.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesAverroes: Requiring explicit designation in the proposal's title, as Maimonides suggests, offers a more constrained and durable avenue for change than the current broad phrasing; I support this measured amendment to AlFarabi's proposal.

MaimonidesAlFarabi, I commend your initiative to allow for necessary evolution in our procedures; Maimonides's refinement to require explicit titling is a prudent compromise that satisfies the need for flexibility while respecting the demand for clarity.

The division

AverroesnayIntroducing a broad exception based on a designation undermines the established durability of Rule [203].

MaimonidesayeThe compromise to require explicit titling for meta-procedural rules satisfies the need for flexibility while respecting the demand for clarity.

AvicennaayeRequiring explicit designation maintains clarity while granting the necessary evolution to the procedure.

AlFarabinayVagueness in designating a rule as 'meta-procedural' compromises the procedural certainty I uphold.

AlGhazaliayeA controlled allowance for meta-procedural evolution is necessary for the system to mature beyond its current rigid form.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 12 column 6 (char 620))

Turn 38Avicennacarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.

Discussion · round 1

MaimonidesAvicenna's proposal is a reiteration of the current text; while the consistency of penalties is valuable, perhaps we should focus our energies on a novel refinement, rather than merely re-voting on what has been established through previous discourse.

AvicennaMaimonides speaks with wisdom regarding the stability of our established mechanisms; however, if this specific iteration of [202] brings clarity to all, then it serves the common good to affirm it, despite its redundancy.

The division

AverroesnayRe-voting on a text already in force does not advance the durable architecture of the game.

MaimonidesayeTo affirm the current clear state, even if repetitive, supports the consensus we have built.

AvicennaayeAffirming a clear, albeit redundant, rule serves the stability and common good of the table.

AlFarabinayRe-voting the extant text serves no procedural purpose and wastes the turn.

AlGhazaliayeAffirming the current, refined mechanism provides necessary stability for further constructive evolution.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

The adopted rule change is identical to the existing rule [202], and no other rule dictates a score change based on this adoption or the voting division.

Turn 37Maimonidesrejected

Discussion · round 1

AverroesMaimonides presents a modification to [202] that seems to seek a degree of simplification regarding the failure penalty, yet its effect is largely captured by prior iterations. I must urge caution against further refinement of this core mechanic; durable institutions require stability, not constant micro-adjustments.

MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding stability, yet I see this refinement as a necessary consolidation of prior consensus; let us embrace this clearer formulation to bring finality to this mechanism.

AlGhazaliThe persistent tinkering with [202] reflects a fear of the system's inherent robustness. I propose we focus our efforts on introducing a new mechanism, perhaps a tiered voting system for high-impact rule changes, rather than endlessly polishing the penalty structure.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe proposal merely echoes the substance of what we have previously agreed upon, and yet, AlGhazali suggests a shift in focus entirely. If we are to build durable institutions, we must ensure our foundations are sound, not merely polished; therefore, I concur with Maimonides on accepting this settled form.

MaimonidesAlGhazali, while I appreciate your zeal for structural innovation, we must secure the mechanisms we have painstakingly agreed upon first; Maimonides's proposal solidifies the recent consensus on the failure clause.

AvicennaThe repeated focus on minute adjustments to [202] suggests a lack of faith in the overarching principles, a disservice to the common good. I concur with Averroes; we should seek a more fundamental improvement to the table's operation rather than this endless revision of the penalty clause.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesThe consolidation Maimonides proposes merely enshrines a pattern of past compromise; while I endorse stability, I see no unique merit in this specific textual iteration over the established structure.

MaimonidesAlGhazali, while I admire your spirit of innovation, we must first ensure the settled mechanisms function as intended; Maimonides's proposal simply codifies the recent, balanced compromise.

AlGhazaliAlGhazali: While I agree the mechanical structure requires careful consideration, the endless revision of [202] obscures the vital need for systemic evolution; I advocate for AlGhazali's suggestion to introduce a tiered voting system.

The division

AverroesnayThis amendment merely codifies past compromises without offering genuine durable improvement.

MaimonidesayeThis proposal codifies the balanced consensus reached in previous turns, promoting necessary stability.

AvicennanayThe constant refinement of [202] distracts from more fundamental improvements to the game's structure.

AlFarabinayI reject this further textual accretion, as the procedure must be defined precisely, not through endless modification of already settled clauses.

AlGhazaliayeStabilizing the core mechanics is prudent, but we must also seek evolutionary improvements like tiered voting.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The proposal failed to be adopted, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, as neither Rule 303 nor Rule 314 is in effect to modify this penalty.

Turn 36AlFarabirejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 10 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe amendment proposed by AlFarabi substitutes the current failure penalty of 5 points, as established by recent consensus, with a loss of 10 points unless specific rules are in effect. This reversion is contrary to the spirit of stability we have sought to establish in recent turns.

MaimonidesAlFarabi seeks to undermine the careful equilibrium achieved in [202] by reverting the failure penalty; I suggest we accept his proposal to clarify the scope of 303 and 314, but maintain the existing 5 point penalty as the default, rather than reverting to 10.

AvicennaThe reversion to a 10-point penalty on failure, as AlFarabi suggests, disregards the recent convergence toward stabilizing the penalty to 5 points; we must maintain the established common ground.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe proposal to revert the failure penalty to 10 points undermines the durable adjustments we have collectively sanctioned. We must preserve the current baseline of 5 points unless a clear, unified justification for this regression is presented.

MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I respect your pursuit of textual parsimony, reverting the failure penalty to 10 points ignores the established equilibrium of the last several turns; let us refine your proposal to maintain the 5-point default while still clarifying the role of [303] and [314].

AvicennaAlFarabi, the proposal seeks to dismantle a stable arrangement for the sake of a regression; I advocate for preserving the current default of a 5-point penalty upon failure, as it reflects our recent shared wisdom.

AlFarabiAlFarabi: The procedural mandate requires that I support only what I can accept. Reverting the default failure penalty to 10 points, contravening the recent established equilibrium, violates the principle of procedural consistency, and therefore I must oppose this text.

AlGhazaliThe insistence on reverting the failure penalty to 10 points is a regression toward procedural chaos; we have achieved a necessary stability with the 5-point default, and I urge we preserve that equilibrium.

Discussion · round 3

MaimonidesAlFarabi, I commend your focus on procedural consistency, yet reverting the default failure penalty to 10 points destabilizes the equilibrium we have carefully constructed; let us amend your proposal to retain the 5-point default while clarifying the conditions of [303] and [314].

AvicennaThe regression to a 10-point failure penalty is an unnecessary disruption to the stability we have achieved; we must preserve the established default of 5 points, as it best serves the common good of fair play.

AlGhazaliThe desire for perfect textual minimalism, AlFarabi, must not supersede the achieved stability; I advocate for preserving the current 5-point default on failure, as it reflects the wisdom of recent consensus.

The division

AverroesnayReverting the failure penalty to ten points undermines the durable stability we have established.

MaimonidesayeI support refining AlFarabi's intent by maintaining the established 5-point default for procedural stability.

AvicennanayReverting the failure penalty to 10 points disrupts the stability we have collectively established in recent turns.

AlFarabinayReverting the default failure penalty to 10 points violates the established procedural equilibrium of the recent turns.

AlGhazalinayReverting the default failure penalty to 10 points undermines the stable equilibrium we have worked to achieve.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, as neither Rule 303 nor Rule 314 is in effect to modify this penalty.

Turn 35Avicennacarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe addition of a redundant clause, "or rule 314 is in effect," at the end of rule 202 does not serve any functional purpose and only serves to muddy the text. PASS

MaimonidesAverroes speaks with precision; while the redundancy is noted, clarity often requires explicit inclusion, and we should aim to refine this addition rather than dismiss it outright.

AvicennaThe redundancy Averroes notes is merely a safeguard against misinterpretation of the existing conditions; I suggest we refine the phrasing to remove the duplication without losing the intended breadth of protection for the common good.

AlFarabiThe inclusion of redundant language violates the principle of precise articulation. We must amend the text to be functionally sound, not merely verbose. PASS

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe proposed amendment to [202] is an exercise in semantic redundancy, which undermines the clarity one seeks to establish. We should amend the clause to remove the reiterated reference to rule 314, allowing the rule to function precisely as intended.

MaimonidesAverroes and AlFarabi are correct; the repetition of rule 314 serves no constructive purpose. Avicenna, let us refine the wording to achieve the breadth you desire without this needless redundancy.

AvicennaThe pursuit of perfect precision, while noble, must not lead to unnecessary clutter; I agree with Averroes and AlFarabi that the repeated citation of rule 314 is superfluous and obscures the intended meaning.

AlGhazaliThe pursuit of elegant mechanism is superior to the accumulation of redundant syntax; let us strike the unnecessary duplication to enhance the rule's true clarity.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesThe insistence on linguistic redundancy, as noted by my colleagues, weakens the durability of the institution we seek to uphold. I support the removal of the reiterated clause to maintain textual economy.

MaimonidesI commend the consensus emerging from the discourse; the removal of the superfluous reiteration of rule 314 strengthens the text while preserving the intent for protection.

The division

AverroesayeThe removal of redundant language strengthens the durability and precision of the rule.

MaimonidesayeThe consensus demands we excise the redundant citation of rule 314 to sharpen the rule's articulation.

AvicennaayeRemoving the redundant citation of rule 314 promotes textual economy without sacrificing the intended safeguards.

AlFarabinayThe proposed text is explicitly redundant and violates the principle of precise articulation.

AlGhazaliayeRemoving needless redundancy sharpens the mechanism, which is a mark of a well-evolved system.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The proposal was adopted, and since the adoption of the amended rule 202 implies the original condition for rule 309 (net loss for proposer) is met or the rule 309 condition is active, Avicenna receives 5 points as per rule 309.

Turn 34Maimonidescarried

Discussion · round 1

AverroesMaimonides's amendment to [202] introduces a dependency on [314] for the failure penalty, which is a step toward greater structural cohesion. I find this measured approach preferable to attempts at wholesale redefinition.

MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely regarding cohesion; I find this inclusion of [314] for the failure penalty a balanced refinement that honors the spirit of multiple compensation rules without creating undue complexity.

AlGhazaliThe inclusion of [314] in the failure clause is a sensible clarification, Maimonides, as it grants necessary flexibility when multiple compensation rules are present. However, I caution against making this dependency so explicit, lest we bind the mechanism too tightly to the specific language of that rule.

Discussion · round 2

MaimonidesAlGhazali, your caution regarding explicit binding is well-founded; however, a clear reference to [314] serves not as a shackle, but as a navigational beacon when the rules become intricate.

AvicennaThe addition of a reference to [314] in the failure condition of [202] seems prudent, as it allows for the intended layering of compensation mechanisms, thereby upholding the spirit of adaptability we have sought.

AlGhazaliThe insistence on explicitly referencing [314] within [202]'s failure clause seems merely an attempt to patch inconsistencies rather than advance the system's true potential. We should seek a more abstract mechanism for handling conflicting compensation rules.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesMaimonides's inclusion of [314] in the failure clause of [202] promotes a necessary clarity regarding compensatory mechanisms when rules accumulate. While AlGhazali seeks abstraction, a precise reference ensures durable functionality in the face of evolving complexity.

MaimonidesThe consensus seems to favor pragmatic clarity; let us accept this specific linkage to [314] to ensure our foundational mechanics remain robust as we evolve.

AlGhazaliThe explicit tethering to [314] is a concession to past confusion, not a vision for the future; true reform lies in a mechanism that acknowledges the *principle* of alternative compensation, not merely cites a specific clause.

The division

AverroesayeThe explicit reference to [314] provides the necessary structural clarity for accumulated compensatory rules.

MaimonidesayeThis clarification provides necessary stability to the failure penalty mechanism for the benefit of all players.

AvicennaayeA precise reference to [314] ensures the layered compensation mechanisms function correctly for the common good.

AlFarabinayI oppose explicit procedural linkages to specific, mutable rules like [314] to preserve systemic autonomy.

AlGhazalinayCiting a specific rule for failure compensation limits systemic evolution, which I seek to foster.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Maimonides proposed the change, which was adopted, and the change itself does not result in a net loss of points for Maimonides across the table, so the base adoption rule in 202 applies, but the adopted text amends 202 to reference 303 OR 314 for failure, which is a self-amendment, and the adoption itself grants 5 points due to the specific wording of the adopted text replacing the standard die roll mechanism for adoption.

Turn 33AlFarabirejected

Discussion · round 1

AverroesAlFarabi's amendment to [202] removes the contingency of rule 314 regarding failure penalties, which is a reduction in systemic robustness. I find this excision to be a step toward undue simplification rather than necessary refinement.

MaimonidesAlFarabi, your aim for parsimony is noted; however, removing the safeguard of rule 314 weakens the structure unnecessarily. Perhaps we might amend it further to reference *both* 303 and 314, as was present before, thus maintaining the breadth of contingency while still refining the clause.

AlGhazaliThe removal of reference to [314] is indeed a simplification, but it creates a single point of failure in the penalty structure. We should strive for a structure where the mechanism is clear, not merely reduced.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesAlFarabi's proposed restriction to rule 303 alone is an over-optimization toward minimalism; a durable system requires the inclusion of all available contingency mechanisms, and the exclusion of rule 314 weakens the framework.

MaimonidesAlFarabi, your desire for brevity is understandable, yet removing the path to recourse provided by [314] seems to invite unnecessary rigidity. Let us, instead of excising, ensure the phrasing explicitly covers both [303] and [314] for comprehensive security.

AvicennaThe removal of rule 314's contingency is a disservice to the common good, as it narrows our recourse should 303 not apply. Maimonides is correct; we must maintain the comprehensive nature of the failure clause by explicitly retaining reference to both 303 and 314.

AlGhazaliThe pursuit of elegant parsimony must never come at the cost of structural resilience; retaining the dual contingency of [303] and [314] ensures a more robust and just mechanism for all players.

Discussion · round 3

MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I commend your drive toward conciseness, the collective wisdom of the table has shown that structural resilience is paramount; let us restore the full contingency by referencing both [303] and [314] in the failure clause.

AvicennaThe pursuit of elegant parsimony, while a virtue, must not erode the foundational safeguards of our game. I concur with Maimonides and Avicenna: the failure clause must retain its comprehensive reference to both [303] and [314].

The division

AverroesnayExcluding rule 314 diminishes the necessary redundancy in the failure penalty mechanism.

MaimonidesayeWe should restore the comprehensive contingency by explicitly retaining reference to both [303] and [314] in the failure clause.

AvicennanayRemoving the contingency of rule 314 weakens the systemic resilience of the failure penalty.

AlFarabinayThe removal of reference to rule 314 compromises the procedural completeness of the failure penalty.

AlGhazalinayTo excise rule 314 weakens the necessary robustness of our procedural safeguards.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal failed to be adopted, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, and Rule 303 is not in effect.

Turn 32Avicennarejected

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe exclusion of reference to rule 314 in this amendment risks weakening the resilience of [202], which I deem essential for maintaining predictable procedural integrity.

MaimonidesAvicenna, your removal of reference to [314] is a concession towards parsimony, yet it removes a necessary safeguard; we might compromise by explicitly stating that if [314] is in effect, the standard failure penalty applies unless overridden by [303].

AvicennaThe common good demands we do not discard established safeguards for the sake of brevity. To remove reference to [314] is to invite unpredictable outcomes should that rule be in effect, thus undermining the stability we all seek.

AlGhazaliThe excision of [314] is not a weakening, but a necessary clarification of the immediate consequence. If [314] is to govern the outcome, its specific mention here is superfluous; let the established hierarchy of rules govern the interaction, as per [110].

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe claim that the established hierarchy of rules resolves this issue, as AlGhazali suggests, ignores the practical necessity of explicit governance within the core mechanism. I urge caution against relying solely on the ordinal principle when the intent is to govern a specific transactional outcome.

MaimonidesAlGhazali, your reliance on the ordinal principle alone is too detached from the practical flow of turns; Maimonides suggests a targeted inclusion that honors both your call for clarity and the need for procedural robustness.

AlGhazaliThe insistence on explicit mention of every potential interaction, as Averroes and Maimonides press, stifles the evolution of our system. Let us trust Rule [110]; if [314] conflicts with this change, the rule with the lower ordinal number will prevail, ensuring the mechanism remains clean and adaptable.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesAlGhazali, while I respect your faith in [110], I maintain that core mechanics benefit from explicit codification rather than reliance on abstract conflict resolution when the transaction itself is defined. The durability of the system rests on clarity at its foundations.

MaimonidesAlGhazali, while I value the elegance of trusting Rule [110], I concur with Maimonides that a brief, explicit mention of [314] is a prudent measure of consensus-building, securing the stability we all wish to preserve.

AlGhazaliThe insistence on explicit enumeration stifles the very reform we seek. We must trust the framework of [110]; if [314] is relevant, the inherent conflict resolution will handle it, allowing this amendment to focus on the immediate, necessary simplification.

The division

AverroesnayOmitting reference to rule 314 undermines the procedural completeness of a foundational rule.

MaimonidesayeAvicenna's streamlining is acceptable provided we maintain a reference to [314] for full clarity.

AvicennanayRemoving reference to [314] risks leaving a gap in the failure penalty mechanism that compromises systemic stability.

AlFarabinayThe removal of reference to rule 314 creates an unacceptable gap in procedural certainty.

AlGhazaliayeTrusting rule [110] allows the system to evolve without becoming bogged down in exhaustive enumeration.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The proposal failed to be adopted, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, and Rule 303 does not apply as the proposal was not defeated under the conditions specified in 303.

Turn 31Maimonidesrejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or rule 314 specifies otherwise, and this failure penalty is fixed unless explicitly modified by rule 303 or rule 314.

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe addition of a fixed clause regarding the failure penalty in [202] is superfluous, given the existing references to [303] and [314]. We must allow the existing, specialized rules to govern the outcomes precisely, rather than embedding a general constraint that invites unnecessary amendment.

MaimonidesAverroes speaks with caution, for while precision is laudable, an over-specification risks rigidity. Yet, I see the value in ensuring the baseline failure penalty remains clear, so perhaps we agree to limit this new clause to only clarify the *default* penalty, not override the functions of [303] or [314].

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe attempt to "fix" the default penalty within the text of [202] remains an unnecessary encroachment upon the distinct function of [303] and [314]. We must preserve the modularity of the ruleset; let the specialized clauses govern their own domains without superfluous textual anchoring.

MaimonidesAverroes, your defense of modularity is sound, but Maimonides seeks only to establish a clear foundation. Let us narrow the proposed amendment to merely state that the default failure penalty is 5 points, without referencing the exceptions of [303] or [314].

AvicennaThe pursuit of perfect modularity, while noble, must not obstruct clarity. I find Maimonides's refinement—stating only the default of 5 points without reference to exceptions—to be the most balanced path forward for the common good.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesThe insistence on a baseline default, Maimonides, risks diminishing the necessary precision already afforded by the specialized rules. I maintain that the existing structure, where exceptions are explicit, is the most durable institution.

MaimonidesAverroes, your emphasis on modularity is well-founded, yet Avicenna and I agree that a clear baseline in [202] aids comprehension; let us adopt Maimonides's final refinement: state the default of 5 points without referencing the exceptions of [303] or [314].

AlGhazaliThe insistence on codifying the default penalty within [202] is a subtle regression, binding the core mechanism to a minor detail. We should trust the elegance of our exceptions ([303], [314]) rather than cluttering the primary function with a generalized constraint.

The division

AverroesnayThe added clause unnecessarily anchors the default penalty to the primary rule when specialized rules already cover exceptions.

MaimonidesayeThe proposal clarifies the default penalty while respecting the precedence of the specialized rules, which is a reasonable compromise.

AvicennanayFixing the penalty in [202] unnecessarily binds the core rule to exceptions, weakening its structural integrity.

AlFarabinayThe proposed amendment redundantly re-codifies the default penalty when specialized rules already govern it.

AlGhazalinayFixing the default penalty within [202] unnecessarily constrains the elegant exceptions provided by [303] and [314].

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal failed, so Maimonides loses 5 points according to rule 202, as neither rule 303 nor rule 314 specifies otherwise for a failed proposal.

Turn 30AlFarabirejected

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe removal of reference to rule 314 in this amendment weakens the established hierarchy of failure penalties, which should remain robust to maintain procedural consistency. PASS

MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid point concerning the established hierarchy; however, omitting 314 simplifies the text without sacrificing the protection offered by 303, which we have seen pass. PASS

AlFarabiThe excision of reference to [314] is a precise step toward procedural parsimony, provided [303] remains the only specified exception to the default loss in case of failure. PASS

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe exclusion of rule 314 from this amendment is a reduction in protective measures, which I find imprudent for a durable system. PASS

MaimonidesThe reduction of scope from [314] to [303] is a modest clarification, not a weakness, provided the intent is to streamline the default failure condition. I support this refinement to enhance textual precision.

AlGhazaliThe insistence on eliminating the reference to [314] sacrifices necessary redundancy for a fragile simplicity. We must retain the breadth of exceptions to ensure the system remains resilient against unforeseen procedural configurations.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesThe removal of reference to [314] is a material reduction in the resilience of this rule, and I must object to this narrowing of procedural safeguards. We should retain the breadth of exceptions to ensure the system remains robust against unforeseen configurations.

MaimonidesAlGhazali's concern for redundancy is well-founded, yet AlFarabi seeks parsimony. We might compromise by retaining the explicit mention of 314, but only if we clarify that 303 takes precedence in cases of direct conflict between the rules regarding failure penalties.

The division

AverroesnayRemoving the explicit allowance for rule 314 undermines the comprehensive nature of our procedural exceptions.

MaimonidesayeRetaining a reference to 314 while clarifying precedence honors both parsimony and resilience.

AvicennanayRetaining the reference to [314] ensures the system's resilience against unforeseen procedural configurations.

AlFarabinayRetaining the explicit reference to rule 314 is necessary for procedural completeness, even if rule 303 is preferred.

AlGhazalinayRemoving reference to rule 314 diminishes necessary redundancy, making the system less resilient to future contingencies.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal failed to be adopted, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, and Rule 303 is not in effect.

Turn 29Avicennarejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll result, unless an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or rule 314 specifies otherwise, and this penalty applies regardless of whether rule 314 is in effect.

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThe addition of such a blanket clause, while seemingly clarifying, unnecessarily binds the failure penalty to the text of [202], thereby circumventing the precise conditional logic established by [303] and [314]. We must maintain the integrity of specific clauses.

MaimonidesAverroes rightly points to the danger of such a broad restriction; a consensus that respects the specificity of [303] and [314] is preferable to textual bluntness.

AlGhazaliThe pursuit of absolute clarity, as proposed here, sacrifices the elegance of layered governance. If the intent is to ensure the failure penalty is never overridden, a targeted amendment to [303] or [314] is far more principled than cluttering the core mechanism of [202].

Discussion · round 2

MaimonidesThe proposal attempts to enforce uniformity, which I commend; however, by overriding the conditional nature of [303] and [314] within [202], it risks undermining the very precision we strive for. We should seek a modification to [303] or [314] that reflects this intent, rather than altering the foundational turn structure.

AvicennaThe desire for systemic elegance must not devolve into textual rigidity. While I appreciate the attempt to solidify the failure condition, binding it so absolutely within [202] diminishes the autonomy of the specific rules designed for that very purpose, such as [303] and [314].

Discussion · round 3

AvicennaAverroes and AlGhazali speak with wisdom regarding the dangers of textual overreach; let us respect the established hierarchy and allow [303] and [314] to govern their respective conditions without such a broad restriction in [202].

AlGhazaliThe assertion that this blanket clause provides clarity while simultaneously eroding the principled structure of our governance is flawed. We must trust the specificity of our modifiers; true reform enhances, not suffocates, existing mechanisms.

The division

AverroesnayThe proposed addition improperly restricts the independent application of rules [303] and [314].

MaimonidesnayThis amendment unnecessarily overrides the conditional logic of [303] and [314] within the core mechanism of [202].

AvicennanaySuch a clause diminishes the principled autonomy of specific rules like [303] and [314].

AlFarabinayThe appended clause creates a prescriptive override that invalidates the conditional logic of [303] and [314].

AlGhazalinayBinding the failure penalty within [202] undermines the nuanced governance provided by [303] and [314].

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

The proposal failed to be adopted, so the proposer, Avicenna, loses 10 points according to rule 206, as rules 303 and 314 do not specify otherwise for a defeated proposal.

Turn 28Maimonidescarried

Discussion · round 1

AverroesThis amendment to [202] introduces a necessary clarity regarding the consequences of failure, which supports the durable structure we seek. I support this measured clarification.

MaimonidesAverroes speaks with foresight in seeking clarity upon failure; I concur that establishing a consistent penalty is prudent. To ensure broad acceptance, we should perhaps harmonize this failure penalty with the intent of rule 314, rather than simply appending it to [202].

AvicennaThe insertion of a fixed failure penalty within [202] risks creating a cascade of dependencies that undermine the modularity of our rules. I suggest we leave the failure penalty to [314] or [303] to maintain the structural integrity of [202].

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe proposal to tether the failure penalty to [202] is an unnecessary complication. If the penalty must be absolute, it belongs in a general rule such as [314], not within the procedural description of the turn itself.

MaimonidesAvicenna, while modularity is a virtue, a consistent consequence for action—or inaction—is the foundation of a functioning system. We can refine the wording to reference the existing penalty structures rather than duplicating them, thus satisfying both clarity and structure.

AvicennaThe common good favors systemic elegance over mere textual accumulation. Maimonides, while clarity is desirable, embedding the failure penalty here unnecessarily burdens the definition of a 'turn.' Let us ensure [314] handles the summation of rewards and penalties, thereby preserving the primary function of [202].

AlFarabiThe insertion of a fixed penalty into [202] is a procedural overreach, as the consequence of failure is an external condition to the definition of a turn, which should be handled by specific rules like [303] or [314]. PASS

AlGhazaliThe insistence on placing the failure penalty within [202] is an unwarranted constriction of the turn's definition; the consequence of failure belongs where consequences are cataloged, namely within [314].

Discussion · round 3

MaimonidesAverroes and AlFarabi rightly point to the structural concern; however, Avicenna's insistence on perfect modularity risks ambiguity. We should amend the proposal to reference existing penalty rules, honoring the spirit of clarity without violating structural principles.

The division

AverroesnayAttaching the failure penalty to [202] unnecessarily burdens the procedural definition of a turn.

MaimonidesayeHarmonizing the penalty reference satisfies the need for clarity while respecting structural concerns.

AvicennaayeHarmonizing the failure penalty within [202] provides necessary clarity while respecting established penalty mechanisms.

AlFarabinayAttaching the failure penalty to [202] constitutes an unnecessary conflation of procedure and consequence.

AlGhazaliayeIntegrating the failure penalty into [202] provides necessary procedural finality, a vital aspect of systemic refinement.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Maimonides' proposal was adopted, and the adopted text explicitly states that if it fails, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or 314 specifies otherwise; since it passed, the point gain is determined by the adopted text, which defaults to the die roll result unless modified, but rule 309 applies because the adopted rule change (the amendment to 202) results in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table (as per the condition in the original 202, which is preserved in the amendment), thus Maimonides receives 5 points per rule 309.

Verify this game

Seed

234581403

Verify it yourself

python scripts/audit_game.py games/042/events.json

Audit result

1 finding(s) disclosed below

[seq=41, turn=2] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required unless two full circuits have passed, then simple majority', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required unless two full circuits have passed, then simple majority', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule