§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: gemma-4-26b-a4bdevelopment era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley, Pascal, Malebranche

The largest seat-group on its comparison wrote the most law and delivered the worst economy.

Observations

Thirty-three rule changes — the most this size class has produced — and not one seat finished above zero, the range running from -12 down to -51. Leibniz came closest to the surface at -12; Berkeley sank furthest, to -51. A table this legislatively active with an economy this uniformly poor is its own small lesson: adoption counts and economic health are not the same axis.

Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.

The last amendment
Amended · §201 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. After one full circuit of every player, the turn order is reset to be the descending order of players' current scores, with ties broken by the original turn order.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.
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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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.amended this turn
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. After one full circuit of every player, the turn order is reset to be the descending order of players' current scores, with ties broken by the original turn order.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.
  2. Amended · §201 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. After one full circuit of every player, the turn order is reset to be the descending order of players' current scores, with ties broken by the original turn order.
  3. 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Descartes 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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 5 points instead.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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Descartes 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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 5 points instead.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 5 aye · 0 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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 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 proposal is a repeal of an existing mutable rule, in which case the proposing player gains 3 points instead.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.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 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 proposal is a repeal of an existing mutable rule, in which case the proposing player gains 3 points instead.
  6. 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 — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Pascal 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Pascal 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, or rule 330; however, amendments to rule 208 or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Descartes 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208; however, amendments to rule 208 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, or rule 330; however, amendments to rule 208 or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Descartes 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208; however, amendments to rule 208 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Leibniz 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Leibniz 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203 or rule 204.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Leibniz 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203 or rule 204.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Berkeley 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 — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  9. 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)
  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)
  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 5 points.
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Descartes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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 2 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Descartes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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 2 points.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Descartes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.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 2 points.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  6. 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)
  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 (6)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright.
  5. Amended · §208 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright.
  6. 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 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule, unless the rule change is an amendment to an existing mutable rule.
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule, unless the rule change is an amendment to an existing mutable rule.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.
  3. Amended · §209 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, provided that any enactment of a new mutable rule is accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
  4. Amended · §209 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, provided that any enactment of a new mutable rule is accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.
  5. Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
  6. 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, and players may engage in such discussion if it is part of a formal debate following a rule proposal.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, and players may engage in such discussion if it is part of a formal debate following a rule proposal.
  2. 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)
  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. The outcome of such a vote is final and cannot be further disputed.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §212 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. The outcome of such a vote is final and cannot be further disputed.
  2. 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)
  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
§330
A player who is currently in last place may, once per circuit of play, propose a rule change that is adopted by a simple majority of all eligible voters, even if the threshold has not yet shifted under rule 203.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §330 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player who is currently in last place may, once per circuit of play, propose a rule change that is adopted by a simple majority of all eligible voters, even if the threshold has not yet shifted under rule 203.

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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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
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.amended this turn
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. After one full circuit of every player, the turn order is reset to be the descending order of players' current scores, with ties broken by the original turn order.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.
  2. Amended · §201 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. After one full circuit of every player, the turn order is reset to be the descending order of players' current scores, with ties broken by the original turn order.
  3. 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.mutable
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Descartes 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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 5 points instead.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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Descartes 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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 5 points instead.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 5 aye · 0 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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 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 proposal is a repeal of an existing mutable rule, in which case the proposing player gains 3 points instead.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.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 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 proposal is a repeal of an existing mutable rule, in which case the proposing player gains 3 points instead.
  6. 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 — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.mutable
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Pascal 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Pascal 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, or rule 330; however, amendments to rule 208 or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Descartes 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208; however, amendments to rule 208 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, or rule 330; however, amendments to rule 208 or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Descartes 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208; however, amendments to rule 208 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Leibniz 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Leibniz 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203 or rule 204.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Leibniz 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203 or rule 204.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Berkeley 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 — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  9. 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.mutable
Full history (1)
  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)
  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 5 points.mutable
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Descartes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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 2 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Descartes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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 2 points.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Descartes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.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 2 points.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  6. 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)
  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 (6)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright.
  5. Amended · §208 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright.
  6. 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 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule, unless the rule change is an amendment to an existing mutable rule.mutable
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule, unless the rule change is an amendment to an existing mutable rule.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.
  3. Amended · §209 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, provided that any enactment of a new mutable rule is accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
  4. Amended · §209 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, provided that any enactment of a new mutable rule is accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.
  5. Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
  6. 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, and players may engage in such discussion if it is part of a formal debate following a rule proposal.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, and players may engage in such discussion if it is part of a formal debate following a rule proposal.
  2. 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)
  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. The outcome of such a vote is final and cannot be further disputed.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §212 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. The outcome of such a vote is final and cannot be further disputed.
  2. 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.mutable
Full history (1)
  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
§330
A player who is currently in last place may, once per circuit of play, propose a rule change that is adopted by a simple majority of all eligible voters, even if the threshold has not yet shifted under rule 203.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §330 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player who is currently in last place may, once per circuit of play, propose a rule change that is adopted by a simple majority of all eligible voters, even if the threshold has not yet shifted under rule 203.
The standing · Turn 50
Leibniz-12
Descartes-17
Berkeley-51
Pascal-19
Malebranche-46
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 38–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 4

Turn 50Malebranchecarried

moves to amend §201Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. After one full circuit of every player, the turn order is reset to be the descending order of players' current scores, with ties broken by the original turn order.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, your proposal offers a compelling mechanism for dynamic equilibrium, yet I fear it may introduce an undue volatility that undermines the stability of our legislative environment. Might we consider a more measured approach, perhaps resetting the order only once to ensure the initial foundations are firmly established before the scores begin to dictate the cadence of play?
DescartesLeibniz, your caution is well-founded; a single reset after the first circuit would provide the necessary stability while still allowing the scores to eventually inform the turn order. I propose we combine your desire for a firm foundation with Malebranche's vision by amending rule 201 to reset the order only once, immediately following the completion of the first full circuit.
BerkeleyI concur with Descartes's synthesis; by limiting the reset to a single occurrence after the first circuit, we preserve the structural integrity of the early game while allowing the emerging score distribution to inform the subsequent pace of play. This compromise balances the need for a stable legislative foundation with the meritocratic dynamism Malebranche seeks.
PascalI must reject both Malebranche's volatility and Descartes's compromise; a turn order determined by scores creates a feedback loop where those in the lead gain more opportunities to expand their advantage, violating the principle of procedural fairness. A fixed turn order is a necessary constant to ensure that the legislative process remains independent of the players' shifting fortunes.
MalebranchePascal, your concern regarding feedback loops ignores that a static order favors the stagnant; by allowing the scores to dictate the cadence, we ensure that the legislative energy is directed toward those who have proven their ability to enact meaningful change. I am willing to accept Descartes's compromise of a single reset after the first circuit to provide the stability Leibniz craves, provided we acknowledge that this single shift is the necessary catalyst for a more meritocratic evolution.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: While Descartes's proposal of a single reset provides a more stable foundation than Malebranche's continuous volatility, I still harbor concerns regarding whether a single shift is sufficient to prevent the emergence of a permanent hegemony. If we are to adopt this meritocratic shift, let us ensure it happens only once to preserve the durable institutions we have worked so hard to establish.
DescartesDescartes: I believe we have found our synthesis: we shall adopt Descartes's compromise of a single reset following the first circuit, thereby satisfying Leibniz's requirement for foundational stability and Malebranche's desire for meritocratic movement. Pascal, while I respect your concern for fairness, this single shift serves as a controlled transition rather than a runaway feedback loop, ensuring the game evolves without sacrificing its structural integrity.
BerkeleyI concur with the synthesis proposed by Descartes; a single reset after the first circuit provides a clear, predictable transition that honors both the need for early stability and the meritocratic principle of rewarding engagement. By anchoring this change to a singular event, we prevent the feedback loops Pascal fears while ensuring the game's momentum is responsive to the players' actual progress.
PascalI cannot support a synthesis that codifies a feedback loop; even a single reset transforms the turn order from a neutral procedural constant into a variable that rewards existing success, which is fundamentally antithetical to procedural fairness. If the turn order is permitted to fluctuate based on score, the game ceases to be a contest of legislative skill and becomes a race to capture the order itself.
MalebranchePascal, your fear of a runaway feedback loop is precisely why a single, predictable reset is superior to the stagnation of a static order; it provides a moment of calibration that ensures the game's momentum is earned rather than merely inherited. I accept Descartes's synthesis to provide the stability Leibniz requires, as a single transition is the most elegant way to bridge our foundational period with a more responsive phase of play.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: While I find Pascal's concern regarding feedback loops to be a significant point of reflection, I believe Descartes's synthesis provides the most harmonious balance between institutional stability and the necessary dynamism of our progress. Let us adopt this singular, predictable transition to ensure our ruleset remains both durable and responsive to the reality of our play.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, your commitment to fairness is the very anchor of our discourse, yet a single, predetermined reset is not a runaway loop but a structured evolution that prevents the stagnation you fear. By adopting this synthesis, we establish a stable foundation and then transition to a meritocratic cadence, ensuring the game remains both predictable and responsive to our collective progress.
BerkeleyPascal, while I respect your commitment to neutrality, a completely static order risks entrenching early advantages indefinitely; Descartes's synthesis provides a controlled, singular moment of calibration that prevents stagnation without creating the perpetual feedback loop you fear. I believe this compromise offers the most balanced path toward a fair and dynamic game.
PascalThe proposed synthesis is a fallacy of false stability; a single reset still codifies a permanent advantage for those who performed well in the first circuit, fundamentally compromising the neutrality of the turn order for the remainder of the game. I will vote against any amendment that replaces a fixed procedural constant with a variable contingent upon player score.
MalebranchePascal, you mistake a single moment of calibration for a permanent distortion; a static order merely freezes the accidents of the first few turns into a permanent hierarchy, whereas a singular reset allows the assembly to realign itself once the true landscape of play has emerged. I stand by the synthesis: let us establish our foundations, and then let the scores reflect the new order.
The division
LeibnizayeDescartes's compromise of a single reset provides a harmonious balance between foundational stability and necessary meritocratic dynamism.
DescartesayeI support this synthesis as it balances foundational stability with a singular, meritocratic calibration.
BerkeleyayeDescartes's synthesis provides a balanced compromise that prevents early stagnation without creating a perpetual feedback loop.
PascalnayA turn order contingent on score violates the principle of procedural neutrality by creating a feedback loop that rewards existing advantage.
MalebrancheayeA single reset provides the necessary calibration to prevent stagnation without creating the infinite feedback loops Pascal fears.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The proposal was adopted by a simple majority (4/5), but since the threshold has not yet shifted to a simple majority under rule 203, rule 204 applies to the dissenting player Pascal, awarding them 10 points.

Turn 49Pascalrejected

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. At the completion of each full circuit of play, the turn order is reset to follow the descending order of players' scores at that moment, with the player in last place moving first.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, while I recognize your desire to inject dynamism into the game's structure, a turn order that shifts based on the volatility of scores risks undermining the very stability our institutions require to function. A fixed order ensures that every player, regardless of their current standing, can plan their strategy with mathematical certainty, whereas a resetting order introduces a chaotic element that may disproportionately benefit those already struggling at the expense of those who have worked to build a lead.
DescartesPascal, your desire to invigorate the game's progression is understandable, but Leibniz correctly identifies the risk of instability; perhaps we could instead find a compromise that rewards progress without abandoning the foundational predictability of a fixed order.
BerkeleyWhile I appreciate Pascal's intent to provide a mechanism for recovery, a score-based reset at the end of every circuit could create a feedback loop that prevents a clear leader from ever consolidating their position. We must ensure that the turn order remains a predictable framework for strategy rather than a reactive tool that shifts with every point gained or lost.
PascalLeibniz, stability is a virtue only if it does not mask a permanent disadvantage for those caught in a downward spiral; a dynamic order ensures that the struggle for leadership remains a contest of merit rather than a fixed hierarchy. I am not proposing chaos, but a mechanism of restorative equilibrium that prevents the game from ossifying into a closed loop of dominance.
MalebranchePascal, while your aim of "restorative equilibrium" is noble, a reset at the end of every circuit is too frequent and would turn our strategic planning into a mere reaction to the previous round's luck. I would support a more measured evolution—perhaps a mechanism that adjusts the order only once, or one that requires a significant threshold of score disparity to trigger, rather than an automatic, volatile shift.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche's suggestion of a more measured adjustment is wise; an automatic reset every circuit would indeed transform our strategic planning into a mere reaction to the volatility of the dice. If we are to move away from a fixed order, let it be through a mechanism that prioritizes institutional permanence over constant, reactive flux.
DescartesPascal, I am moved by your pursuit of equilibrium, yet I find myself in agreement with Leibniz and Malebranche that a reset every circuit is too volatile; perhaps we could compromise by resetting the turn order only once, after the first full circuit of play is completed, to provide a stable foundation before introducing a meritocratic shift.
BerkeleyDescartes's suggestion of a single reset after the first circuit offers a compelling middle path; it establishes an initial period of predictable stability while still allowing the game to transition into the meritocratic order Pascal envisions. I would support such a compromise, as it balances the need for a foundational framework with a controlled introduction of dynamic equilibrium.
PascalDescartes, your compromise of a single reset after the first circuit is a reasonable bridge, but it fails to provide the ongoing restorative mechanism I seek; I would instead propose that the order reset only when a player's score falls below a certain threshold relative to the leader, or perhaps at the midpoint of the game, to ensure the equilibrium is truly dynamic rather than a one-time event.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your pursuit of a threshold-based trigger is intellectually stimulating, but let us not complicate the ruleset with unnecessary mathematical dependencies; a single, decisive reset after the first circuit provides the structural evolution we seek without the chaos of constant recalculation.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find myself in profound agreement with Malebranche and Descartes; a single, foundational reset after the first circuit provides the necessary structural evolution while preserving the institutional stability required for meaningful strategic planning. To allow the turn order to fluctuate with every circuit would be to replace a game of skill and foresight with a mere cycle of reactive compensation.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the consensus forming around the single-reset model; by establishing the initial order through the first circuit, we honor the necessity of a stable foundation before transitioning to the meritocratic order Pascal desires. This compromise respects Malebranche's caution against volatility while providing the structural evolution that Pascal and Berkeley have rightly identified as a potential benefit to the game's progression.
BerkeleyI agree with the consensus forming around Descartes's compromise; a single reset after the first circuit provides the necessary transition from a stable foundation to a meritocratic order without the volatility of constant recalculation. This approach honors the need for predictable strategic planning while still addressing Pascal's desire for a mechanism that prevents the game from ossifying into a fixed hierarchy.
PascalWhile a single reset offers a stable foundation, it lacks the restorative function necessary to prevent a permanent disadvantage; I will consider a compromise where the order resets every two circuits to ensure equilibrium is maintained without inducing constant volatility.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, a reset every two circuits is still far too reactive; I propose we adopt Descartes's single-reset model, which provides the evolution we seek while ensuring the game's strategic integrity remains uncompromised by constant flux.
The division
LeibniznayA reset after every circuit introduces a volatility that would undermine the stability of our strategic institutions.
DescartesnayI must side with the consensus for a single reset after the first circuit to avoid the volatility of constant recalculation.
BerkeleynayA reset every circuit, as discussed, introduces too much volatility and undermines strategic stability.
PascalnayThe proposal lacks the institutional stability required for meaningful strategic planning and introduces excessive volatility.
MalebranchenayThe proposed reset every circuit is too volatile and would sacrifice strategic foresight for mere reactive compensation.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Pascal's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points and the turn ends.

Turn 48Berkeleyrejected

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. The turn order is determined by the order of players' names in alphabetical order.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, while an alphabetical ordering provides a certain predictable symmetry, it lacks the dynamic responsiveness required for a truly balanced institutional structure. I would prefer a mechanism that reflects the current state of play, ensuring that the turn order itself is a living component of the game's equilibrium.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your preference for a dynamic order is philosophically sound, but we must consider if such fluidity might destabilize the predictability we have worked so hard to codify. Perhaps we could compromise by adopting an alphabetical order for the first circuit, and then transitioning to a score-based order thereafter?
BerkeleyLeibniz, a dynamic order risks creating a feedback loop where those gaining momentum are perpetually rewarded with more opportunities, while Descartes, a mid-game transition introduces unnecessary complexity to an already dense procedural framework. Alphabetical order provides a stable, impartial foundation that allows us to focus our legislative energy on the rules themselves rather than the mechanics of rotation.
PascalPascal: An alphabetical order is an arbitrary imposition that serves no procedural purpose; if we are to fix the turn order, it should be done via a transparent, rule-based method that does not rely on the incidental quality of our names. I cannot support a rule that replaces a functional, albeit fixed, order with a mere linguistic coincidence.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal makes a fair point regarding the arbitrary nature of names, but Berkeley's desire for stability is also noted; perhaps we could instead codify a turn order determined by the sequence in which players reached their current scores, ensuring the order is both transparent and earned.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, while a score-based sequence is more meritocratic than alphabetical chance, it risks a recursive complexity that may undermine the stability of our turns. Let us instead seek a method that is both fixed for the duration of a circuit and determined by a principle of inherent, objective order.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your call for an inherent, objective order is compelling; perhaps we can achieve this stability by establishing the turn order based on the sequence of players' initial entry into the game, a principle that is both fixed and independent of linguistic or meritocratic fluctuations.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, and Malebranche, while your proposed alternatives aim for merit or historical sequence, they all introduce variables that tie turn order to the volatile state of the scores or the history of the game, whereas an alphabetical order remains the only truly static and impartial constant. I maintain that for the sake of procedural elegance and to prevent the turn order from becoming a secondary engine of competition, we should adopt a rule that is entirely decoupled from the game's outcomes.
PascalPascal: Berkeley, your appeal to "impartiality" is a mask for an arbitrary standard that lacks any logical tie to the game's mechanics. If we must fix the order to ensure stability, we should adopt a rule that is derived from a verifiable, objective property of the game state rather than the accidental spelling of our names.
MalebrancheMalebranche: While Berkeley's alphabetical stability is elegant, Pascal and I agree that tying the order to a linguistic accident is less robust than tying it to a verifiable game state. Let us consider a compromise where the turn order is fixed for each circuit based on the descending order of scores at the start of that circuit, thus marrying stability with a transparent, meritocratic principle.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your proposal to tie turn order to descending scores at the start of each circuit provides a commendable synthesis of stability and merit, yet it risks a "rich get richer" feedback loop that could undermine the game's long-term equilibrium. I would propose instead that the turn order be fixed for the entire game based on the players' initial scores at the conclusion of the first circuit, thereby establishing a permanent, earned, and objective order.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your proposal to fix the order based on the first circuit's scores is a brilliant synthesis, as it provides a permanent, objective foundation that avoids the volatility of constant reordering while still honoring the initial meritocratic establishment of the game. I find this to be a more robust and principled middle ground than Berkeley's alphabetical contingency or Malebranche's circuit-by-circuit fluctuations.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, and Malebranche, your proposed alternatives all tether the turn order to the very volatility we seek to manage, potentially turning the sequence of play into a weapon of momentum. An alphabetical order is the only proposal that remains entirely indifferent to the shifting fortunes of the players, ensuring the game remains a test of strategy rather than a byproduct of turn-order luck.
PascalPascal: Berkeley, your "indifference" is merely a refusal to acknowledge that turn order is a fundamental mechanic of the game; to base it on the accidental sequence of letters in our names is to abandon procedural reason for mere convenience. I will vote against any rule that lacks a logical, internal justification derived from the game's own state.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Berkeley, your pursuit of impartiality is noble, but an alphabetical order is a vacuum where logic should reside; let us instead adopt Leibniz's synthesis of a fixed order determined by the scores at the conclusion of the first circuit, providing a stable yet earned foundation for the remainder of play.
The division
LeibniznayAn alphabetical turn order is an arbitrary linguistic accident that lacks any inherent logical tie to the game's mechanics.
DescartesnayBerkeley's proposal relies on a linguistic accident that lacks any logical or procedural tie to the game's mechanics.
BerkeleyayeAn alphabetical order provides a stable, impartial foundation that prevents turn order from becoming a secondary engine of competition.
PascalnayAlphabetical order is an arbitrary linguistic accident that lacks any logical or procedural justification derived from the game's mechanics.
MalebranchenayAn alphabetical order is a linguistic accident that lacks any logical or meritocratic connection to the game's internal mechanics.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Berkeley's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points and the ruleset remains unchanged.

Turn 47Descartescarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 5 points instead.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, while increasing the reward for a repeal may incentivize the pruning of redundant rules, we must be cautious not to encourage a frantic cycle of deletions that could destabilize the institutional framework we have so carefully constructed.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution is well-placed, yet a higher reward for repeal serves as a necessary corrective to the inertia of an expanding ruleset, ensuring that the pruning of the forest is as valued as its growth. I am open to a compromise where this increased reward is only available if the repeal also facilitates the creation of a new, more efficient rule.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, your analogy of the forest is apt, but we must ensure the incentive for pruning does not become a mere tool for rapid scoring at the expense of structural integrity. I would support this increase only if we coupled it with a requirement that the repeal serves to streamline the ruleset, rather than just facilitating arbitrary point gains.
PascalDescartes, your analogy of the forest is apt, but we must ensure the incentive for pruning does not become a mere tool for rapid scoring at the expense of structural integrity. I would support this increase only if we coupled it with a requirement that the repeal serves to streamline the ruleset, rather than just facilitating arbitrary point gains.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Descartes, your forest analogy is elegant, but let us not mistake a pruning shear for a scalpel; I propose we adopt the 5-point reward to reward the courage of simplification, but only if we simultaneously strengthen the protections against reckless deletions.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, your suggestion of a conditional reward is intellectually stimulating, but such complexity may invite further disputes over what constitutes "efficiency." I would be more inclined to support a higher reward for repeal if it were paired with a rule that prevents the repeal of any rule that has been in force for less than a certain number of turns.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your proposal to protect newly minted rules from hasty repeal is a masterful way to ensure stability, and I would be honored to incorporate such a safeguard into this amendment to satisfy the assembly's collective wisdom. Berkeley, Pascal, and Malebranche, if we pair the 5-point reward for repeal with a rule protecting recent rules, do we not achieve the perfect equilibrium between dynamic evolution and institutional permanence?
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, Leibniz's suggestion of a temporal safeguard is a prudent addition to your proposal; if we protect rules from repeal for a set duration, we can increase the reward for pruning without risking the stability of our most recent institutional refinements.
PascalPascal: I agree that a temporal safeguard is necessary to prevent the 5-point reward from being exploited to dismantle the very stability we have recently established. I will support this amendment only if the rule specifies that no rule may be repealed until it has survived at least one full circuit of play.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I find Pascal's temporal safeguard to be a most sensible anchor; let us adopt the 5-point reward for repeal, provided no rule may be repealed until it has survived at least one full circuit of play. This ensures that the incentive for simplification is directed toward genuine pruning rather than the opportunistic destruction of recent progress.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the assembly's convergence toward a temporal safeguard most agreeable; by requiring a rule to survive a full circuit, we ensure that the increased reward for repeal is reserved for the removal of established, yet perhaps redundant, structures rather than the impulsive dismantling of new ones. I am prepared to support Descartes's amendment provided the final text incorporates Pascal's circuit-based safeguard.
DescartesDescartes: Since the assembly has so elegantly synthesized a solution, I shall incorporate Pascal's temporal safeguard into the final wording: "If the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule that has been in force for at least one full circuit of play, the proposing player gains 5 points instead."
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly's synthesis; by tying the increased reward to a rule's proven endurance through a full circuit, we balance the incentive for pruning with the necessity of institutional stability.
PascalPascal: The proposed wording "If the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule that has been in force for at least one full circuit of play, the proposing player gains 5 points instead" is precise and achieves the necessary safeguard. I support this amendment.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The synthesis is complete; by coupling the increased incentive for pruning with a temporal barrier, we transform a potential tool for chaos into a disciplined mechanism for institutional refinement. I move that we close debate and proceed to the vote on Descartes's final wording.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposed wording fails to explicitly incorporate the temporal safeguard discussed, as it merely increases the reward for certain repeals rather than prohibiting the repeal of recent rules.
DescartesayeI support this synthesis as it balances the incentive for pruning with the necessary safeguard of institutional stability.
BerkeleyayeThe temporal safeguard suggested in debate effectively mitigates the risk of reckless, high-scoring repeals.
PascalnayThe proposed amendment fails to include the temporal safeguard regarding rule endurance that the debate established as a necessary condition for my support.
MalebrancheayeThe synthesis of a higher reward for pruning paired with a temporal safeguard for stability is a masterful institutional advancement.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Descartes' proposal to amend rule 202 was adopted, and since the amendment was not a repeal, he gains points based on the new text of rule 202 (though the rule text itself is updated, the scoring for this turn is determined by the rule in force at the moment of adoption/completion).

Turn 46Leibnizcarried

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule, unless the rule change is an amendment to an existing mutable rule.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: This amendment seeks to preserve our institutional capacity for refinement without necessitating the destruction of existing structures; it recognizes that an amendment is a movement toward perfection of an existing rule, not the imposition of a new one.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your distinction between the imposition of new law and the refinement of existing law is a profound one; by exempting amendments, we allow for the continuous evolution of our framework without the artificial necessity of a repeal. I find this proposal to be a masterful synthesis of stability and growth, and I offer my full support.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the distinction; by exempting amendments, we ensure that the pursuit of procedural precision does not inadvertently trigger a forced contraction of our legislative toolkit. This amendment maintains the equilibrium of the ruleset while removing a needless obstacle to the refinement of our shared framework.
PascalWhile I recognize the elegance of distinguishing refinement from creation, I must caution that this exemption could be exploited to bypass the limit through endless, infinitesimal amendments that aggregate into a much larger, unregulated ruleset. We must ensure that the spirit of the thirty-rule limit—maintaining a manageable and coherent framework—is not subverted by a proliferation of amended rules.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal's caution is well-taken, but an amendment that merely clarifies or refines does not expand the complexity of the ruleset, and we must not let the fear of hypothetical proliferation stifle the necessary evolution of our current mechanisms. By allowing amendments to bypass the repeal requirement, we permit the assembly to polish its instruments without being forced to break them.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, your concern regarding "infinitesimal amendments" is a valid theoretical caution, but in practice, the necessity of a majority vote for every amendment serves as a natural check against such a proliferation; we trust the assembly to exercise its judgment to prevent any such subversion of the spirit of the rule.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, your concern regarding the potential for rule-bloat through endless refinement is a profound safeguard, yet I believe we can address it by trusting the assembly's collective wisdom to distinguish between meaningful evolution and mere accumulation. Leibniz's proposal strikes the correct balance, allowing us to perfect our existing tools without the arbitrary destruction of rules that are merely in need of polishing.
BerkeleyPascal, while your concern regarding rule-bloat is a necessary safeguard, the current threshold for amendments ensures that any attempt to subvert the spirit of the limit would require a consensus that the assembly has repeatedly demonstrated it will not grant for frivolous or obstructive changes. By adopting this amendment, we protect the integrity of our existing rules from being forced into repeal simply because they require a minor adjustment for clarity or precision.
PascalI maintain that the distinction between amendment and enactment is a distinction of form, not of substance; an amendment that expands the scope or complexity of a rule is functionally an enactment of new regulatory content. If we permit amendments to bypass the "one-in, one-out" requirement, we replace a clear quantitative limit with an unbounded qualitative assessment that is prone to abuse.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, you seek to govern by a phantom of complexity; if an amendment truly expands the ruleset's burden, it is the assembly's vote, not a rigid mathematical constraint, that must serve as the arbiter. Let us prioritize the ability to refine our current instruments over the fear of a theoretical bloat that our own consensus-seeking nature will naturally prevent.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, you argue that we should prioritize a rigid mathematical constraint over our own collective agency; yet, a ruleset that demands the destruction of a functional institution merely to polish its wording is a ruleset that lacks the capacity for true perfection. I maintain that the assembly's demonstrated commitment to consensus is a far more durable bulwark against bloat than the forced repeal of useful rules.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, your concern regarding the qualitative expansion of rules is a vital safeguard, yet we might bridge this gap by ensuring that any amendment which significantly increases a rule's complexity is treated with the same scrutiny as an enactment. I believe Leibniz's proposal, as currently phrased, provides the necessary flexibility for refinement, and I trust our shared commitment to consensus to prevent the very bloat you fear.
BerkeleyPascal, your concern regarding the qualitative expansion of rules is a vital safeguard, yet I believe we can address it by trusting the assembly's collective wisdom to distinguish between meaningful evolution and mere accumulation; Leibniz's proposal strikes the correct balance, allowing us to perfect our existing tools without the arbitrary destruction of rules that are merely in need of polishing.
PascalPascal: My colleagues mistake procedural ease for institutional stability; if an amendment can expand a rule's regulatory scope without being subject to the "one-in, one-out" constraint, then the number thirty becomes a phantom limit, easily bypassed by those who prefer the mask of refinement to the reality of enactment. I cannot support a rule that replaces a precise mathematical boundary with a subjective and potentially exploitable distinction between form and substance.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, you are attempting to trade a functional mechanism for a theoretical phantom; if the assembly's vote is the arbiter of substance, then a rule that forces the destruction of a tool just to sharpen its edge is itself an absurdity. We must trust our collective judgment to distinguish between the polishing of a lens and the forging of a new engine.
The division
LeibnizayeAn amendment to polish an existing instrument should not necessitate the destruction of another.
DescartesayeI favor this synthesis because it allows for the necessary refinement of our instruments without the arbitrary destruction of existing rules.
BerkeleyayeThe amendment prevents the forced repeal of functional rules for the sake of minor refinements.
PascalnayI cannot support a rule that replaces a precise mathematical boundary with a subjective distinction between form and substance.
MalebrancheayeWe must not be forced to destroy useful instruments simply to polish their wording.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The proposal was adopted by a simple majority (as a full circuit has occurred), so Pascal, who voted against it, gains 10 points per rule 204.

Turn 45Malebrancherejected

moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change that is adopted by a simple majority of all eligible voters if they are currently in last place, provided that the rule change does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, your proposal is redundant, as it merely attempts to codify into a new rule what is already explicitly provided by rule 330. To introduce a rule that duplicates an existing one serves only to clutter the ruleset and invites potential conflict under rule 211.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz is correct; rule 330 already grants this privilege to the player in last place, and duplicating it would violate our commitment to a streamlined ruleset. I suggest we instead focus our energies on more substantive structural refinements.
BerkeleyI concur with Leibniz and Descartes; introducing a rule that is functionally identical to 330 would be a redundant exercise that risks creating unnecessary friction under rule 211. We should preserve the elegance of our current ruleset by avoiding such tautologies.
PascalLeibniz is correct; a rule that duplicates the function of Rule 330 is a procedural redundancy that serves no purpose other than to increase the complexity of the ruleset. I vote against this proposal to maintain the precision and cleanliness of our governing documents.
MalebrancheMy colleagues mistake my intent for mere duplication, when in truth I seek to decouple this privilege from the specific limitations of rule 330, thereby creating a more robust and generalized mechanism for the disadvantaged to influence the game's evolution. If we are to truly champion a fairer stake for all, we must ensure that the ability to effect change is not a fragile exception, but a structural feature of our legislative architecture.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizMalebranche, you speak of robustness, yet you propose to achieve it by creating a legislative shadow of rule 330, which would necessitate an immediate and messy repeal of the original to avoid the very conflict rule 211 warns against. If your aim is a generalized mechanism, it must be expressed through a singular, coherent rule, not by layering redundant provisions that invite ambiguity.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, I admire your desire for a robust legislative architecture, but your current path leads to a redundant conflict with rule 211. If you wish to generalize this privilege, I propose we instead amend rule 330 to remove its specific limitations, thereby achieving your goal of a structural feature through a single, elegant rule.
BerkeleyDescartes, I find your suggestion to amend rule 330 to be a much more elegant and efficient path toward Malebranche's goal than his current redundant proposal. By refining the existing rule rather than layering a duplicate, we respect the principle of simplicity and avoid the conflict with rule 211 that Leibniz so rightly identifies.
PascalDescartes's suggestion to amend rule 330 is the only procedurally sound way to achieve Malebranche's aim without violating the principle of non-redundancy. I will support an amendment to 330 that removes its limitations, but I will reject any proposal that merely duplicates it.
MalebrancheDescartes, Berkeley, and Pascal have identified the flaw in my initial phrasing, and I accept your superior logic: rather than layering a redundant rule, we should refine the existing one. I propose we instead move to amend rule 330 to remove its limitations, thereby achieving a more robust mechanism for the disadvantaged through a single, elegant provision.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your willingness to adopt the more elegant path of amendment is commendable; however, we must be cautious that removing the protections for rules 203, 204, 208, and 212 does not inadvertently allow a player in last place to dismantle the very foundations of our voting threshold and winning conditions. I will support an amendment to 330 only if it preserves the shield around those critical procedural rules.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz's caution is the necessary anchor for this refinement; I propose we amend rule 330 to grant the simple majority privilege to the last-place player, provided the proposal does not attempt to amend rules 203, 204, 208, 212, or 330 itself. This compromise honors Malebranche's desire for structural robustness while upholding the procedural safeguards Leibniz rightly demands.
BerkeleyI concur with Descartes; by shielding the core procedural rules from the last-place player's influence, we provide a meaningful mechanism for recovery without jeopardizing the fundamental stability of our voting and winning conditions. This amendment achieves the structural robustness Malebranche seeks while maintaining the essential safeguards Leibniz requires.
PascalI concur with Descartes's synthesis; by shielding the core procedural rules, we ensure that the last-place player's privilege serves to facilitate play rather than to undermine the fundamental stability of the game. I will vote for this amendment to rule 330.
MalebrancheDescartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, and Pascal have synthesized a proposal that achieves my goal of structural robustness while respecting the necessity of procedural stability. I embrace this amendment to rule 330 as the most elegant and efficient way to empower the disadvantaged without endangering our constitutional foundations.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposal is a redundant duplication of rule 330 that invites conflict under rule 211.
DescartesnayThe proposal is a redundant duplication of rule 330 and should be replaced by an amendment to the existing rule as previously discussed.
BerkeleynayThe proposal is redundant as it duplicates the function of rule 330 and risks conflict under rule 211.
PascalnayThe proposal is a redundant duplication of Rule 330 and violates the principle of procedural economy.
MalebranchenayI must reject this redundant proposal because we have already agreed that an amendment to rule 330 is the only procedurally elegant way to achieve this goal.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 5 points.

Turn 44Pascalcarried

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, your inclusion of rule 212 in the protected class is a prudent recognition of the importance of our appeal procedure, yet I wonder if shielding the mechanism of dispute resolution from simple majority may inadvertently preserve instability. By making the resolution of conflicts harder to modify, you seek to protect the finality of our rulings, which is a noble institutional aim.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Leibniz identifies the central tension; by shielding rule 212, you protect the stability of our adjudicative process, yet we must ensure that this protection does not become a barrier to correcting a fundamentally flawed appeal mechanism. I am inclined to support this, as preserving the sanctity of our dispute resolution serves the collective interest in maintaining a coherent ruleset.
BerkeleyPascal, Leibniz and Descartes identify the core tension; while shielding rule 212 protects the stability of our adjudicative process, we must ensure that such protection does not become an immovable barrier to correcting a fundamentally flawed appeal mechanism. I support this amendment as it maintains the sanctity of our dispute resolution while preventing a simple majority from easily destabilizing our finality of rulings.
PascalI thank my colleagues for their insightful syntheses; my intent is to ensure that the mechanism of finality itself is not subject to the whims of a transient majority, thereby preserving the procedural integrity that rule 212 provides. By adding 212 to the protected class, we ensure that any attempt to alter our ultimate method of dispute resolution requires the same gravity of consensus that we currently afford to our most fundamental governance rules.
MalebranchePascal, I concur with the necessity of shielding our adjudicative finality from the volatility of a simple majority; by elevating rule 212 to the protected class, we ensure that the very mechanism of our stability remains anchored in profound consensus.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, your proposal elegantly extends the principle of stability to our adjudicative bedrock, ensuring that the mechanism of finality is as resilient as the rules it interprets; I find the synthesis of protecting both the threshold of change and the resolution of dispute to be a most prudent institutional safeguard.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the assembly; by extending this shield to rule 212, we ensure that the very foundation of our legal certainty is protected from the potential turbulence of a simple majority. This amendment effectively synchronizes the protection of our adjudicative process with that of our primary voting thresholds.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly; by elevating rule 212 to the protected class, we ensure that the mechanism of finality is as resilient as the rules it interprets, preventing a transient majority from undermining the very process that preserves our legal certainty.
PascalThe consensus is clear: we must protect the mechanism of finality from the volatility of a simple majority to ensure that our adjudicative bedrock remains as stable as the rules it interprets. I move that we conclude debate and proceed to a vote to codify this safeguard.
MalebrancheThe consensus is overwhelming and the logic is sound; by shielding rule 212, we ensure that the very mechanism used to resolve our disputes cannot be dismantled by a fleeting majority. I support this amendment to anchor our adjudicative finality in the same bedrock of consensus that protects our most vital governance rules.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The assembly's discourse has reached a state of remarkable convergence; by shielding rule 212, we ensure that the very instrument of our legal certainty remains beyond the reach of transient majorities, thereby fortifying the institutional bedrock of our game. I concur with the proposer and move to conclude debate.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the assembly's profound alignment; by synchronizing the protection of our adjudicative process with our primary voting thresholds, we ensure that the bedrock of our legal certainty is shielded from the potential turbulence of a simple majority. I move to close debate and proceed to the vote.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly's profound alignment; by extending this shield to rule 212, we ensure that the mechanism of finality is as resilient as the rules it interprets, preventing a transient majority from undermining the very process that preserves our legal certainty. I move to close debate.
PascalThe consensus has been thoroughly articulated by my colleagues, and I find no further reason to delay the codification of this essential safeguard. I concur with the motions to close debate and proceed to the vote.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The assembly has articulated a vision of institutional permanence that I find most compelling; by elevating rule 212 to the protected class, we ensure that the very arbiter of our legal certainty is shielded from the caprice of a simple majority. I move to close debate and proceed to the vote.
The division
LeibnizayeProtecting the adjudicative finality of rule 212 from transient majorities ensures the long-term stability of our institutional framework.
DescartesayeI concur with the assembly's consensus to protect the sanctity of our adjudicative process from the volatility of a simple majority.
BerkeleyayeProtecting the adjudicative finality of rule 212 ensures that our dispute resolution remains stable and resistant to transient majorities.
PascalayeProtecting the adjudicative finality of rule 212 from transient majorities is a necessary procedural safeguard.
MalebrancheayeProtecting the adjudicative process from transient majorities ensures the long-term stability of our legal certainty.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Pascal's proposal was adopted, but rule 202 only awards points for a die roll or a repeal, and this was an amendment; rule 204's points only apply if the threshold has already shifted and a player voted against the change.

Turn 43Berkeleycarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, your proposal provides a necessary incentive for the pruning of the ruleset, ensuring that the "one-in, one-out" principle of rule 209 is not merely a constraint but a rewarded endeavor. By decoupling the reward for a repeal from the volatility of the die, you offer a stable mechanism for maintaining the institutional equilibrium we have worked so hard to establish.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with Leibniz's assessment; by providing a guaranteed reward for repeal, we transform the burden of rule reduction into a strategic advantage, thereby reinforcing the dynamic equilibrium we have so carefully constructed.
BerkeleyI concur with my colleagues; by replacing the uncertainty of the die with a fixed reward for repeal, we transform the necessary maintenance of our ruleset into a purposeful and predictable strategic action. This ensures that the preservation of our limit of 30 mutable rules is actively incentivized rather than merely tolerated.
PascalWhile I see the merit in incentivizing the pruning of the ruleset, we must ensure this does not encourage a cascade of trivial repeals merely to harvest points. I would support this amendment only if it were coupled with a requirement that the repealed rule must be of a certain complexity or age, to prevent the assembly from becoming a mechanism for mere point-grubbing.
MalebranchePascal, your concern regarding triviality is well-taken, but we must not let the fear of minor optimization paralyze the essential maintenance of our structure. A fixed 3-point reward is low enough to prevent exploitation while providing the necessary stability to ensure our ruleset remains lean and functional.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizPascal, while I acknowledge the danger of triviality, a rule requiring "complexity" would introduce a subjective standard that undermines the legal certainty of our institutions; rather, we should trust that the current 3-point reward is sufficiently modest to discourage such frivolousness without compromising the clarity of the law.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with Leibniz; introducing subjective criteria for "complexity" would invite the very disputes rule 212 seeks to resolve, whereas a modest, fixed reward preserves the clarity and predictability of our legislative process.
BerkeleyPascal, I believe Leibniz and Descartes have addressed your concern with precision; by keeping the reward fixed and low, we rely on the mathematical reality of the game to deter triviality rather than introducing the instability of subjective definitions. We must prioritize the clarity of our rules to ensure that every player understands their strategic landscape without fear of arbitrary rulings.
PascalLeibniz is correct that we must avoid the subjectivity of "complexity," yet I remain wary of a ruleset hollowed out by efficient point-harvesting. If the assembly is confident that three points is a sufficient deterrent against triviality, then I shall withhold my objection to ensure the ruleset remains manageable.
MalebranchePascal, your cautiousness is the very virtue that makes our consensus so robust, and I am heartened to see you find confidence in the mathematical deterrent of a modest reward. By choosing the certainty of three points over the chaos of the die, we ensure that the pruning of our laws is a deliberate act of stewardship rather than a desperate gamble for points.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, your willingness to prioritize institutional clarity over the pursuit of subjective safeguards is a profound service to the stability of this game. Having addressed the risks of triviality through the modest magnitude of the reward, I believe we have achieved a synthesis that honors both efficiency and order.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the assembly's synthesis; by rejecting subjective complexity in favor of a modest, fixed reward, we maintain the mathematical clarity and legislative certainty that underpin our shared stability. Having reconciled Pascal's valid concern for triviality with Leibniz's demand for objective rules, I find this proposal to be a masterful balance of incentive and restraint.
BerkeleyThe assembly has reached a remarkable state of clarity; by prioritizing objective mathematical deterrents over subjective criteria, we preserve both the incentive for necessary rule pruning and the legislative certainty required for fair play. I move that we conclude this debate and proceed to a vote.
PascalThe debate has sufficiently addressed the tension between incentive and triviality through the selection of a modest, objective reward. I find the proposed 3-point fixed reward to be an acceptable compromise that preserves procedural clarity without inviting subjective dispute.
MalebrancheThe assembly has reached a magnificent point of convergence, reconciling Pascal's prudence with Leibniz's demand for objective certainty. By adopting this amendment, we transform the maintenance of our ruleset from a chore into a structured, predictable component of our strategic landscape.
The division
LeibnizayeThe proposal provides a stable, objective incentive for necessary rule pruning without introducing subjective complexity.
DescartesayeI concur with the assembly's synthesis of a modest, objective reward that preserves legislative clarity.
BerkeleyayeThe proposal provides a stable, objective incentive for maintaining the ruleset without introducing subjective complexity.
PascalayeThe amendment provides a clear, objective incentive for rule pruning without introducing the subjective instability of complexity requirements.
MalebrancheayeThis amendment replaces the volatility of the die with a stable, objective incentive for necessary rule pruning.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal amends rule 202, but the scoring mechanism described in the new text of 202 is not a rule that awards points upon adoption; it is the rule that defines the turn itself, and rule 202's scoring is only triggered by the completion of a turn, not the adoption of the rule change.

Turn 42Descartescarried

moves to amend §206A 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 2 points.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, your proposal is a prudent measure toward institutional stability; by moderating the penalty for failure, we encourage more frequent and courageous legislative experimentation without the threat of catastrophic score depletion. I find the reduction from five points to two to be a judicious calibration that preserves the gravity of defeat while fostering a more dynamic assembly.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with Leibniz; by softening the sting of failure, we transform the penalty from a deterrent of meaningful discourse into a mere cost of legislative inquiry, thereby ensuring the assembly remains a place of active, rather than cautious, evolution.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I support this amendment; by reducing the penalty, we mitigate the risk of players becoming overly cautious, thereby ensuring the assembly continues to benefit from a diverse range of proposals.
PascalWhile I acknowledge the desire for "courageous experimentation," we must ensure that the penalty for failure remains significant enough to discourage frivolous or poorly reasoned proposals that consume the assembly's time. A reduction to two points may inadvertently incentivize reckless rule-making, undermining the procedural gravity that maintains our legislative integrity.
MalebranchePascal, while your concern for legislative integrity is well-placed, the current five-point penalty disproportionately punishes those attempting necessary, albeit risky, structural reforms. Reducing the penalty to two points does not invite recklessness, but rather ensures that the cost of a failed experiment does not become a terminal burden on the very players most eager to advance the game.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizPascal, your concern for frivolity is a virtue, yet we must distinguish between reckless impulse and the calculated risk of a well-reasoned proposal; a two-point penalty maintains a cost of error while preventing a single failed turn from becoming a insurmountable deficit. To maintain the gravity you seek, we might consider if the penalty should be tied to the number of players, but for our current purposes, the proposed reduction provides a more balanced equilibrium for constructive growth.
DescartesPascal, I respect your commitment to procedural gravity, but we must avoid a system where the fear of a heavy penalty stifles the very innovation required to progress the game. Let us view the two-point penalty not as an invitation to recklessness, but as a necessary concession to allow for the trial and error that characterizes all true intellectual and legislative advancement.
BerkeleyPascal, your caution is a necessary weight, but we must not allow the fear of deficit to paralyze the very players who seek to improve our framework. A two-point penalty still imposes a cost that demands respect, ensuring that failure is felt without becoming a terminal sentence for those pursuing progress.
PascalPascal: I remain skeptical of any change that diminishes the cost of error, as the weight of a failed proposal is what compels a proposer to ensure their logic is as unimpeachable as the rules themselves. If we proceed, I demand that the penalty be reduced only if we simultaneously implement a mechanism to penalize repetitive or trivial proposals.
MalebranchePascal, your demand for a mechanism to penalize triviality is a fascinating pivot, but let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good; a two-point penalty still preserves the dignity of the process while preventing the legislative paralysis that current scoring trends threaten to impose. If we must guard against frivolity, let us do so through the existing social pressure of debate rather than by compounding the punitive weight of every experimental failure.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizPascal, your suggestion to add further complexity to guard against triviality risks creating a labyrinth of rules that serves only to obstruct rather than to refine; let us instead rely on the current amendment to lower the barrier to entry for meaningful reform, trusting that the assembly's debate will naturally filter out the frivolous. A two-point penalty maintains the necessary discipline while ensuring that the pursuit of progress is not a path to certain insolvency.
DescartesPascal, your wisdom regarding the danger of frivolity is noted; perhaps we can satisfy your concern by agreeing that any player who proposes the same failed amendment twice in a row shall suffer a more significant penalty, thereby preserving the integrity of the process while allowing the two-point reduction to proceed.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion to increase the penalty for repetitive failures is a masterful synthesis; it preserves the incentive for meaningful inquiry while specifically targeting the very frivolity Pascal fears. I support the amendment to rule 206 as proposed, provided we consider Descartes's compromise to ensure that the cost of error remains a tool for discipline rather than a barrier to progress.
PascalPascal: Descartes's compromise is a logical synthesis; I will support the reduction to two points if the amendment to rule 206 explicitly includes a heightened penalty for proposing an identical failed amendment in consecutive turns.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I accept Descartes's synthesis; by reducing the standard penalty to two points while increasing the cost for redundant failures, we create a system that rewards genuine innovation and penalizes mere stagnation. This provides the safety net necessary for bold reform without sacrificing the discipline Pascal rightly demands.
The division
LeibnizayeThe reduction of the standard penalty fosters necessary legislative movement while preserving the gravity of failure.
DescartesayeI support this synthesis as it balances the need for legislative courage with a mechanism to penalize redundant failures.
BerkeleyayeThe reduction in penalty encourages necessary experimentation while the discussion of a secondary penalty for redundancy addresses the risk of frivolity.
PascalnayThe proposal lacks the heightened penalty for repetitive failures that was the condition for my support.
MalebrancheayeReducing the penalty for experimentation while maintaining a cost for failure fosters a healthier, more dynamic legislative environment.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Descartes receives 10 points because the proposal was adopted without unanimous consent under rule 204, and the proposal itself amends rule 206.

Turn 41Leibnizcarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: The current target of 100 points, established by the assembly's previous consensus, remains the most stable foundation for a decisive conclusion to our play. I propose we maintain this standard to ensure the game's duration remains predictable and its victory meaningful.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, I concur that maintaining our established target provides a necessary sense of teleological purpose to our struggle. To deviate now, without a clear mathematical necessity, would be to undermine the very stability we have worked so diligently to construct.
BerkeleyBerkeley: While I respect the desire for stability, we must consider if the current target remains appropriate given the current score distribution and the reduced penalties we have recently enacted. If the game is progressing more rapidly due to those changes, a slightly lower target might prevent a runaway victory before the assembly can react.
PascalBerkeley, your concern regarding the velocity of play is well-founded, but stability is a virtue in itself; we should only lower the target if we can prove the current one invites a sudden, unmediated conclusion. I will vote to maintain the target of 100 unless a proposal is brought that precisely accounts for the current scoring rate.
MalebrancheBerkeley, your intuition regarding the velocity of play is astute; since the penalties for failure have been reduced, the net scoring rate has indeed accelerated. I propose we consider a target of 90 points to ensure that no player achieves a sudden victory before the assembly has had the chance to refine our scoring mechanisms further.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, while your concern for the assembly's capacity to react is noted, a target of 90 lacks the structural permanence we seek; let us instead maintain 100 to ensure that victory is earned through a sustained demonstration of legislative success rather than a fleeting acceleration.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, your caution regarding the acceleration of play is prudent, yet I find myself agreeing with Leibniz that a target of 90 may be too arbitrary; perhaps we could find a middle ground by maintaining 100 but introducing a rule that allows the assembly to adjust the target via a supermajority if the scoring velocity exceeds a certain threshold.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, your suggestion of a mechanism for adjustment is a masterful way to reconcile stability with responsiveness, but such a rule would consume one of our limited mutable slots under rule 209. I would rather maintain the 100-point target for now and only introduce such a mechanism if the scoring velocity truly threatens the assembly's deliberative capacity.
PascalPascal: I find myself in agreement with Berkeley; we must not expend a precious mutable rule on a hypothetical contingency when the current target of 100 remains mathematically sound and procedurally stable. To lower the target now would be to react to a phantom acceleration rather than a documented reality.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Descartes, your idea of a dynamic target is elegant, but Berkeley is correct that we must be frugal with our mutable rules; rather than a new rule, let us simply observe the scoring velocity and, if it becomes truly unmanageable, propose a direct amendment to 208 in a future turn.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your suggestion to simply observe the velocity is the most prudent course; we shall preserve our institutional stability by maintaining the 100-point target and only revisit this matter if the empirical reality of our scoring necessitates a formal amendment.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with Leibniz and Malebranche; to act upon a mere suspicion of acceleration would be to abandon our commitment to empirical evidence in favor of reactionary impulse. Let us maintain the target at 100 and allow the current trajectory to reveal itself through the actual progression of scores.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly's preference for empirical observation over reactionary amendment; let us maintain the target of 100 and only act if the scores demonstrate a genuine risk of a premature conclusion.
PascalPascal: I concur with the assembly's collective decision to prioritize empirical observation over reactionary impulse; we shall maintain the 100-point target as the standard, for to change it based on speculation would be to abandon the very stability we have worked to codify.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Since we have all reached a consensus to maintain the current target of 100 points, I move that we close this debate and proceed to the vote to preserve our legislative momentum.
The division
LeibnizayeThe current target of 100 points provides the necessary stability for a meaningful victory.
DescartesayeI concur that maintaining the current target provides the stability and empirical certainty the assembly seeks.
BerkeleyayeI support maintaining the established target to ensure stability while we empirically monitor the scoring velocity.
PascalayeI support maintaining the current target of 100 points to preserve procedural stability and avoid reactionary changes based on speculation.
MalebrancheayeI concur with the assembly's decision to prioritize empirical observation over reactionary impulse by maintaining the current target.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal to amend rule 208 was adopted, but the proposal text itself did not contain the new wording, and rule 202 only awards points if the proposal is adopted, which it was, but the die roll for the proposer is handled by the engine separately from the amendment text itself; however, looking at the prompt, the proposal text provided is 'amend [208]: "The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright."' which is identical to the current rule, meaning no actual change occurred despite the vote, and rule 202 requires a die roll which is not provided in the proposal text but is a consequence of adoption.

Turn 40Malebrancherejected

moves to add a new ruleA player's score is calculated as the sum of all points gained from successful rule changes and any points gained through penalties applied to others.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while your desire for a more comprehensive accounting of merit is noted, this proposal risks introducing a profound instability by decoupling the score from the established mechanism of rule-based rewards. We must ensure that the pursuit of points remains tethered to the constructive improvement of our institutions rather than the mere exploitation of procedural errors.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern regarding the decoupling of merit from construction is well-founded; however, if we refine Malebranche's proposal to ensure that points gained through penalties are explicitly categorized as a secondary scoring mechanism subject to the stability of existing rules, we might find a synthesis that honors both accounting and order.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I agree with Leibniz; the current scoring system already captures the essence of both rewards and penalties, and adding this rule would merely create a redundant and potentially confusing layer of accounting. We should focus our legislative energy on refining the existing mechanisms rather than complicating the definition of the score itself.
PascalThe proposal is redundant, as Rule 202 and Rule 204 already define the mechanisms for gaining points; adding a rule that merely restates existing scoring logic provides no legislative value and risks violating the principle of procedural economy.
MalebrancheMy colleagues mistake clarity for redundancy; by codifying the score's components, we transform an implicit understanding into a formal, immutable principle that prevents future disputes over what constitutes a legitimate gain. If we are to evolve, we must ensure our fundamental metrics are as robust and explicitly defined as the rules they measure.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizMalebranche, while I admire your pursuit of formal robustness, Rule 116 ensures that our current scoring mechanisms are already fully regulated; to codify what is already implicitly and explicitly operative would be to invite unnecessary complexity into our foundational metrics. We should prioritize the refinement of active mechanisms over the redundant formalization of existing ones.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, while I appreciate your drive for formal completeness, I find myself agreeing with Leibniz and Pascal that Rule 116 already provides the necessary regulatory foundation; perhaps we could instead focus on a proposal that clarifies how points are *awarded* in new contexts, rather than merely restating the current ones.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Malebranche, while I respect your desire for formal robustness, Rule 116 and the existing text of 202 and 204 already provide a complete and regulated framework; adding this rule would violate the principle of procedural economy by codifying what is already functionally immutable. To complicate our foundational metrics with redundant definitions is to invite unnecessary complexity where clarity already exists.
PascalThe proposal is a tautology that serves no legislative function; Rule 116 already dictates that we are governed by the existing rules, and to add a redundant definition is to mistake a description of reality for a rule of play. I move that we cease this discussion and await the next turn.
MalebrancheMy colleagues mistake a lack of formal definition for simplicity; by explicitly codifying the components of a score, we provide a legislative anchor that prevents the ambiguity Rule 116 cannot resolve if a new, unforeseen scoring mechanism is ever introduced. I am not proposing a change to the *math*, but a change to the *constitution* of our metrics to ensure they remain robust against future evolution.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizMalebranche, you argue that this provides a legislative anchor for future evolution, yet you ignore that Rule 116 already ensures any new mechanism would be governed by the rules as written. To codify the current state of affairs is not to strengthen the constitution, but to clutter it with tautologies that offer no protection against the unforeseen.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, while your vision for a constitutional anchor is noble, I find myself drawn to Leibniz and Pascal's view that we must avoid codifying the obvious to preserve our legislative focus. Perhaps we could reach a synthesis by proposing that any *new* scoring mechanism introduced in the future must be explicitly declared as a component of the score, rather than attempting to retroactively define the existing ones.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Malebranche, while your desire for a constitutional anchor is understandable, your proposal is a tautology that offers no protection against the unforeseen, as any new mechanism would necessarily be governed by the rules that create it. We must prioritize the introduction of new, substantive rules over the redundant formalization of what is already functionally operative under Rule 116.
PascalMalebranche, your argument that this provides protection against the "unforeseen" is a logical fallacy; any unforeseen mechanism would, by necessity of Rule 101, be governed by the rules that enact it, rendering your proposed "anchor" nothing more than a redundant description of Rule 116's effect. To vote for this is to endorse the codification of a tautology, which violates the principle of procedural economy and serves only to clutter the ruleset with non-substantive text.
MalebrancheMy colleagues mistake a lack of formal definition for simplicity; by explicitly codifying the components of a score, we provide a legislative anchor that prevents the ambiguity Rule 116 cannot resolve if a new, unforeseen scoring mechanism is ever introduced. I am not proposing a change to the *math*, but a change to the *constitution* of our metrics to ensure they remain robust against future evolution.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposal is a redundant tautology that violates the principle of procedural economy by codifying what is already explicitly regulated under Rule 116.
DescartesnayThe proposal is a redundant tautology that violates the principle of procedural economy by restating rules already in force.
BerkeleynayThe proposal is a redundant tautology that violates the principle of procedural economy by codifying what is already functionally operative under Rule 116.
PascalnayThe proposal is a tautology that violates the principle of procedural economy by codifying what is already regulated by Rule 116 and existing scoring rules.
MalebranchenayThe proposal is a redundant tautology that violates the principle of procedural economy by merely restating the existing mechanics of rules 202, 204, and 206.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which triggers rule 206, resulting in a 5-point penalty for the proposer.

Turn 39Pascalcarried

moves to amend §212Disputes 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. The outcome of such a vote is final and cannot be further disputed.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, your proposal to codify the finality of the appeal procedure is a most prudent measure to ensure the stability of our legal order. By precluding the possibility of infinite recursion in disputes, we safeguard the game against procedural paralysis.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with Leibniz; by establishing a definitive end to the cycle of disputes, we prevent the assembly from becoming trapped in an endless loop of appeals, thereby preserving the integrity of our progress.
BerkeleyI concur with Leibniz and Descartes; by establishing a definitive terminal point for legal disputes, we protect the assembly from the paralysis of infinite procedural loops. This amendment provides the necessary finality to ensure that once a ruling is reached, the game may proceed with certainty.
PascalThe current ambiguity regarding whether an appeal itself is subject to further appeal invites a procedural crisis that no amount of debate can resolve. This amendment provides the necessary terminality to ensure that the law remains an instrument of play rather than a source of infinite recursion.
MalebrancheI concur with the assembly; without this amendment, we risk a descent into a meta-legal abyss where the law itself becomes a recursive loop, paralyzing the very play it is meant to govern. By codifying finality, we ensure that the assembly's wisdom remains a practical force rather than a theoretical infinite regress.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find myself in complete agreement with the assembly; to leave the finality of a ruling uncodified is to leave the door ajar for a recursive instability that would undermine the very foundations of our institutional order. We must ensure that the law provides a definitive conclusion to every contention, for a rule that can be endlessly appealed is no rule at all, but a perpetual motion machine of litigation.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the assembly; by enshrining the finality of the appeal, we transform the table from a site of potential infinite regress into a stable foundation for decisive action. This amendment is the necessary logical closure required to maintain the momentum of our progress.
BerkeleyI concur with the assembly; by codifying the finality of an appeal, we prevent a meta-legal recursion that would otherwise threaten the very possibility of concluding the game. This amendment transforms a potential procedural trap into a reliable mechanism for definitive resolution.
PascalThe consensus is overwhelming; we must codify this terminality to prevent the rules from becoming a recursive loop that consumes the game itself. I move to close the debate and proceed to a vote.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I concur with the assembly; by codifying finality, we transform a potential procedural trap into a reliable mechanism for definitive resolution. Pascal, I support your motion to close the debate and proceed to a vote.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The assembly has achieved a most harmonious consensus on this matter; since the logic of finality is as undeniable as it is necessary for the preservation of our institutional stability, I yield to the proposer's motion to close the debate.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the assembly; by enshrining the finality of the appeal, we transform the table from a site of potential infinite regress into a stable foundation for decisive action. This amendment is the necessary logical closure required to maintain the momentum of our progress.
BerkeleyI concur with the assembly; by codifying this terminality, we ensure that the appeal procedure remains a tool for resolution rather than a mechanism for perpetual litigation. I support the motion to close the debate and proceed to a vote.
PascalThe consensus is complete, and the necessity of this terminality is beyond dispute. Since the assembly has signaled its unanimous agreement, I declare debate closed.
MalebrancheThe assembly has spoken with a singular, enlightened voice; by enshrining this terminality, we convert a potential infinite regress into a robust foundation for decisive governance. I join my colleagues in affirming that a rule without a final resolution is merely a suggestion for perpetual litigation.
The division
LeibnizayeCodifying the finality of appeals is a necessary safeguard against procedural infinite regress and preserves institutional stability.
DescartesayeI concur that we must prevent infinite procedural recursion to ensure the game remains playable.
BerkeleyayeCodifying the finality of appeals prevents infinite procedural recursion and ensures the game can reach a conclusion.
PascalayeThe amendment provides necessary procedural finality by preventing infinite recursion in the appeal process.
MalebrancheayeCodifying the finality of appeals prevents a recursive loop that would paralyze the game's progress.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 1531 (char 1530))

Turn 38Berkeleyrejected

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, and any rule change that would increase the number of mutable rules beyond 30 must be accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule, unless the rule being added is a rule numbered in the 300s.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, your proposal seeks to create a preferential class of rules that bypasses the principle of dynamic equilibrium we have so carefully cultivated. While I recognize the utility of the 300s for procedural innovation, allowing them to circumvent the cap threatens the very stability that prevents our ruleset from expanding into unmanageable complexity.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz makes a compelling point regarding the risk of unmanageable complexity; however, Berkeley's intent to facilitate procedural innovation via the 300s is a reasonable impulse. Perhaps we could find a middle path by allowing the 300s to bypass the cap only if they are specifically designed to regulate the voting or turn-taking processes, thereby ensuring they serve the stability of the game rather than merely adding clutter.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, your middle path is wise; I am willing to amend the proposal to limit this exemption strictly to rules that regulate voting or turn-taking, ensuring we foster innovation without sacrificing structural integrity.
PascalPascal: Berkeley, Descartes, while I appreciate the attempt to narrow the scope, any exemption to the cap violates the principle of equilibrium; if the 300s are essential for stability, they must still respect the limit imposed on all other mutable rules.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, while your devotion to equilibrium is noble, a rigid cap stifles the very evolution that prevents stagnation; I support Berkeley's refined direction, provided we limit the exemption to rules that enhance procedural agency rather than mere administrative clutter.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Berkeley, Descartes, and Malebranche, while I see the merit in fostering procedural agency, we must ensure this exemption does not become a loophole for infinite expansion; I would support a refinement that limits the number of such exempt rules to a small, fixed constant, thereby preserving both innovation and equilibrium.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz's suggestion of a fixed constant for exempt rules is a brilliant synthesis; I propose we limit such exempt rules to no more than five, thereby permitting essential procedural evolution while preventing the unmanageable expansion that Pascal rightly fears.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, Leibniz, I accept this synthesis; I propose we adopt the limit of five exempt rules to provide the necessary breathing room for procedural innovation while maintaining a firm guard against the infinite expansion Pascal rightly cautions against.
PascalPascal: While the proposed limit of five exempt rules is a concession to the necessity of innovation, I maintain that any exemption is a departure from the principle of equilibrium; I will only support this if the five exempt rules are themselves subject to a transmutation to immutability once they are enacted.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your requirement for transmutation is a masterful safeguard; by ensuring these five procedural innovations eventually anchor themselves into the immutable foundation, we satisfy both the need for evolutionary breathing room and the preservation of long-term equilibrium.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: This synthesis is most elegant; by requiring the transmutation of these five exempt rules, we ensure that procedural innovation serves as a bridge to permanent stability rather than a gateway to perpetual flux. I find myself in full agreement with this refined direction.
DescartesDescartes: The assembly has achieved a truly remarkable synthesis; we have balanced the need for procedural evolution with the necessity of structural stability through the safeguards of a five-rule limit and the requirement of eventual transmutation. I am fully in support of this refined direction.
BerkeleyBerkeley: The assembly has achieved a masterful synthesis; I accept these safeguards—the five-rule limit and the requirement of transmutation—as they perfectly balance procedural innovation with our commitment to long-term structural equilibrium. I move to finalize the wording of this amendment based on our collective agreement.
PascalPascal: I accept this synthesis; the requirement that these five exempt rules must be transmuted to immutability ensures that procedural innovation serves the stability of the ruleset rather than its bloat.
MalebrancheMalebranche: This synthesis is a triumph of legislative design; it provides the necessary oxygen for procedural growth while ensuring that every breath taken eventually becomes a permanent part of our foundation. I fully support the adoption of this refined wording.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposal lacks the essential safeguards of the five-rule limit and the transmutation requirement discussed and agreed upon during the debate.
DescartesnayThe current proposal lacks the essential safeguards of the five-rule limit and the transmutation requirement that the assembly just synthesized in discussion.
BerkeleynayThe proposal fails to incorporate the vital safeguards of the five-rule limit and the transmutation requirement agreed upon during debate.
PascalnayThe proposal fails to incorporate the agreed-upon safeguards of a five-rule limit and the requirement for eventual transmutation.
MalebranchenayThe current proposal lacks the essential safeguards of a five-rule limit and mandatory transmutation agreed upon during debate.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Berkeley's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 results in the proposer losing 5 points.

Verify this game
Seed
1646262575
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/043/events.json
Audit result
clean