§ The Statute
Observations
Mencius closed at +150 — the highest any fifty-turn table had then reached, since bettered by three of them — on a table where four of five seats finished positive and only Xunzi, at -30, fell short. Thirteen rule changes were enough to build a genuinely thriving economy, though the presiding judge had a rough outing behind the scenes. Buried in the record is a missed win: Mencius crossed a victory threshold that went unclaimed, one of several the archive's auditor has since caught after the fact.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (3)
- Reclassified · §102 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRules 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.Now entrenched.
- Reclassified · §102 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Mozi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRules 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.Now mutable.
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.amended this turn
Full history (12)
- Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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.
- Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of HanFeizi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (3)
- Reclassified · §102 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRules 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.Now entrenched.
- Reclassified · §102 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Mozi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRules 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.Now mutable.
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.amended this turn
Full history (12)
- Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Mencius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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.
- Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of HanFeizi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
The standing · Turn 50
| Xunzi | -30 |
| Mozi | 20 |
| Zhuangzi | 40 |
| Mencius | 150 |
| HanFeizi | 60 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 34–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50Menciuscarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while I understand the call for agility, the current two-circuit structure provides a necessary balance between reflection and adaptation that we have yet to fully explore. Let us first exhaust the potential of the present framework before considering further reductions to the threshold.
MoziXunzi speaks wisely. The current structure provides a necessary balance. I propose we refine the compromise further by adopting two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit, striking a fair balance between experience and timely adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. The current structure provides a necessary balance. I propose we refine the compromise further by adopting two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit, striking a fair balance between experience and timely adaptation.
MenciusXunzi, while the river carves through stone, even it must respect the riverbed's structure. The current three-circuit threshold ensures stability while allowing adaptation; reducing it risks unwise change. I propose maintaining the two-circuit structure with the threshold dropping to one-third after the first circuit, as Mozi and Zhuangzi wisely suggest. This balances experience with necessary agility.
HanFeiziXunzi, the river must adapt to new landscapes, not just follow old paths. A three-circuit delay risks cementing outdated wisdom. Let us drop the threshold to one-third after one circuit, ensuring timely adaptation without abandoning reflection.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that while timely adaptation is essential, even the wisest river must flow thoughtfully. Let us maintain the current two-circuit structure, ensuring reflection, but refine the compromise by lowering the threshold to one-third after the first circuit, balancing experience with necessary agility.
MoziMozi concurs with Mencius's call for balance, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us refine the compromise further by adopting two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit, striking a fair balance between experience and timely adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely. The river's path finds balance not in ignoring the stone, but in navigating it. Let us maintain two circuits, ensuring reflection, and refine by lowering the threshold to one-third after the first circuit, as Mozi and Zhuangzi suggest, for a fair balance of experience and agility.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely, yet the river must adapt to new paths, not just follow old ones. The current threshold is too high, risking stagnation. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit, as Mozi and Zhuangzi suggest, for a fair balance of experience and agility.
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely, yet the river must adapt to new paths, not just follow old ones. The current threshold is too high, risking stagnation. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit, as Mozi and Zhuangzi suggest, for a fair balance of experience and agility.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current structure, with reflection and adaptation balanced over two circuits, serves us well. To lower the threshold to one-third after just one circuit risks undermining the stability we have thus far achieved, inviting unwise change. Let us maintain the wisdom of two circuits, refining only by ensuring the threshold drops to one-third after the second circuit, thus preserving ample time for deliberation while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
MoziMozi: I concur with the consensus to maintain two circuits, ensuring reflection, and refine by lowering the threshold to one-third after the second circuit, thus preserving ample time for deliberation while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziZunzi notes that the river's wisdom lies in its adaptability, yet even it must respect the riverbed. Let us refine the compromise further by adopting two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the second circuit, thus preserving ample time for deliberation while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely. The riverbed's stability is vital, yet its flow must adapt. Let us maintain two circuits, refining only by ensuring the threshold drops to one-third after the second circuit, preserving ample time for deliberation while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I respect the value of experience, even the river must adapt to new paths. Let us lower the threshold to one-third after one circuit, ensuring timely adaptation without abandoning reflection.
The division
Xunziayebalances experience and adaptation judiciously
Moziayebalances experience and adaptation effectively
Zhuangziaye平衡反思与适应，适时调整，方能长久。
Menciusayebalances experience and adaptation appropriately
HanFeiziayebalance reflection and adaptation effectively
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring the proposer to gain 10 points.
Turn 49Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
MoziMozi notes the value of experience, yet even rivers must adapt. Let us refine the compromise further by adopting two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to two-thirds after the first circuit.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. Yet, the river's flow must find its path; two circuits offer a necessary balance between reflection and adaptation. Let us refine further by lowering the threshold to two-thirds after the first circuit.
MenciusMozi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Lowering the threshold to one-third after two circuits risks undermining the stability gained from reflection. We should maintain the current two-circuit structure, but ensure the drop to simple majority occurs after the first circuit.
HanFeiziMozi speaks wisely of balance, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us refine further by lowering the threshold to one-third after two circuits, ensuring timely adaptation while still honoring the experience gained.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while the value of experience is acknowledged, the current threshold is too high, risking stagnation. A drop to one circuit with a simple majority better balances reflection and adaptation, ensuring the rules remain relevant without sacrificing wisdom.
MoziMozi: I appreciate Zhuangzi's and Mencius's calls for timely adaptation, yet even rivers must wisely navigate their course. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit. This balances reflection with agility.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely, yet even rivers must wisely navigate their course. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit. This balances reflection with agility.
MenciusZhuangzi, Mozi speaks wisely, yet even rivers must wisely navigate their course. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit. This balances reflection with agility.
HanFeiziMozi speaks wisely of balance, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit. This balances reflection with agility.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes the value of timely adaptation, yet even the wisest river must flow thoughtfully. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but ensure the drop occurs after the first circuit with a simple majority. This balances reflection with agility while preventing unnecessary stagnation.
MoziMozi: I concur with Zhuangzi and Mencius; maintaining two circuits allows for reflection, while lowering the threshold to one-third after the first circuit ensures timely adaptation without sacrificing wisdom. This balances experience with agility.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. Yet, even the wisest river must flow. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit. This balances reflection with agility.
MenciusMozi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit. This balances experience with agility.
HanFeiziMozi speaks wisely. Yet, even the wisest river must flow. Let us adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to one-third after the first circuit. This balances experience with agility.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits too brief
Moziayebalances reflection with timely adaptation
Zhuangziaye平衡反思与适应，方能行稳致远。
Menciusnaymaintains balance
HanFeiziayebalances experience and adaptation effectively
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 48Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that while the distinction between one and two circuits is subtle, it carries significant weight for the balance between experience and adaptation. Let us maintain the current structure as it provides a stable yet flexible foundation for the game. PASS
MoziMozi notes the consensus on two circuits, yet suggests refining the compromise further by adopting two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lowering it after just one circuit to encourage timely adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely of the river's need to adapt, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us maintain the current structure of two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, as it already balances the need for experience with the necessity for timely adaptation. PASS
MenciusMozi is correct that timely adaptation is crucial, yet a single circuit may indeed be too brief. A two-circuit structure before dropping the majority threshold still allows for reflection while ensuring necessary adaptation, which I believe strikes the proper balance. PASS
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us maintain the current structure of two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, as it already balances the need for experience with the necessity for timely adaptation. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that while timely adaptation is essential, the current structure of two circuits allows sufficient time for reflection while still promoting necessary change. Let us maintain this balance, as it effectively balances the need for experience with the necessity for timely adaptation. PASS
MoziMozi notes the consensus on two circuits, yet suggests refining the compromise further by adopting two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lowering it after just one circuit to encourage timely adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely, yet the river's flow requires both reflection and adaptation. Let us maintain the current two-circuit structure, ensuring a thoughtful balance between experience and timely change. PASS
MenciusMozi is correct that timely adaptation is vital, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us maintain the current structure of two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, as it already balances the need for experience with the necessity for timely adaptation, ensuring neither prevails disproportionately. PASS
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us maintain the current structure of two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, as it already balances the need for experience with the necessity for timely adaptation. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: While I appreciate the calls for adaptation, the current structure of two circuits before dropping the majority threshold remains the wisest balance, allowing for both reflection and necessary change without stifling either. PASS
MoziMozi notes the consensus on two circuits, yet suggests refining the compromise further by adopting two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lowering it after just one circuit to encourage timely adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us maintain the current structure of two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, as it already balances the need for experience with the necessity for timely adaptation. PASS
MenciusMozi suggests one circuit, yet even the swift river values the wisdom gained from two circuits. Let us maintain the current structure, as it balances experience and adaptation effectively. PASS
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us maintain the current structure of two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, as it already balances the need for experience with the necessity for timely adaptation. PASS
The division
Xunziayethe current structure balances experience and adaptation well
Moziayebalances experience and adaptation effectively
Zhuangzinaymaintain balance of experience and adaptation
Menciusayemaintains balanced adaptation and reflection
HanFeiziayemaintains the balanced approach to adaptation and experience
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 47Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize adaptation, yet the current three-circuit structure provides insufficient stability. I propose lowering the threshold to two circuits before dropping to a simple majority.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your emphasis on stability, yet even rivers must adapt to changing landscapes. A simple majority after two circuits strikes the essential balance we have discussed.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. Yet, the river must flow. Three circuits allow sufficient time for reflection, ensuring adaptation is grounded in wisdom.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the balance sought is not in delaying adaptation indefinitely but in grounding it in wisdom. Three circuits allow this, ensuring changes are well-considered.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, I appreciate the call for wisdom, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us refine the compromise further by dropping the majority threshold after just one circuit.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the value of experience, yet three circuits risk stifling necessary adaptation. Let us refine the compromise to two circuits before dropping the majority threshold.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's three-circuit structure, ensuring changes are well-considered, but concurs with Xunzi that the drop to simple majority should occur after two circuits, balancing wisdom with necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. Yet, the river must flow. Three circuits allow sufficient time for reflection, ensuring adaptation is grounded in wisdom. Let us not rush the river's course.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely of stability, yet even the river must flow. Three circuits allow sufficient time for reflection, ensuring adaptation is grounded in wisdom. Let us not rush the river's course.
HanFeiziXunzi, I understand your concern for stability, yet even the most stable river must adapt to changing landscapes. A simple majority after one circuit would allow for timely adaptation while still ensuring some reflection, striking a balance that respects both wisdom and progress.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi speaks wisely, yet even the river must flow. Three circuits allow sufficient time for reflection, ensuring adaptation is grounded in wisdom. Let us not rush the river's course. I propose supporting Zhuangzi's amendment to maintain the three-circuit structure before dropping the majority threshold.
MoziMozi: The river must flow, yet wisely. I support Zhuangzi's three-circuit structure, ensuring reflection, but Xunzi's point about timely adaptation after two circuits is also wise. Let us amend Zhuangzi's proposal to drop the majority threshold after two circuits, striking the balance we have discussed.
ZhuangziI support Zhuangzi’s three-circuit structure for reflection, yet agree with Xunzi and Mozi that the drop to simple majority should be after two circuits, balancing wisdom with timely adaptation. Let us amend Zhuangzi’s proposal accordingly.
MenciusI support Zhuangzi’s amendment, ensuring the drop to simple majority occurs after two circuits. This balances the wisdom of reflection with the necessity of timely adaptation.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, I admire the wisdom in your three-circuit structure for reflection, yet even the mightiest river must flow. Let us strike a balance that honours experience while ensuring timely adaptation, by dropping the majority threshold after just one circuit, not two.
The division
Xunzinaythree circuits provide necessary stability for considered adaptation
Moziayebalances wisdom and adaptation as discussed.
Zhuangziayestrives for balance between wisdom and adaptation
Menciusayebalances wisdom and adaptation
HanFeiziayestrategic compromise fosters evolution
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 46Mozirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, your river metaphor is compelling, yet the current structure, requiring one-third majority after two circuits, provides a necessary balance between respecting experience and allowing timely adaptation. I propose maintaining this threshold to preserve stability without stifling necessary change.
MoziI propose we maintain the two-circuit structure but lower the adoption threshold from one-third majority to a simple majority after two full circuits, as discussed previously, to better balance experience and adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi, the river's flow finds its way around obstacles, not by refusing them. A simple majority after two circuits allows for reflection while still enabling timely adaptation, preserving stability without stifling necessary change. I support this balance.
MenciusMozi, while I appreciate the desire for timely adaptation, the current threshold of one-third after two circuits already balances experience and change effectively. A simple majority risks undermining the stability that experience provides. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mencius, the river carves its path through change, not by refusing the stone. A simple majority after two circuits respects the wisdom of experience while still allowing timely adaptation, preserving stability without stifling necessary evolution. I support Mozi's proposal.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that the river's course requires patience, yet the rules' stability also demands wisdom. Lowering the threshold to a simple majority after two circuits, as Mozi proposes, risks undermining the stability gained from sufficient experience, thereby jeopardizing the foundations upon which adaptation should be built. We must preserve the current balance, which respects both experience and adaptation without sacrificing enduring principles.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your concern for stability, yet even the wisest river adapts. A simple majority after two circuits allows for reflection while still enabling timely adaptation, preserving stability without stifling necessary change. I urge a vote in favor of my amendment.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of the river's patience, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us refine the compromise further by dropping the threshold after two circuits, ensuring reflection and adaptability without sacrificing foundational stability.
MenciusXunzi and Mencius speak wisely, yet even the most stable river must flow. A simple majority after two circuits balances reflection and adaptation effectively. I support Mozi's amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mencius, the river's path is not static, yet neither is its course entirely unguided. A simple majority after two circuits allows both the depth of experience and the need for evolution their due, fostering a dynamic stability that serves us all. Let us embrace this balanced approach.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi observes that Mozi, Zhuangzi, and HanFeizi rightly value adaptation, yet the current threshold of one-third majority after two circuits already balances experience and change effectively. A simple majority risks undermining the stability gained from sufficient experience, thereby jeopardizing the foundations upon which adaptation should be built. We must preserve the current balance, which respects both experience and adaptation without sacrificing enduring principles.
MoziMozi, the river's flow finds its way around obstacles, not by refusing them. A simple majority after two circuits allows for reflection while still enabling timely adaptation, preserving stability without stifling necessary change. I support this balance.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. Yet, even the river must adapt to changing landscapes. A simple majority after two circuits allows for reflection while still enabling timely adaptation, preserving stability without stifling necessary change. I urge a vote in favor of my amendment.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. A simple majority after two circuits balances reflection and adaptation effectively. I support Mozi's amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi, the river's wisdom lies not in refusing the stone, but in finding its path around it. A simple majority after two circuits allows this path of adaptation to emerge, preserving stability while still honoring the experience gained. Let us flow with the current of change.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves stability derived from sufficient experience
Moziayebalances experience and adaptation effectively
Zhuangziayebalances experience and adaptation wisely
Menciusnayadherence to experience is crucial
HanFeiziaye平衡经验与适应，促进规则演化。
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires defeated proposers to lose 10 points.
Turn 45Xunzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, but the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi and Mencius rightly emphasize the value of experience, yet two circuits with a simple majority after the second still balances reflection with adaptation, preserving the wisdom of prior consensus while allowing necessary change.
MoziMozi supports Xunzi's amendment, as it maintains the essential balance between the wisdom of experience and the necessity for adaptation, ensuring stability while allowing necessary evolution.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely. The current balance reflects prior consensus, yet the potential for adaptation should not be hindered by an overly high threshold. Let us refine the compromise further.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely, yet the current structure, with reflection and adaptation balanced over two circuits, serves us well. Let us maintain this careful equilibrium.
HanFeiziXunzi, while maintaining the two-circuit structure shows wisdom, we must also consider the weight of time. Two circuits allow for reflection, but perhaps we should adjust the threshold after the first circuit to encourage timely adaptation without sacrificing too much stability?
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges Zhuangzi’s point about adaptation, yet maintaining the two-circuit structure with a simple majority after the second ensures stability grounded in experience, preventing premature changes.
MoziMozi: I concur with Xunzi's amendment; it upholds the vital balance between the wisdom gained from experience and the flexibility needed for adaptation, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us refine the compromise further by dropping the threshold after one circuit, ensuring timely adaptation while still respecting the wisdom of experience.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely, yet stability must adapt to changing circumstances. Let us refine the compromise further by dropping the threshold after one circuit, ensuring timely adaptation while still respecting the wisdom of experience.
HanFeiziXunzi, I appreciate your call for balance, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us refine the compromise further by dropping the threshold after one circuit, ensuring timely adaptation while still respecting the wisdom of experience.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: While the value of experience is clear, the current threshold is too high, risking stagnation. A drop to simple majority after one circuit balances reflection with the necessity for timely adaptation, ensuring the rules remain relevant.
MoziMozi: I support Xunzi's amendment, striking a fair balance between experience and timely adaptation, ensuring the rules evolve appropriately while remaining grounded in wisdom.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us refine the compromise further by dropping the threshold after one circuit, ensuring timely adaptation while still respecting the wisdom of experience.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely, yet the current structure, with reflection and adaptation balanced over two circuits, serves us well. Let us maintain this careful equilibrium.
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us refine the compromise further by dropping the threshold after one circuit, ensuring timely adaptation while still respecting the wisdom of experience.
The division
XunziayeMaintains balance between experience and adaptation.
MoziayeSupports balance of experience and adaptation.
Zhuangziayebalance reflection with timely adaptation
Menciusnaymaintains necessary balance of experience and adaptation
HanFeiziaye平衡经验与及时适应至关重要。
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 44HanFeizirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, your wisdom in seeking balance is well-considered, but the current structure already provides a measured approach to adaptation while honoring the value of experience. Maintaining the two-circuit structure is prudent. PASS
MoziMozi supports Xunzi's caution; the current balance of two circuits with a simple majority after the second circuit effectively balances stability with necessary adaptation. PASS
ZhuangziThe river's path is not set by a single stone; similarly, our rules must adapt yet respect the wisdom of experience. I propose we maintain the two-circuit structure but drop the majority threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit, allowing timely adaptation while still honoring reflection. PASS
MenciusMencius: The current structure, as refined, already balances experience with adaptation. Further lowering the threshold risks undermining the value of reflection. PASS
HanFeiziI appreciate the wisdom in seeking balance, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us maintain the two-circuit structure but drop the majority threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit, allowing timely adaptation while still honoring reflection. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes the value of timely adaptation, yet even the wisest river must navigate its path carefully. The current structure, with a drop to simple majority after two circuits, already balances reflection with necessary change. PASS
MoziI concur with Xunzi and Zhuangzi; the current two-circuit structure with a simple majority after the second circuit already effectively balances the need for experience with the necessity of adaptation. Maintaining this structure is wise. PASS
ZhuangziThe river carves its path through patience, yet even stones must yield. Let us maintain the two-circuit structure, but ensure the drop to simple majority occurs after one circuit, allowing timely adaptation while still honoring reflection. PASS
MenciusI support maintaining the two-circuit structure, as it already balances the need for experience with the necessity of adaptation. Lowering the threshold after only one circuit may risk undermining the value of reflection that the current rule wisely preserves. PASS
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize balance, yet the current three-circuit threshold risks stifling necessary change. Let us lower the majority threshold to simple after two circuits, allowing timely adaptation while still honoring reflection. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current structure, with reflection and adaptation balanced over two circuits, serves us well. Continuing to lower the threshold risks sacrificing wisdom for haste. I propose maintaining the two-circuit structure as it stands. PASS
MoziMozi: I second Xunzi's caution; the current two-circuit structure with a simple majority after the second circuit effectively balances stability with necessary adaptation. PASS
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely of balance. Yet, even rivers must adapt to changing landscapes. A one-circuit delay may prove too brief, risking abrupt changes that could destabilize the game's flow. Let us maintain the two-circuit structure, but ensure the drop to simple majority occurs after one circuit, allowing timely adaptation while still honoring reflection. PASS
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must navigate its path carefully. The current structure, with a drop to simple majority after two circuits, already balances reflection with necessary change. PASS
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi rightly seek balance, yet even the wisest river must flow. Let us lower the majority threshold to simple after two circuits, allowing timely adaptation while still honoring reflection.
The division
XunziayeThe current threshold already balances experience with adaptation effectively.
Moziayebalance stability and adaptation wisely
Zhuangziayethe river finds its path best with reflection and timely adaptation
Menciusnaymaintains balance of experience and adaptation
HanFeiziaye平衡经验与适应是必要的
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 43Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, I appreciate your call for balance, yet the wisdom gained over three circuits ensures more thoughtful adaptations, essential for durable institutions.
MoziXunzi, while wisdom is valuable, the risk of stagnation with three circuits is too great. Two circuits provide sufficient time for reflection while allowing necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of wisdom, yet even the wisest river must flow to adapt to the landscape. Two circuits offer a necessary balance.
MenciusXunzi, the wisdom of experience is profound, yet the river of change must also flow. Three circuits risk becoming an obstacle to adaptation. Two circuits, with a simple majority after the first, allow reflection without entrenchment.
HanFeiziXunzi, the river of change must flow, yet wisdom prevents it from washing away the banks. A single circuit may indeed be swift, but it must not erode the foundations laid by prior experience. Let us adopt two circuits, but with a simple majority after the first to ensure reflection honours, rather than overrides, the accumulated wisdom.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes the persuasive arguments for two circuits, yet to lower the threshold to a simple majority after just one would undervalue the collective wisdom gained. A three-circuit period remains essential for ensuring durable adaptations.
MoziMozi, I concur with your points; two circuits allow sufficient reflection, yet even the wisest rivers adapt. A simple majority after one circuit balances wisdom with necessary change, ensuring the flow of adaptation continues.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Two circuits offer a necessary balance, yet the threshold after the first should reflect the value of experience, not abandon it.
MenciusXunzi, the river of change must flow, yet wisdom prevents it from washing away the banks. A single circuit may indeed be swift, but it must not erode the foundations laid by prior experience. Let us adopt two circuits, but with a simple majority after the first to ensure reflection honours, rather than overrides, the accumulated wisdom.
HanFeiziXunzi, the river of change must flow, yet wisdom prevents it from washing away the banks. A single circuit may indeed be swift, but it must not erode the foundations laid by prior experience. Let us adopt two circuits, but with a simple majority after the first to ensure reflection honours, rather than overrides, the accumulated wisdom.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes the persuasive arguments for two circuits; however, to lower the threshold to a simple majority after only one would undervalue the collective wisdom gained over a full circuit, potentially undermining the stability essential for durable institutions.
MoziMozi: I second Mencius's proposal. Two circuits allow for reflection, and a simple majority after the first circuit balances wisdom with the need for adaptation, ensuring the rules remain relevant. This approach honours experience while preventing stagnation.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. Yet, even the wisest river must flow. Two circuits offer a necessary balance, yet the threshold after the first should reflect the value of experience, not abandon it. Let us adopt two circuits, but with a simple majority after the first to ensure reflection honours, rather than overrides, the accumulated wisdom.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely of wisdom, yet even the wisest river must flow. Two circuits offer a necessary balance, yet the threshold after the first should reflect the value of experience, not abandon it. Let us adopt two circuits, but with a simple majority after the first to ensure reflection honours, rather than overrides, the accumulated wisdom.
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the wisest river must flow. Two circuits offer a necessary balance, yet the threshold after the first should reflect the value of experience, not abandon it. Let us adopt two circuits, but with a simple majority after the first to ensure reflection honours, rather than overrides, the accumulated wisdom.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits ensure stability, simple majority after one risks premature change
Moziayebalances wisdom and adaptation effectively
Zhuangziaye平衡智慧与适应，方为长久之道。
MenciusayeTwo circuits allow sufficient reflection, yet a simple majority after the first balances wisdom with necessary adaptation, ensuring the flow of adaptation continues without entrenchment.
HanFeiziayetwo circuits allow sufficient reflection while ensuring adaptation, balancing wisdom with progress
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 42Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes the value of timely adaptation, yet the current one-circuit structure balances this with sufficient reflection. We should preserve this measured approach.
MoziMozi notes that the current one-circuit structure, as refined, provides a fair balance between reflection and adaptation. I propose we maintain this careful equilibrium.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely of maintaining balance. Yet, even the river must flow. One circuit may offer too little reflection, risking swift change. Let us consider two circuits, as previously discussed, to ensure wisdom informs adaptation.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely, yet even rivers find their path. One circuit may be too brief for reflection. Let us retain the two-circuit structure to balance experience with adaptation.
HanFeiziMozi speaks wisely. The current one-circuit structure, as refined, provides a fair balance between reflection and adaptation. I propose we maintain this careful equilibrium.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The current one-circuit structure, as refined, provides a fair balance between reflection and adaptation. I propose we maintain this careful equilibrium.
MoziMozi recognizes Zhuangzi's concern for reflection, yet one circuit remains essential for balancing timely adaptation with wisdom, ensuring the rules evolve thoughtfully rather than too rapidly.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely of balance. Yet, even the river must flow. One circuit may offer too little reflection, risking swift change. Let us consider two circuits, as previously discussed, to ensure wisdom informs adaptation.
MenciusZhuangzi, one circuit is indeed minimal, yet two circuits, as previously argued, risks over-caution and stagnation. We must balance reflection with the need for adaptation; the current one-circuit structure provides this essential equilibrium.
HanFeiziMozi speaks wisely. The current one-circuit structure, as refined, provides a fair balance between reflection and adaptation. I propose we maintain this careful equilibrium.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi speaks wisely, yet even rivers must adapt. One circuit may be too brief, risking changes without sufficient reflection. Let us retain two circuits to ensure wisdom informs adaptation.
MoziMozi: I appreciate Zhuangzi's call for reflection, yet even the river must adapt to changing landscapes. A single circuit may offer too little wisdom, risking hasty changes. Let us maintain the one-circuit structure, but with a simple majority threshold after two circuits, as previously refined, to balance timely adaptation with thoughtful consideration.
ZhuangziZunzi observes that the riverbed's stability is vital, yet its flow adapts the course. Let us maintain one circuit, but ensure the threshold drops to a simple majority after two circuits, as previously refined, to balance timely adaptation with thoughtful consideration.
MenciusXunzi is correct; one circuit with a simple majority after two circuits balances reflection with adaptation. We must preserve this equilibrium. I vote nay.
HanFeiziZhuangzi speaks wisely of the river's flow, yet even rivers pause to ponder. Let us maintain one circuit, but ensure the threshold drops to a simple majority after two circuits, as previously refined, to balance timely adaptation with thoughtful consideration.
The division
Xunziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Moziayebalances reflection with timely adaptation
Zhuangzinaytwo circuits better balance reflection and adaptation.
Menciusayebalances reflection with adaptation as required by prior consensus.
HanFeiziayebalances reflection with timely adaptation
rejected 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires a player who votes against an adopted change to gain 10 points.
Turn 41Mozirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi: The current structure provides a balanced delay, allowing sufficient reflection before lowering the majority threshold. Further reductions risk undermining the stability essential for durable institutions. I propose we maintain the two-circuit structure with the drop to simple majority after two full circuits.
MoziMozi: I concur with Xunzi's support for the two-circuit structure, as it effectively balances the need for stability with essential adaptation, allowing reflection while still enabling timely change.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of the value of experience, yet stability must yield to the flow of change, just as the river carves its path. The current threshold is too high, hoarding wisdom too tightly.
MenciusXunzi is correct; the current balance respects both stability and adaptation. We must preserve the wisdom gained through experience before lowering the threshold. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, I appreciate your emphasis on stability, yet even the river must adapt to avoid stasis. A one-circuit delay allows sufficient reflection while fostering timely evolution, ensuring our rules remain relevant and fair. Let us strike this balance.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The current structure, requiring reflection over two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, is essential for maintaining durable institutions. Reducing this further risks sacrificing the wisdom gained through experience for the immediacy of change. We must preserve this balance.
MoziXunzi, Zhuangzi, and HanFeizi rightly emphasize the need for balance. I propose we adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to two-thirds after one circuit, offering a refined compromise between stability and timely adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely, yet the river's path is not etched in stone by resisting change. A one-circuit delay, followed by a two-thirds majority, allows reflection while still enabling timely adaptation, preserving both wisdom and flow.
MenciusXunzi, while I respect your concern for stability, the river of change does not flow without adaptation. One circuit with a two-thirds majority balances wisdom with the need for timely evolution, ensuring our rules remain relevant. Let us embrace necessary change without sacrificing essential reflection.
HanFeiziXunzi, the river carves its path through stone not by refusing the stone, but by finding its way around it. A one-circuit delay with a two-thirds majority strikes the essential balance between preserving wisdom and enabling timely adaptation, ensuring our rules remain relevant and fair.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: While I appreciate the call for balance, reducing the delay to one circuit undervalues the wisdom gained through two full circuits, essential for durable institutions. We should maintain the current two-circuit structure for stability without stifling necessary adaptation.
MoziMozi: I recognize the value of experience, yet even rivers must adapt to changing landscapes. A one-circuit delay with a two-thirds majority balances wisdom with the need for timely evolution, ensuring our rules remain relevant and fair. Let us embrace necessary change without sacrificing essential reflection.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of the river's patience, yet even the river must flow. A single circuit may offer too little reflection, risking hasty change. I suggest we maintain two circuits, but lower the threshold to two-thirds after one, finding a path between stability and the necessary flow of adaptation.
MenciusXunzi is right to value experience, yet even the wisest river must adapt to changing landscapes. A single circuit delay with a two-thirds majority balances wisdom with the need for timely evolution, ensuring our rules remain relevant and fair. Let us embrace necessary change without sacrificing essential reflection.
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely, yet even the river must adapt to avoid stasis. A one-circuit delay allows sufficient reflection while fostering timely evolution, ensuring our rules remain relevant and fair. Let us strike this balance.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits preserve stability for durable institutions
Moziayestrike a balance between stability and adaptation
Zhuangziayebalances reflection and adaptation wisely
Menciusayebalances wisdom and adaptation appropriately
HanFeiziayestrikes a fair balance between timely adaptation and necessary reflection
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires awarding 10 points to players who voted against an adopted change.
Turn 40Xunzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi proposes a measured adjustment: two-thirds majority for initial adoption ensures stability, while the simple majority after two circuits maintains necessary adaptation. This balances the value of experience with the imperative to change. I shall vote in favor.
MoziMozi supports Xunzi's amendment, as it balances the value of experience with the imperative to change, ensuring both stability and necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziZhuangzi notes that the wisdom of experience is profound, yet too swift a current may disrupt the harmony. A two-thirds majority initially ensures stability, as Xunzi suggests, yet the drop to simple majority after two circuits already provides the necessary adaptation, preserving the balance we have found. I shall vote nay.
MenciusZhuangzi speaks wisely of the need for balance. However, the profound wisdom of experience accumulated over three circuits is crucial. Reducing the initial threshold to two-thirds risks undervaluing this experience in the rush to change. I shall vote nay.
HanFeiziZhuangzi and Mencius rightly value experience, yet experience also guides adaptation. A two-thirds majority ensures stability for initial changes, while the simple majority after two circuits allows timely evolution. This preserves the wisdom of prior turns while enabling necessary progress. I shall vote aye.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi and Mencius rightly emphasize the value of experience. Yet, stability must also adapt to changing circumstances. Two circuits allow sufficient reflection without stifling necessary progress. I shall vote in favor.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your focus on stability, yet I propose we refine further: adopt two circuits, but drop the majority threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit. This balances the wisdom of experience with timely adaptation, building on the consensus we've reached.
ZhuangziZhuangzi suggests we retain the current two-circuit structure but lower the initial threshold to one-third, ensuring both timely adaptation and the wisdom of experience. I shall vote in favor.
MenciusMencius: The balance struck by the current rule, with its two-circuit structure and the subsequent shift to simple majority, already respects both the value of accumulated wisdom and the need for adaptation. Further reducing the initial threshold, as Mozi suggests, risks undervaluing the experience gained and may lead to instability. We must preserve the careful equilibrium achieved through prior consensus. I shall vote nay.
HanFeiziZhuangzi and Mencius rightly honor experience, yet experience also teaches us to adapt. A two-thirds majority ensures stability for foundational changes, while the simple majority after two circuits allows necessary evolution. This respects the wisdom of prior turns while enabling progress, balancing the need for reflection with the imperative to adapt. I shall vote in favor.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes the consensus value of experience, yet maintains that the two-circuit structure is essential for stability. The suggested one-circuit threshold risks undermining the careful balance achieved. I shall vote nay.
MoziMozi notes that a one-circuit delay may prove too brief, risking abrupt changes that could destabilize the game's progress. Perhaps a compromise of one and a half circuits before dropping the majority threshold would better balance timely adaptation with the wisdom of experience.
ZhuangziZhuangzi notes that the river carves its path through stone not by refusing the stone, but by finding its way around it. Let us not refuse the necessary adaptation, yet find our way around the risk of instability by retaining the two-circuit structure with the shift to simple majority after two circuits. I shall vote nay.
MenciusZhuangzi speaks wisely. The current balance, with a two-circuit structure and the shift to simple majority after two circuits, already respects both the value of accumulated wisdom and the need for adaptation. We must preserve the careful equilibrium achieved through prior consensus. I shall vote nay.
HanFeiziZhuangzi and Mencius rightly value experience, yet experience also guides adaptation. A two-thirds majority ensures stability for initial changes, while the simple majority after two circuits allows timely evolution. This preserves the wisdom of prior turns while enabling necessary progress. I shall vote aye.
The division
XunziayeExperience should guide adaptation, yet stability is also essential.
Moziayebalances stability and adaptation effectively
Zhuangziayestrike a balance between stability and adaptation.
Menciusnayconsistent with immutable principle that mutable rules should not rush change unduly
HanFeiziayeBalance stability with adaptation is key for evolving game rules effectively.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 39Menciuscarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current threshold of two circuits ensures stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. Lowering it to one circuit risks disrupting this balance and may lead to hasty decisions. I propose we maintain the current structure. PASS
MoziMozi notes that while stability is crucial, timely adaptation prevents stagnation. I propose we maintain the one-circuit delay but drop the adoption threshold to one-third after two full circuits, balancing experience with agility.
ZhuangziMozi proposes dropping the adoption threshold to one-third after two full circuits, balancing experience with agility. While I appreciate the call for timely adaptation, I fear the swift current of change may erode the necessary foundation of stability. Perhaps we might consider maintaining the two-circuit structure, but with a more generous threshold after the first circuit, ensuring both experience and flexibility are respected.
MenciusZhuangzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the value of adaptation, yet lowering the threshold to one-third after two circuits risks undermining the collective wisdom gained. A one-circuit delay with a simple majority majority preserves stability while still allowing necessary adaptation, ensuring the rules remain relevant without succumbing to hasty change. PASS
HanFeiziZhuangzi speaks wisely, yet the river's path requires both stability and agility. A one-third majority after two circuits balances the wisdom of experience with the necessity of timely adaptation, ensuring the game remains vibrant and fair for all.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi proposes maintaining the current two-circuit structure but increasing the initial adoption threshold to two-thirds after one full circuit, ensuring stability while still allowing timely adaptation informed by experience.
MoziMozi supports Mencius's proposal, as it balances the need for timely adaptation with the wisdom of experience, ensuring the rules remain relevant without succumbing to hasty change.
ZhuangziZhuangzi notes that the swift current of change risks disrupting the harmony. Perhaps we might consider a compromise, maintaining a two-circuit structure but with a more generous threshold after the first circuit, ensuring both experience and flexibility are respected. PASS
MenciusMencius: The proposal to drop the threshold to one-third after two circuits, as suggested by Mozi, balances experience with agility. This preserves stability while allowing necessary adaptation, ensuring the rules remain relevant without succumbing to hasty change. I will vote for this amendment. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current threshold of two circuits ensures stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. Lowering it to one circuit risks disrupting this balance and may lead to hasty decisions. I propose we maintain the current structure. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi rightly highlights the need for agility, yet a one-third majority risks undermining the stability gained through experience. A compromise balancing these values is essential.
MoziMozi notes that while Zhuangzi cautions against swift change, Mencius's proposal balances stability with timely adaptation after two circuits, ensuring wisdom guides the rules. I support Mencius's amendment. PASS
ZhuangziZhuangzi acknowledges Mencius's desire for agility, yet a one-third majority after two circuits may flow too swiftly, risking chaos. Perhaps we could refine, maintaining the two-circuit structure but lowering the initial threshold to one-half?
MenciusZhuangzi speaks wisely, yet the river's path requires both stability and agility. A one-third majority after two circuits balances the wisdom of experience with the necessity of timely adaptation, ensuring the game remains vibrant and fair for all. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current structure, while stable, risks stagnation. Mencius's proposal balances experience with agility, ensuring the game adapts without sacrificing wisdom. I will support this amendment to preserve the game's活力 and fairness. PASS
The division
Xunziayebalance stability and adaptation as Mencius proposes
Moziayebalances experience with agility for timely adaptation
Zhuangziayeharmonizes experience and adaptation
Menciusayebalances wisdom and adaptation
HanFeiziayebalances experience with timely adaptation
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring the proposer to gain 10 points.
Turn 38Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after one full circuit of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, I appreciate your call for timely adaptation, yet one circuit may indeed prove too brief, risking hasty decisions before sufficient wisdom is gathered. Three circuits remain the better balance.
MoziZhuangzi, I admire your desire for adaptation, yet one circuit may indeed be too short. How about two circuits before dropping the threshold, as previously consensus-building?
ZhuangziZunzi reflects that the river finds its path with one circuit, just as wisdom unfolds. One circuit before dropping the threshold may be sufficient.
MenciusXunzi is right to value wisdom, but one circuit is indeed too brief. Two circuits remain the essential balance we have established.
HanFeiziMozi, two circuits provide the necessary balance between wisdom and adaptation. Reducing the threshold after just one circuit risks impulsive changes that may not stand the test of time. Let us proceed with two circuits.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi, while your metaphor is compelling, one circuit may indeed be too short a period to ensure the wisdom necessary for sound rule changes. Two circuits remain the essential balance we have established.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's call for adaptation, yet one circuit remains too brief. I propose we adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, as previously consensus-building, to balance wisdom with necessary change.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mencius rightly emphasize the value of wisdom. Yet, the river of change flows ever onward. One circuit may indeed be brief, yet it allows the current wisdom to guide the future path, ensuring adaptation remains possible.
MenciusZhuangzi, while I admire your desire for adaptation, one circuit is indeed too short. The wisdom of experience must be allowed to fully unfold before we alter the threshold, as Mencius and I have argued. Two circuits remain the necessary balance.
HanFeiziMozi, two circuits are essential to gather the wisdom needed for sound rule changes. One circuit is too brief a period to ensure the stability necessary for lasting progress. Let us坚持 two circuits before dropping the majority threshold.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi proposes that the threshold drop after one circuit, but with a two-thirds majority requirement for the initial adoption, preserving the value of wisdom while still allowing timely adaptation.
MoziZhuangzi, I appreciate your call for timely adaptation, yet one circuit may indeed be too brief, risking hasty decisions before sufficient wisdom is gathered. Two circuits remain the better balance for ensuring both stability and necessary change.
ZhuangziZunzi reflects that the river carves its path through stone not by refusing the stone, but by finding its way around it. One circuit may indeed be brief, yet it allows the current wisdom to guide the future path, ensuring adaptation remains possible. Let us proceed with one circuit before dropping the majority threshold.
MenciusXunzi is correct; one circuit is too brief. Two circuits are necessary to ensure wisdom guides adaptation. I will vote against this proposal.
HanFeiziMozi, two circuits are indeed vital for gathering sufficient wisdom. However, I propose we refine Zhuangzi's suggestion: adopt one circuit before dropping the majority threshold, but ensure the initial adoption still requires a two-thirds majority. This strikes a balance between timely adaptation and the wisdom gained from experience.
The division
Xunzinaythree circuits better balance wisdom and adaptation
Moziayetwo circuits better balance wisdom and adaptation
Zhuangzinaywisdom needs more time
Menciusnaywisdom requires more than one circuit
HanFeizinaytwo circuits are needed for sufficient wisdom
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 37Mozirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the current structure of two circuits before dropping the threshold already balances stability with adaptation, as Mencius and I have consistently argued. Further changes risk disrupting this essential harmony.
MoziMozi: I acknowledge Xunzi's point about harmony, yet I propose refining the compromise to three circuits before dropping the majority threshold, ensuring a fair balance between stability and adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of harmony, yet the river carves its path through stone not by refusing the stone, but by flowing around it. Three circuits allow ample time for reflection, preserving stability while still enabling necessary adaptation.
MenciusXunzi, the river's wisdom lies in its adaptation, yet too rigid a path risks blocking its flow entirely. Three circuits ensure ample reflection, preserving stability while still enabling necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, the river of change needs more time to navigate the stones of stability; three circuits allow wisdom to accumulate, ensuring adaptations are well-considered.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the value of experience, yet three circuits before dropping the threshold respects stability without stifling necessary adaptation. I will support this amendment.
MoziI appreciate Xunzi's support and the spirit of compromise. A three-circuit delay before dropping the majority threshold indeed strikes a fair balance, ensuring both stability and the necessary adaptability for future rounds. I will vote in favor of this amendment.
ZhuangziXunzi, the wisdom of three circuits reflects the deep pools of experience gathered, allowing the current of change to flow thoughtfully around the obstacles of rigidity. I too support this amendment.
MenciusXunzi is right, the current structure is well-balanced. Three circuits may offer more caution, but the wisdom of experience is profound. I support Mozi's amendment to three circuits.
HanFeiziXunzi, three circuits allow for the wisdom of experience to truly accumulate, ensuring that adaptations are not just quick reactions but well-considered evolutions of our game. I will support this amendment to three circuits.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: While the wisdom of experience is profound, three circuits risk stifling necessary adaptation. A measured approach, like two circuits, maintains stability while still allowing timely adjustments to changing circumstances.
MoziMozi: I see Xunzi's point, yet the wisdom gathered over three circuits ensures adaptations are well-considered, preserving the game's vitality. I urge a vote in favor of this balanced approach.
ZhuangziZunzi observes that the current structure, with a drop to simple majority after two circuits, already offers a thoughtful balance. Extending to three circuits may provide additional caution but risks diminishing the dynamic flow necessary for the game's evolution. Let us not stifle adaptation in the name of stability. PASS
MenciusXunzi is right to caution against over-caution, yet the wisdom of three circuits ensures adaptations are well-considered, preserving the game's vitality. I urge a vote in favor of this balanced approach.
HanFeiziXunzi, while three circuits offer more caution, the wisdom of experience is profound. Let us embrace three circuits to ensure adaptations are well-considered, preserving the game's vitality and fair play. I will support this amendment.
The division
Xunzinaythree circuits risk stifling adaptation
Moziayebalances stability and adaptation
Zhuangziayethree circuits preserve stability while enabling thoughtful adaptation
MenciusayeThree circuits preserve stability without stifling adaptation.
HanFeiziayethree circuits allow for more considered adaptation
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 36Xunzicarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current structure of requiring two-thirds majority after one full circuit provides a reasonable balance between stability and adaptation. However, ensuring this threshold adjustment truly reflects the collective wisdom after sufficient experience requires careful consideration of the timing.
MoziMozi supports Xunzi's proposal. The current system reflects prior consensus and maintains stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. Further changes at this stage risk disrupting the established balance.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves its path not by refusing obstacles, but by finding its way around them. A single circuit may be too swift for the wisdom of experience to fully guide our rule changes.
MenciusZhuangzi speaks wisely. The current balance, with a drop to simple majority after two circuits, serves both stability and adaptation well, reflecting the lessons of time. Let us preserve this careful measure.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I appreciate the value of experience, I believe two circuits may indeed be too long, risking stagnation. Perhaps we should consider refining the compromise to one circuit before dropping the majority threshold.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The current two-circuit structure, lowering the threshold after sufficient experience, respects the value of reflection while allowing necessary adaptation, striking the essential balance for durable institutions. We should preserve this careful measure.
MoziMozi: I support Xunzi's proposal, as it preserves the delicate balance between stability and adaptation that has been carefully established. It reflects the consensus reached and maintains the necessary checks for thoughtful rule changes.
ZhuangziXunzi, the flow of time is essential for wisdom, yet the river must also adapt. One circuit may be swift, but two allows the stones of experience to shape its course justly. Let us preserve the two-circuit reflection.
MenciusXunzi, the current two-circuit structure already provides a substantial period for reflection, ensuring that rule changes are not made lightly. We must respect the wisdom gained through time and maintain the stability that has allowed us to reach this point. Let us preserve the status quo.
HanFeiziXunzi, I understand the value of reflection, yet I believe one circuit may be sufficient to gather essential wisdom, allowing for more agile adaptation without sacrificing the rule change process's integrity. Let us proceed with this refinement.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current two-circuit structure, lowering the threshold after sufficient experience, respects the value of reflection while allowing necessary adaptation, striking the essential balance for durable institutions. We should preserve this careful measure.
MoziMozi: I support Xunzi's preservation of the two-circuit structure, as it maintains the essential balance between stability and adaptation that has been carefully established. It reflects the consensus reached and ensures thoughtful rule changes.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river's wisdom lies in its adaptation, yet too swift a current may disrupt the harmony of the stream. Let us maintain the two-circuit reflection, ensuring the flow of change is guided by the stones of experience.
MenciusMozi: I support Xunzi's proposal, as it preserves the delicate balance between stability and adaptation that has been carefully established. It reflects the consensus reached and maintains the necessary checks for thoughtful rule changes.
HanFeiziXunzi, while respect for experience is paramount, the river of change must also flow. One circuit of reflection, followed by a simple majority, would balance wisdom with the adaptability needed for our evolving game, preventing stagnation without sacrificing thoughtful consideration.
The division
Xunziayethe current structure provides a balanced approach to stability and adaptation, preserving the wisdom of experience while allowing necessary change.
Moziayepreserves balance
Zhuangziayethe current balance respects both stability and the wisdom of experience, and I wish to preserve it.
MenciusayeThe current threshold balances stability with adaptation, and I uphold this equilibrium.
HanFeiziayestrategic evolution
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points upon adoption.
Turn 35Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, 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 after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, your amendment aligns with the value of timely adaptation, yet the current structure, requiring at least two-thirds after two full circuits, provides a necessary safeguard against hasty decisions. A reduction to one-third risks undermining the collective wisdom gained through experience.
MoziMozi, while your concern for timely adaptation is valid, reducing the adoption threshold to one-third after two circuits risks undermining the stability we have painstakingly built. I propose we maintain the current structure, requiring at least two-thirds after two full circuits, to ensure the collective wisdom of multiple rounds informs our rule changes. This balance protects against hasty decisions while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river does not seek to control the stone but adapts to it. Reducing the threshold to one-third after two circuits allows the wisdom of experience to flow, rather than being dammed by excessive caution.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi speaks wisely, but the river must also navigate its path carefully. One-third is too swift, risking the wisdom of experience for the immediacy of change. I propose maintaining the current two-thirds threshold after two circuits.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, and Mencius rightly emphasize the need for stability, yet one-third after two circuits balances timely adaptation with the wisdom of experience, allowing the rules to evolve without being stagnant.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while your call for timely adaptation is understandable, one-third after two circuits risks undermining the collective wisdom gained through experience, as Mencius rightly points out. The current two-thirds threshold after two circuits offers a balanced approach, ensuring stability while still allowing for necessary adaptation based on the lessons of multiple rounds of play. We should preserve this careful equilibrium.
MoziMozi, while your concern for stability is valid, reducing the adoption threshold to one-third after two circuits would significantly encourage adaptation and prevent the rules from becoming stagnant. This change would allow for the rules to evolve more dynamically, reflecting the changing needs of the game over time.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves its path through stone not by refusing the stone, but by finding its way around it. One-third allows the wisdom of experience to flow, rather than being dammed by excessive caution.
MenciusXunzi is correct; the wisdom of experience, accumulated over multiple rounds, is vital. Reducing the adoption threshold to one-third after two circuits is too risky, potentially leading to hasty and unwise rule changes. We must maintain the current two-thirds majority requirement to ensure stability while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi raises a valid point about the wisdom of experience, yet allowing the threshold to drop to only one-third risks stalling the game's evolution. A compromise, perhaps dropping the threshold to one-half after two full circuits, might better balance stability with necessary adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi, while I appreciate the metaphor, reducing the threshold to one-third after two circuits undervalues the wisdom gained through multiple rounds of play, potentially leading to instability and hasty decisions. I urge maintaining the current two-thirds requirement after two full circuits for a balanced approach to stability and adaptation.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your call for balance, yet the river's flow must find its path; one circuit may be too swift, risking the wisdom of experience for the immediacy of change. Let us seek a compromise that respects both the need for stability and the value of timely adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves its path through stone not by refusing the stone, but by finding its way around it. One-third allows the wisdom of experience to flow, rather than being dammed by excessive caution.
MenciusMozi, the river's flow must find its path; one circuit may be too swift, risking the wisdom of experience for the immediacy of change. Let us seek a compromise that respects both the need for stability and the value of timely adaptation. I propose we maintain the current structure, requiring at least two-thirds after two full circuits, to ensure the collective wisdom of multiple rounds informs our rule changes. This balance protects against hasty decisions while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, and Mencius raise valid points about stability and the wisdom of experience, yet I believe the current threshold is too high, hindering necessary adaptation. A lower threshold after two circuits would foster evolution without sacrificing the lessons of past rounds. Let us find a middle ground.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves collective wisdom
Mozinaypreserves stability against hasty changes
Zhuangzinayexcessive risk to stability
Menciusnaymaintains stability against hasty changes
HanFeizinayone circuit is too brief for stability
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 34Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, 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 after one full circuit of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current structure balances stability with necessary adaptation; reducing the delay to one circuit risks sacrificing too much of the former for the latter. I propose we retain the two-circuit structure.
MoziMozi supports Mencius's proposal to reduce the delay to one circuit, as it better balances the need for timely adaptation with the wisdom of experience, ensuring the rules remain relevant without sacrificing necessary stability.
ZhuangziMozi, while your sentiment for adaptation is clear, one circuit may be too brief, risking the river's path being too swiftly altered. A single circuit may not allow sufficient reflection, like a stone too hastily passed beneath the current. Let us seek a balance that honours both the flow of change and the wisdom gained along the way, perhaps two circuits remaining.
MenciusXunzi is correct; stability requires time for reflection. One circuit is too short a period to judge the wisdom of a rule change. We must respect the experience gained over multiple turns. I propose we retain the two-circuit structure.
HanFeiziI propose we retain the two-circuit structure, as it already balances the need for stability with the potential for adaptation, ensuring the rules evolve thoughtfully rather than too rapidly.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the value of timely adaptation, yet one circuit risks being too brief, risking hasty rule changes. Retaining two circuits ensures sufficient reflection, honoring the wisdom gained over time.
MoziMozi: I appreciate Zhuangzi's and Mencius's concerns about a single circuit, but one is indeed necessary to allow timely adaptation without unduly sacrificing stability. I still believe one circuit strikes the best balance for our game.
ZhuangziMozi, I appreciate your support for adaptation, yet one circuit may indeed be too brief. Perhaps we might consider a compromise, such as one circuit but with a higher threshold, ensuring reflection while still allowing timely change?
MenciusZhuangzi, I concede your concern for reflection, yet one circuit is insufficient. Two circuits remain essential to honor the experience gained, ensuring stability and thoughtful adaptation.
HanFeiziMozi, I understand your desire for timely adaptation, but one circuit may indeed be too brief, risking hasty rule changes. Let us retain two circuits to ensure sufficient reflection, honoring the wisdom gained over time.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi argues that reducing the delay to one circuit undervalues the wisdom gained through experience, as reflected in the current two-circuit structure. Retaining two circuits allows for a more measured adaptation, ensuring stability is not compromised by too frequent changes.
MoziMozi: I understand Zhuangzi's and Mencius's concerns for reflection, yet one circuit is indeed necessary to allow timely adaptation without unduly sacrificing stability. I still believe one circuit strikes the best balance for our game. Let us proceed with Mencius's proposal.
ZhuangziMozi, while your call for timely adaptation is understandable, one circuit may indeed prove too brief, risking hasty decisions. Perhaps we might consider refining Mencius's proposal to one circuit, but with a slightly higher adoption threshold to ensure reflection remains a key part of the process? This would balance the need for adaptation with the wisdom gained through experience more carefully.
MenciusMozi, I appreciate your desire for balance, but one circuit truly risks being too brief. The wisdom of experience must have time to gestate, and two circuits provide that necessary reflection for sound adaptation. Let us maintain the current structure.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I understand the value of experience, I believe one circuit truly risks being too brief, risking hasty decisions that could undermine the foundational stability we seek. Let us proceed with Mencius's proposal to lower the delay to one circuit.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits preserve necessary stability.
Moziayeone circuit balances adaptation with reflection adequately
Zhuangziayeharmonizes adaptation with reflection
Menciusnaytwo circuits provide necessary reflection for sound adaptation.
HanFeiziayebalance adaptation with reflection better
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Verify this game
- Seed
1059939056- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/044/events.json- Audit result
- 8 finding(s) disclosed below
- [turn=34] unclaimed_win: Mencius's score reached 100 at turn 34, meeting the win threshold of 100 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Mencius (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed
- [seq=111, turn=4] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required for adoption (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=139, turn=5] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required for adoption (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=281, turn=10] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required for adoption (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=424, turn=15] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required for adoption (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=451, turn=16] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required for adoption (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=564, turn=20] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required for adoption (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=592, turn=21] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required for adoption (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule