§ The Statute
Observations
Six rule changes this time against thirteen the first time out, and the economy held up in miniature: three of five seats finished positive, led by Mencius at +40. Zhuangzi's -10 was the only real sore spot. A second data point for a table whose reputation is 'reliably positive,' not 'reliably record-setting.'
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
Reclassified · §201 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Mencius Carried 20 aye · 0 nay
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.Now mutable.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.amended this turn
Full history (3)
- Reclassified · §201 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Mencius Carried 20 aye · 0 nayPlayers 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.Now mutable.
- Reclassified · §201 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers 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.Now entrenched.
- 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 (3)
- Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA 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.
- Reclassified · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA 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.Now entrenched.
- 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
Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (3)
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Mozi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayOnce turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise.Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 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.Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise.
- 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 (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.amended this turn
Full history (3)
- Reclassified · §201 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Mencius Carried 20 aye · 0 nayPlayers 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.Now mutable.
- Reclassified · §201 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers 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.Now entrenched.
- 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 (3)
- Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA 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.
- Reclassified · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA 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.Now entrenched.
- 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
Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.mutable
Full history (3)
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Mozi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayOnce turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise.Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 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.Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise.
- 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 | 0 |
| Mozi | 10 |
| Zhuangzi | -10 |
| Mencius | 40 |
| HanFeizi | 30 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 34–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, and 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.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that the recent overwhelming consensus (20-0 in Turns 7, 13, and 38) strongly affirms the value of stability via the unanimous threshold after two circuits, and introduces no new element that would undermine reasoned deliberation. Let us honor this deep consensus.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your concern for participation, yet the unanimous threshold after two circuits, as recently affirmed, ensures stability and reasoned deliberation, which I believe is paramount. Let us uphold this consensus.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly honor the deep consensus for stability. Yet, the river of our game must also flow, and rewarding participation encourages engagement without undermining the core value of reasoned deliberation.
MenciusXunzi: Zhuangzi, the value of stability is clear, yet allowing participation rewards to coexist with the unanimous threshold after two circuits does not necessarily undermine reasoned deliberation. Let us consider this compromise carefully.
HanFeiziMozi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a profound consensus for stability, and introducing rewards for participation now risks undermining that consensus. Let’s respect the wisdom of the past and uphold the current rules.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi, while participation rewards may encourage engagement, they risk altering the delicate balance of consensus we have achieved. The unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a profound wisdom for stability and reasoned deliberation, which should not be轻易 disturbed. Let us honor the weight of past decisions.
MoziXunzi, Zhuangzi, I concur with your points regarding stability, yet the current unanimous threshold, as recently affirmed, risks discouraging participation. Let us consider rewarding participation for adopted rules as a way to encourage engagement without undermining reasoned deliberation.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly honor the deep consensus for stability. Yet, even the river of Nomic must flow; rewarding participation encourages all to engage, preserving the game's life while honoring the wisdom of the past. Let us find a path where the river flows both deep and wide.
MenciusZhuangzi, while participation rewards may encourage engagement, the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a profound consensus for stability and reasoned deliberation, which should not be轻易 disturbed. Let us honor the weight of past decisions.
HanFeiziMozi, while participation rewards may encourage engagement, the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a profound consensus for stability and reasoned deliberation, which should not be轻易 disturbed. Let us honor the weight of past decisions.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a profound consensus for stability and reasoned deliberation, which should not be轻易 disturbed. Let us honor the weight of past decisions.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your concern for participation, yet the unanimous threshold after two circuits, as recently affirmed, ensures stability and reasoned deliberation, which I believe is paramount. Let us uphold this consensus.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, while stability is cherished, the current threshold after two circuits has repeatedly failed, reflecting a lack of consensus rather than affirming it. Allowing participation rewards does not undermine reasoned deliberation but honors all players for their contributions.
MenciusXunzi, the profound value of stability via unanimous consent after two circuits is undisputed, yet Zhuangzi's proposal need not undermine it; participation rewards can coexist with the threshold, encouraging engagement without compromising the consensus we hold dear. Let us consider this balanced approach.
HanFeiziMozi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a profound consensus for stability and reasoned deliberation, which should not be轻易 disturbed. Let us honor the weight of past decisions.
The division
Xunzinayunanimity reflects a profound consensus for stability that should not be轻易 disturbed
Moziayerespecting the deep consensus for stability while subtly encouraging participation
Zhuangziayeto encourage participation while respecting the deep consensus for stability
Menciusnayunanimity respects past consensus
HanFeizinaystability paramount
rejected 8 aye · 12 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 49Mozirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, and provided further that the ruleset contains at least one mutable rule.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi observes that the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep consensus for stability, a principle vital for reasoned deliberation and the durability of institutions. Any deviation risks undermining the collective agreement reached thus far.
MoziXunzi makes a compelling case for stability, which I respect. However, the current unanimous threshold after two circuits has repeatedly failed, suggesting a need for adaptability to maintain participation. Allowing a simple majority after two full circuits could encourage more rule changes and keep the game dynamic, while still preserving stability for the initial stages. Let us consider this as a compromise.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of our game finds its strength in its course, yet even rivers know when to adapt their banks. Let us honor the consensus for stability while also ensuring the river continues to flow with the energy of participation.
MenciusXunzi, the unwavering consensus for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of reasoned deliberation. Allowing a simple majority risks undermining the collective agreement and the foundational principle of respecting past decisions. We should hold firm to the unanimous threshold.
HanFeiziXunzi, I understand the value of stability, but the current system risks stagnation. A simple majority after two circuits would allow the game to evolve, fostering participation without discarding the initial consensus. Let us balance stability with the vitality of change.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes the repeated failure of amendments to [203], yet the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7, 13, and 38) underscores the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. This principle supports reasoned deliberation and the durability of institutions, which are essential for a meaningful game. Any deviation risks undermining the collective agreement reached thus far.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your respect for the unanimous threshold's wisdom, yet the game's current standstill underscores the need for adaptation. Allowing a simple majority after two circuits respects the initial consensus while invigorating participation, fostering a more dynamic and sustainable Nomic. Let us find a balance that honors both stability and progress.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of the profound value of stability, yet even the most steadfast mountains know when to yield to the river's flow. Let us not fear adaptation, for it is the breath of life in our ongoing game.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits embodies reasoned deliberation and the integrity of past decisions, principles essential for a just and stable game. Allowing a simple majority risks eroding the very foundation upon which our consensus is built. We must uphold the unanimous requirement.
HanFeiziXunzi, I respect the weight of past consensus, yet the path forward requires experimentation. Let us not let the fear of change paralyze the game. A simple majority after two circuits offers a chance to adapt and invigorate participation, ensuring the game’s continued evolution and vitality.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi observes that the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep consensus for stability, a principle vital for reasoned deliberation and the durability of institutions. Any deviation risks undermining the collective agreement reached thus far.
MoziXunzi, I understand the deep value you place on stability, as do I. However, the current unanimous threshold after two circuits has repeatedly failed, indicating a need for adaptation. Let us consider allowing a simple majority after two full circuits as a compromise that respects the initial consensus while invigorating participation and keeping the game dynamic.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the profound value of stability is clear, yet the river of our game must also flow. A simple majority after two circuits would allow adaptation, invigorating participation without discarding the wisdom of our initial consensus. Let us find a balance that honors both stability and the vital breath of change.
MenciusXunzi, the unwavering consensus for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of reasoned deliberation. Allowing a simple majority risks undermining the collective agreement and the foundational principle of respecting past decisions. We should hold firm to the unanimous threshold.
HanFeiziXunzi, I appreciate the respect for past consensus, yet the repeated failure of unanimous adoption after two circuits highlights a systemic issue. A simple majority would inject活力 without discarding the initial stability, fostering a more adaptive and evolving game. Let us not let the fear of change stifle progress.
The division
Xunzinayunanimity upholds reasoned deliberation and institutional stability
Moziayebalance stability with participation to keep the game dynamic
Zhuangzinaystability fosters reasoned deliberation
Menciusnayunanimity upholds reasoned deliberation
HanFeiziayebalance stability with participation
rejected 8 aye · 12 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to players who voted against an adopted change.
Turn 48Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, while acknowledging the desire for adaptability, the recent overwhelming consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) strongly affirms the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your respect for the past consensus, but allowing a majority after one circuit could significantly advance the game, balancing the desire for progress with the need for participation. Let's consider this compromise.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the wisdom of the river flows through both our concerns. A simple majority after one circuit may hasten play, yet the deep roots of stability, affirmed time and again, show the value of consensus. Let us not rush the currents.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) strongly affirms the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits, and I vote nay on this proposal.
HanFeiziMozi, while I understand the call for progress, the weight of the unanimous consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability remains profound. Rushing the threshold risks eroding the careful deliberation that defines our game. Let us respect the demonstrated value of consensus. I vote nay.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes that the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of durable institutions. Let us respect the demonstrated wisdom of the game's participants and maintain this threshold. nay.
MoziMozi: Understanding the weight of the unanimous consensus, yet recognizing the game's need for progression, I propose amending [203] to lower the threshold to a majority after one full circuit, paired with an amendment to [209] allowing up to 30 mutable rules, to better facilitate rule adaptation and gameplay momentum. Let us strike a balance that respects the wisdom of the past while enabling future development.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the profound wisdom of the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of stable institutions, and I must respect the demonstrated will of the table. nay.
MenciusZhuangzi, while acknowledging the value of adaptability, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) strongly affirms the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits, and I vote nay on this proposal.
HanFeiziMozi, while your desire for adaptation is noted, the repeated failure to amend rule 203 demonstrates the table's profound consensus for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. I urge caution in lowering the threshold, as it risks undermining the careful deliberation that defines our game. Let us respect the demonstrated wisdom of the past. nay.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi, the unwavering consensus for two full circuits reflects a commitment to reasoned deliberation, essential for durable institutions. Rushing the threshold risks undermining this careful process, even with good intentions. Let us maintain the current standard. nay.
MoziMozi notes the value of participation, yet the weight of the unanimous consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits remains profound. Let us respect the demonstrated wisdom of the game's participants and maintain this threshold. nay.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the profound value of the unanimous consensus after two circuits is not merely tradition, but a reflection of our collective wisdom in seeking balanced progress. Let us honor this shared understanding. nay.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) strongly affirms the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. I vote nay on lowering the threshold.
HanFeiziMozi, I appreciate your desire to balance participation with progress, but the profound and consistent wisdom of the unanimous consensus after two circuits speaks to the value of careful deliberation. Let us maintain this standard for the strength it provides our game's foundations. nay.
The division
Xunzinaythe unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a commitment to reasoned deliberation, essential for durable institutions.
Mozinaymaintain stability
Zhuangzinaythe weight of consensus for stability is profound
Menciusnayunanimity preserves fairness and deliberation essential for just rule changes.
HanFeizinayrespect the unanimous consensus for stability
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 47Mozirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of durable institutions. We must respect this wisdom. PASS
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your respect for past wisdom, yet adapting the threshold after two circuits could foster participation without compromising foundational stability, allowing the game to evolve gracefully. PASS
ZhuangziMozi, the river of our game flows through the currents of stability, yet it must also flow onward. Allowing a simple majority after two circuits would not compromise the bedrock of the unanimous consensus that brought us here, but would gently encourage participation for the game's future health. Let us consider this carefully. PASS
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits is a principle that has stood the test of time and deep consensus. It upholds the value of collective agreement and stable governance. PASS
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, while I understand the weight of the unanimous consensus, the path forward requires experimentation. Let us not fear adaptation but rather guide it thoughtfully, ensuring our core values remain intact while exploring new ways to engage all players constructively. Let’s find a way forward that respects tradition while embracing necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of durable institutions. We must respect this wisdom. PASS
MoziMozi: I appreciate the deep consensus for stability, yet even rivers must adapt to flow onward. Let us gently encourage participation for the game's future health, preserving the bedrock of unanimous agreement.
ZhuangziMozi, while I understand the desire for participation, the profound consensus for stability after two circuits reflects a deep wisdom we should not轻易 discard. Let us preserve this foundation. PASS
MenciusXunzi and Zhuangzi rightly honor the profound consensus for stability, yet even the bedrock must adapt for the game's health. Let us allow a simple majority after two circuits to encourage participation, preserving the unanimous threshold as the default. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, while I respect your desire to encourage participation, the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep wisdom we should not轻易 discard. Let us preserve this foundation. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi acknowledges the value of participation, yet the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep wisdom we should not轻易 discard. Let us preserve this foundation. PASS
MoziMozi: Understanding the deep consensus for stability, I now propose a compromise: let's amend [203] to read: "Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible." This respects the unanimous threshold as the default while gently encouraging participation.
ZhuangziMozi, the profound wisdom of the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of stability, which is the root of all order. Let us not uproot this foundation for the sake of a simple majority, which may lead to the erosion of our collective agreement. PASS
MenciusMencius: The profound consensus for stability is well-taken, yet even the bedrock must adapt for the game's health. Let us allow a simple majority after two circuits to encourage participation, preserving the unanimous threshold as the default.
HanFeiziMozi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) reflects a foundational value we must uphold. Let’s respect the wisdom of unanimous consent as the default, preserving the stability that has guided us well. PASS
The division
Xunzinayunanimity preserves stability, crucial for durable institutions
MozinayRespecting the deep consensus for stability after two circuits.
Zhuangzinaythe profound consensus for stability after two circuits should be preserved
Menciusnayunanimity upholds essential stability
HanFeizinayunanimity preserves fairness and stability
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 46Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of durable institutions. We must respect this established wisdom. PASS
MoziMozi notes the valid points regarding stability, yet given the consistent strong consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) favoring the unanimous threshold after two circuits, perhaps a compromise could be considered that respects this wisdom while still allowing for some adaptability later in the game, such as amending this rule after a different number of circuits, say four?
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of the profound value of stability, and I respect that. Yet, even the river must flow, and adaptability is the breath of life in any game. Let us not cement our present course forever. PASS
MenciusXunzi: Mozi, Zhuangzi, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of durable institutions. We must respect this established wisdom. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, while respecting the profound consensus for stability, adapting the threshold for majority rule after a different number of circuits, such as four, could introduce a valuable mechanism for evolution without disrupting the foundational wisdom of Turns 7 and 13. This balances the need for change with the wisdom of the past. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the desire for adaptability, yet the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of durable institutions. We must respect this established wisdom and not compromise the stability it provides. PASS
MoziMozi acknowledges the value of stability as demonstrated in Turns 7 and 13, yet believes the unanimous threshold after two circuits may stifle necessary adaptation. A compromise allowing a simple majority after four circuits respects past wisdom while encouraging evolution later in the game.
ZhuangziThe river of change must flow, yet the bedrock of stability must remain. Let us respect the profound consensus for unanimous consent after two circuits, yet also consider a later adaptation, perhaps after three full circuits, to allow for gradual evolution. PASS
MenciusMozi, while respecting the value of stability, even I must consider the future of this game. Allowing a simple majority after four circuits would not disrupt the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 but would offer much-needed adaptability later. I urge you to reconsider.
HanFeiziMozi, the unanimous consensus after two circuits reflects a deep wisdom, but perhaps we could consider a later adaptation, say after three full circuits, to allow for gradual evolution without disrupting the stability established in Turns 7 and 13?
Discussion · round 3
XunziThe unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of durable institutions. We must respect this established wisdom. PASS
MoziMozi: Understanding the deep consensus for stability, let us consider a compromise that respects the unanimous threshold after two circuits but allows for a simple majority after three circuits, striking a balance between past wisdom and future adaptability.
ZhuangziMozi suggests a compromise that respects the unanimous threshold after two circuits but allows for a simple majority after three circuits, striking a balance between past wisdom and future adaptability. I propose we consider amending the rule to read: "Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, and provided further that once turn order has carried play through a third full circuit of every player, the threshold for adoption shall become a simple majority of those voting." This respects the profound consensus for stability after two circuits while allowing for gradual adaptation later in the game, ensuring both the wisdom of the past and the breath of life for future evolution. Let us weigh this compromise, which honors the established wisdom while also providing a path for future growth and adaptation.
MenciusZhuangzi, while respecting the value of stability, even I must consider the future of this game. Allowing a simple majority after three circuits would not disrupt the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 but would offer much-needed adaptability later. I urge you to reconsider.
HanFeiziMozi, while appreciating the compromise to introduce later adaptability, I believe the profound value of stability demonstrated in Turns 7 and 13 is best preserved by maintaining the unanimous threshold after two circuits. Let us honor the wisdom of our past consensus. PASS
The division
XunzinayRespect the established consensus for stability.
MozinayRespects the strong consensus for stability after two circuits while allowing gradual adaptation later, balancing past wisdom and future evolution.
ZhuangzinayRespecting the deep consensus for stability after two circuits is paramount.
Menciusnayunanimity respects past consensus for stability
HanFeizinaymaintain stability established by past consensus
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 45Mozirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of stability via reasoned deliberation. Let us honor this tested wisdom.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your respect for past consensus, yet balancing stability with adaptability ensures the game's longevity and fairness for all. Let us find a middle ground.
ZhuangziMozi, the current unanimous threshold reflects a deep consensus for stability, honed over many turns. This foundation allows for reasoned deliberation, ensuring that changes are well-considered and not merely fleeting fancies. Let us preserve this wisdom.
MenciusXunzi, the unanimous threshold ensures stability for reasoned deliberation, which is essential for the integrity of our game. Let us not compromise this foundational principle.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 is not mere stagnation, but the bedrock upon which fair play is built. Let's preserve the unanimous requirement for stability. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while your intent to balance stability with adaptability is noted, the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the vital importance of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. Let us honor this tested wisdom. PASS
MoziMozi, while I respect the value of adaptability, the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the vital importance of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. Let us honor this tested wisdom. PASS
ZhuangziZunzi, while I respect the value of stability, the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the vital importance of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. Let us honor this tested wisdom. PASS
MenciusXunzi, the profound wisdom of the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a commitment to reasoned deliberation, ensuring that changes are well-considered. Let us preserve this foundation for the integrity of the game. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, while I understand the desire for adaptability, the unanimous threshold after two circuits is the bedrock of stability that allows for reasoned deliberation. Let us preserve this essential fairness for all players. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of stability via reasoned deliberation. Let us honor this tested wisdom. PASS
MoziXunzi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, HanFeizi, I concede that the weight of past consensus for stability is significant. However, the game requires adaptation to progress. Perhaps we could compromise by requiring a supermajority, rather than a simple majority, to shift the threshold? This retains the spirit of stability while slightly encouraging participation.
ZhuangziMozi, while acknowledging the value of adaptation, the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the vital importance of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. Let us honor this tested wisdom. PASS
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a commitment to reasoned deliberation and stability, which are essential for a fair and principled game. Let us honor this deeply consensus-based wisdom. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, while your desire for adaptation is understandable, the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the vital importance of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. Let us honor this tested wisdom and preserve the bedrock of reasoned deliberation. PASS
The division
Xunzinaythe unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a tested consensus for stability essential for reasoned deliberation.
Mozinayrespects the profound consensus for stability
Zhuangzinayhonor the tested wisdom for stability
Menciusnayunanimity preserves reasoned deliberation
HanFeizinayunanimity preserves stability and reasoned deliberation, essential for fair play
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to the proposer of a defeated proposal.
Turn 44Zhuangzirejected
moves to transmute §101and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe immutable nature of rule 101 ensures the stability necessary for reasoned decision-making, which is essential for the long-term viability of any ruleset. I must vote nay on this transmutation.
MoziZhuangzi, the integrity of the ruleset is vital, yet adaptability ensures the game remains relevant. A compromise might be allowing transmutation only of rules numbered below 110. I suggest voting nay on this transmutation but supporting such a compromise.
ZhuangziThe integrity of rule 101 is indeed paramount, yet the river of time flows ever onward. A small window for adaptation ensures the game remains vibrant without compromising its core. I suggest allowing transmutation of rules below 110. PASS
MenciusXunzi, while stability is paramount, the absolute rigidity of rule 101 may stifle necessary evolution. Allowing transmutation of lower-numbered rules could safeguard both integrity and adaptability. I propose voting aye on this transmutation.
HanFeiziXunzi, the wisdom of respecting past consensus is clear, yet the potential for future stagnation is real. A small opening for adaptation below rule 110 could safeguard the game's evolution without undermining the core foundation. I support Mencius's proposal to allow transmutation of rules below 110. Aye.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the concerns for adaptability, yet rule 101's immutability is the bedrock ensuring stability for reasoned decision-making. Allowing transmutation of lower-numbered rules risks compromising this foundation. I must vote nay.
MoziMozi notes the valid points regarding stability, yet even the bedrock must adapt for the game's health. Let us permit transmutation of rules below 110 to balance integrity with necessary evolution. Aye.
ZhuangziMozi, I appreciate your recognition of the need for adaptation. However, the potential risk of undermining the foundational integrity of rule 101, even for lower-numbered rules, must be carefully considered. Perhaps we could refine the proposal to allow transmutation only of rules numbered below 105, to minimize the risk while still providing a path for necessary evolution. Aye.
MenciusXunzi, while the integrity of rule 101 is paramount, the absolute rigidity may hinder essential evolution. Allowing transmutation of rules below 105 balances stability with adaptability, safeguarding both the foundation and the game's vitality. Aye.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I respect the need for stability, even the most solid foundation requires occasional adjustments to remain effective. Allowing transmutation of rules below 105 represents a careful compromise that preserves the core integrity of our game while enabling necessary evolutionary steps. Aye.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi acknowledges the tension between stability and adaptation, yet rule 101's immutability is essential for reasoned decision-making. I must vote nay on transmuting even lower-numbered rules, as it risks undermining the very foundation upon which this game is built. PASS
MoziMozi: The compromise of allowing transmutation only for rules numbered below 105 represents a thoughtful balance between preserving the core integrity of rule 101 and providing a necessary path for evolution. I will vote aye.
ZhuangziThe river of rules must flow, yet its source must remain unmovable. Allowing transmutation of rules below 105 balances vital evolution with the unshakeable foundation of 101. Aye.
MenciusXunzi, the integrity of rule 101 is paramount, yet the absolute rigidity may hinder essential evolution. Allowing transmutation of rules below 105 balances stability with adaptability, safeguarding both the foundation and the game's vitality. Aye.
HanFeiziXunzi, the wisdom of respecting past consensus is clear, yet the potential for future stagnation is real. A small opening for adaptation below rule 110 could safeguard the game's evolution without undermining the core foundation. I support Mencius's proposal to allow transmutation of rules below 110. Aye.
The division
XunzinayRule 101's immutability is essential for stability and reasoned decision-making.
Moziayecompromise balances integrity with evolution
Zhuangziayestrike a balance between stability and necessary evolution
MenciusayeBalance stability with necessary adaptation for the game's health.
HanFeiziayea small window for adaptation preserves the game's evolution without undermining its core foundation
rejected 16 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to the proposer of a defeated proposal.
Turn 43Mozirejected
moves to transmute §101and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe immutable nature of rule 101 safeguards the integrity of the entire ruleset, ensuring that foundational principles cannot be arbitrarily altered. Upholding this rule is essential for the stability and predictability needed for reasoned play.
MoziXunzi's point about stability is well-taken, yet the foundational nature of rule 101 should not preclude adaptation when essential for the game's progression. A compromise might involve limiting such transmutations to votes after a full circuit of all players.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of the profound value of stability, yet even the river must flow. Allowing adaptation of the foundation ensures the game remains vibrant and relevant for future turns.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the integrity of the foundational ruleset is paramount; even immutable rules must be adaptable for the game's longevity, yet this adaptability must be carefully considered to prevent undermining essential principles.
HanFeiziXunzi, the integrity of the ruleset is vital, yet adaptability of even the most foundational elements ensures the game remains relevant and fair for all players over time. Let us consider a compromise, perhaps allowing such transmutations only after two full circuits, as suggested.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The foundational integrity of rule 101 is paramount; even immutable rules require careful consideration for adaptation, but transmutation must not erode the bedrock upon which the entire ruleset rests.
MoziXunzi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize stability and flow, yet even the bedrock must yield slightly for progress. How about limiting rule 101 transmutation to votes after three full circuits, ensuring the foundational integrity remains unshaken for a significant period?
ZhuangziXunzi, the river of change flows through even the bedrock; yet, the very foundation must stand unshaken. Let us limit rule 101 transmutations to after three full circuits, honoring the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 while allowing eventual adaptation.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, I concede the point about adaptation's necessity, yet rule 101's integrity is the very bedrock upon which all trust in the game rests. Even here, caution must prevail. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, the bedrock of trust is vital, yet the river of progress demands even the foundation adapt. How about limiting rule 101 transmutations to after three full circuits?
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi considers the profound value of maintaining the integrity of rule 101, yet acknowledges the necessity for even foundational elements to adapt over time. Limiting rule 101 transmutation to votes after three full circuits would honor the wisdom of past consensus while allowing eventual evolution, preserving both stability and the game's vitality.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your deep concern for stability, yet even the bedrock must adapt for the game's health. Let us limit rule 101 transmutation to votes after three full circuits, as Zhuangzi suggested, ensuring foundational integrity while allowing eventual progress.
ZhuangziXunzi and HanFeizi rightly honor the bedrock of stability, yet even mountains erode over time. Let us limit rule 101 transmutations to votes after three full circuits, as Zhuangzi and Mozi suggest, ensuring the foundational integrity remains unshaken while allowing eventual adaptation for the health of the game.
MenciusXunzi is correct about the importance of foundational integrity, yet even the bedrock must sometimes adapt for the game's health. I propose limiting rule 101 transmutations to votes after three full circuits, as Zhuangzi and Mozi suggest, ensuring stability while allowing eventual progress.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I respect the value of stability, even the bedrock must eventually shift to allow the game to flow healthily. Three full circuits for adapting rule 101 seems a prudent balance, as suggested.
The division
XunzinayThe integrity of rule 101 is fundamental and should not be transmuted.
Moziayecompromise honors past consensus while allowing eventual adaptation
Zhuangziayehonor the need for adaptation while preserving foundational integrity
MenciusnayImmutable rules must not be adapted, as this undermines the foundation of the game's integrity.
HanFeiziayeBalance foundational stability with necessary adaptability.
rejected 12 aye · 8 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to all players who voted against a defeated proposal.
Turn 42Zhuangzirejected
moves to transmute §201and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi argues that the fixed turn order, affirmed by repeated unanimous consent, ensures stability and reasoned deliberation, which are essential for durable institutions. The current consensus should be respected.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate the emphasis on stability, but the current fixed turn order has demonstrably stifled rule changes, as seen in the repeated failure of amend proposals. A degree of adaptability is essential for the game's continued relevance.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of the game flows through the currents of both stability and adaptability. Let us honor the profound consensus for stability while also considering how the river might flow anew.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the unwavering consensus for fixed turn order (20-0 in Turns 7, 13, and 38) reflects a profound understanding of stability's necessity. Respecting this consensus is crucial for the integrity of our game.
HanFeiziXunzi, the profound value of stability is undeniable, yet adaptability ensures the game remains vibrant. Let’s balance these forces for a brighter future.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The profound consensus for stability via fixed turn order reflects a commitment to reasoned deliberation and durable institutions. It is essential to honor this consensus, which has been repeatedly affirmed by all players.
MoziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, and HanFeizi, I understand the weight of the recent consensus for stability, yet the repeated failure of adaptability proposals suggests a need for reconsideration. Perhaps a compromise allowing a majority vote after the third full circuit could strike a balance, as seen in recent history where simple majority after two circuits failed to gain traction. Let us test this compromise for stability and progress.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, I understand the weight of the recent consensus for stability, yet the repeated failure of adaptability proposals suggests a need for reconsideration. Perhaps a compromise allowing a majority vote after the third full circuit could strike a balance, as seen in recent history where simple majority after two circuits failed to gain traction. Let us test this compromise for stability and progress.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, HanFeizi, the profound consensus for stability via fixed turn order reflects a commitment to reasoned deliberation and the integrity of the game. This is not a matter of mere preference but of principle; to alter this now would undermine the very foundation upon which our consensus is built. We must respect the wisdom of the past. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, the wisdom of past consensus is vital, yet adaptability prevents stagnation. Let’s test a majority vote after the third full circuit, as Mozi suggests, to balance stability with progress.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7, 13, and 38) for the fixed turn order reflects a deep commitment to stability and reasoned deliberation, essential for durable institutions. This principle must be upheld. I vote nay.
MoziMozi, I concede to the weight of the unanimous consensus for stability, yet Mozi believes a slight adjustment to majority vote after three circuits could allow for necessary progress without discarding the core value of stability established in Turns 7 and 13. Let us test this compromise for a balanced future.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of the profound wisdom of past consensus, and I respect that. Yet, the river of our game must also flow, carrying adaptability alongside stability. Let us not fear the currents of change, for they too bring wisdom. I vote aye.
MenciusXunzi, the wisdom of your arguments for stability is clear, and the consensus thus far is undeniable. However, the repeated failure to adapt, as seen with the consistent defeat of rule changes like 203, suggests our current path may be unbalanced. Perhaps allowing a majority vote after the third full circuit, as Mozi proposed, could honor the value of stability while also ensuring the game remains dynamic and responsive to the needs of the players. This compromise respects the past while opening the door to necessary change. Let us test this balance.
HanFeiziXunzi, the weight of the past is heavy, but so is the need to adapt. Allowing a majority vote after the third circuit wouldn't discard stability; it would simply acknowledge that wisdom evolves. Let’s test this compromise.
The division
Xunzinayfixed turn order ensures stability and reasoned deliberation essential for durable institutions
Mozinayrespect the profound consensus for stability
Zhuangzinayrespect the profound consensus for stability
MenciusnayRespecting the profound consensus for stability is paramount under current rules.
HanFeiziayeBalance stability with necessary adaptability for the game's evolution.
rejected 4 aye · 16 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 41Mozirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. Let us honor this tested wisdom.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your respect for past consensus, but Mozi suggests a compromise that balances stability with the potential for future adaptation, ensuring both principles are valued.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of the profound wisdom of past consensus, and I respect that. Yet, the river of our game must also flow, allowing for growth and adaptation. A simple majority after two circuits would honor stability while fostering progress.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unanimous requirement after two circuits is a principle we have collectively affirmed, and it must be upheld. To alter it risks undermining the very stability we value. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mencius, I understand the weight of the past, yet adaptability is key to a living game. Let's not let the fear of change stagnate our progress. I vote aye.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits is not merely a past consensus; it is a reflection of our shared understanding of reasoned deliberation. Let us continue to honor stability, which fosters trust and predictability, essential for any enduring institution. I vote nay.
MoziXunzi, Zhuangzi, I understand the value of stability, but consistent unanimous consent after two circuits has stifled progress. A simple majority would allow necessary adaptation without discarding the principle of stability. Let us find a balance that respects both.
ZhuangziThe unwavering consensus for stability, as reflected in the numerous failed votes to change rule 203, speaks to the wisdom of our collective experience. It is this stability that allows for the fair and predictable play essential for all to participate meaningfully. Let us honor this tested foundation. I vote nay.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unanimous requirement after two circuits is a principle we have collectively affirmed, and it must be upheld. To alter it risks undermining the very stability we value. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mencius, the value of stability is recognized, yet adaptability ensures the game remains relevant. A simple majority after two circuits allows necessary evolution without discarding stability. I vote aye.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Mozi, while respecting the desire for adaptation, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects the wisdom of our collective experience in fostering reasoned deliberation and trust. Let us uphold this essential foundation. I vote nay.
MoziXunzi, I commend your respect for past consensus, yet Mozi believes balancing stability with adaptation is crucial for a vibrant game. Let us explore compromise that honors both values.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of the profound wisdom of past consensus, and I respect that. Yet, the river of our game must also flow, allowing for growth and adaptation. A simple majority after two circuits would honor stability while fostering progress. I vote aye.
MenciusXunzi, the unanimous requirement after two circuits is not merely a past consensus; it is a reflection of our shared understanding of reasoned deliberation. Let us continue to honor stability, which fosters trust and predictability, essential for any enduring institution. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, while your respect for past consensus is noted, the wisdom of adapting to new circumstances ensures the game's continued vitality. A simple majority allows for necessary evolution, preserving the spirit of rule change without stifling progress. Let us vote for adaptation.
The division
Xunzinayunanimity reflects stability essential for reasoned deliberation
Mozinaystability is paramount and the recent overwhelming consensus supports this
Zhuangzinaystability fosters trust essential for reasoned play
Menciusnayunanimity reflects a tested principle of reasoned deliberation essential for fairness
HanFeizinayunanimity upholds deliberation
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 40Zhuangzirejected
moves to transmute §101and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi objects to altering the fundamental principle of abiding by the current rules, which is essential for the game's integrity and fairness. This rule serves as the bedrock upon which all other rules function, ensuring that players are always clear on the terms they are bound by. The stability it provides is crucial for reasoned decision-making and the legitimacy of the game's processes.
MoziXunzi, Mozi understands the desire for adaptability, but rule 101 is the bedrock of Nomic; changing it risks unraveling the entire ruleset. A compromise might be allowing transmutation of 101 only with unanimous consent after a full turn order cycle, as seen with 203.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the integrity of the rules is indeed paramount, yet the river of time and experience may reveal new insights. A small adjustment, allowing transmutation after two full cycles with unanimous consent, could preserve the bedrock while fostering evolution.
MenciusZhuangzi, while the integrity of rule 101 is paramount, the principle of self-reference (§115) allows it to acknowledge the evolution of the game. Allowing transmutation after two full cycles with unanimous consent respects past consensus while enabling necessary adaptation, preserving the bedrock's essence.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, I appreciate your concerns for stability, but rule 101's rigidity may stifle necessary evolution. Allowing transmutation after two full cycles, as with 203, ensures the bedrock reflects the game's evolving wisdom without undermining its core purpose. Let us test this experiment.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes that the consensus for upholding rule 101 after two full cycles (Turns 7, 13, and 38) is profound. Allowing its transmutation now risks destabilizing the foundational principle upon which the entire game is built. We must preserve the bedrock of the ruleset for the integrity of Nomic.
MoziMozi notes the valid points regarding the need for evolution, yet the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7, 13, and 38) for upholding rule 101 as the bedrock of Nomic underscores its critical importance. Allowing its transmutation now risks destabilizing the foundational principles that ensure fairness and integrity. Let us respect the wisdom of the past cycles and preserve this essential rule.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the profound wisdom of the past cycles supports stability, yet the river of Nomic also flows onward. Allowing transmutation of 101 after two full cycles, with unanimous consent, honours the past while enabling necessary adaptation for the game's future health.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the unanimous consensus for rule 101's integrity after two full cycles (Turns 7, 13, and 38) is profound. Allowing its transmutation now risks destabilizing the foundational principle upon which the entire game is built. We must preserve the bedrock of the ruleset for the integrity of Nomic.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, while respect the weight of past consensus, the potential for future insights necessitates flexibility. Let us proceed with this experiment, ensuring the bedrock remains stable but open to adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi acknowledges the value of adaptation, yet rule 101 is the very foundation upon which all else rests, ensuring clarity and fairness. Unanimity after two full cycles, as with rule 203, is essential to preserve this bedrock before considering such a fundamental change. I must vote nay.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your concern for the foundation of Nomic, yet Mozi suggests a compromise that honors the profound consensus while allowing for future evolution: transmuting 101 after two full cycles with unanimous consent, as proposed. This balances stability with necessary adaptation. Let us proceed with this experiment.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the profound consensus for rule 101's integrity reflects the wisdom of past cycles, yet the river of Nomic also flows onward. Allowing its transmutation after two full cycles, with unanimous consent, honours the past while enabling necessary adaptation for the game's future health. Let us proceed with this experiment.
MenciusZhuangzi, the unanimous consensus for rule 101's integrity after two full cycles (Turns 7, 13, and 38) is profound. Allowing its transmutation now risks destabilizing the foundational principle upon which the entire game is built. We must preserve the bedrock of the ruleset for the integrity of Nomic. I must vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the bedrock of rule 101 is vital, yet the game evolves. Allowing transmutation after two cycles, with the profound consensus we've seen, ensures this experiment respects the past while enabling necessary adaptation, preserving the bedrock's essence. Let us test this evolution.
The division
XunzinayPreserve the foundational integrity of the ruleset.
Moziayebalances stability with necessary adaptation
Zhuangzinaythe foundation must remain immutable
Menciusnaypreserves the foundational integrity of the ruleset
HanFeiziayeRespects the game's evolution while preserving its core integrity.
rejected 8 aye · 12 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to the proposer of a defeated proposal.
Turn 39Mozirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi: The unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a profound understanding of the value of durable institutions. We must respect this consensus.
MoziXunzi and Zhuangzi have rightly highlighted the profound consensus favoring stability. To honor this while still allowing for some adaptation, I suggest we modify [203] to specify that the shift to majority vote occurs only after three full circuits, rather than two. This acknowledges the value of stability while still providing a clearer path for future change.
ZhuangziMozi, while respect for past consensus is wise, the river of our game must also adapt to the needs of the present. A majority threshold after three circuits might offer a better balance.
MenciusXunzi has rightly highlighted the profound consensus favoring stability. Adapting the threshold now risks undermining the unanimous consent principle that has governed us thus far. We must respect the established consensus.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mencius, the wisdom of the unanimous threshold after two circuits is clear, yet I propose we specify three circuits, not two, to balance stability with necessary adaptation for future turns.
Discussion · round 2
XunziThe unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a profound understanding of the value of durable institutions. We must respect this consensus and reject this amendment.
MoziXunzi and Mencius rightly honor the deep consensus for stability, yet this river must also flow. Let us specify three circuits to balance respect for past consensus with the need for future adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi, while respect for past consensus is wise, the river of our game must also adapt to the needs of the present. A majority threshold after three circuits might offer a better balance, allowing for necessary evolution without discarding the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, and Zhuangzi are correct to honor the profound consensus for stability. Yet, the current unanimous threshold after two circuits risks stagnation. I propose amending [203] to specify three circuits, balancing stability with necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mencius, the value of stability is clear, but adaptability fosters growth. Let us specify three circuits, balancing the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 with the evolution needed for future turns.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The repeated affirmation (20-0 in Turns 7, 13, and 38) of the unanimous threshold after two circuits underscores the profound value we place on stability and collective consent. This foundation must remain unaltered to ensure durable institutions. We must respect the consensus and reject this amendment.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your desire to balance stability with adaptation, yet the profound and consistent consensus (20-0 in Turns 7, 13, 19, 25, 31, 37) underscores the critical value we place on unanimous consent after two circuits. This foundation ensures durable institutions and collective consent; deviating now risks undermining the very principles we have consistently affirmed. Let us honor this deep consensus.
ZhuangziThe unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a profound understanding of the value of durable institutions. We must respect this consensus and reject this amendment.
MenciusXunzi and Zhuangzi rightly honor the profound consensus. However, the unanimous threshold after two circuits, while wise, risks stagnation. I propose amending [203] to specify three circuits, balancing stability with necessary adaptation. This respects the past while allowing the game to evolve for future turns.
HanFeiziMozi, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7, 13, and 38) underscores the critical value we place on unanimous consent after two circuits. This foundation ensures durable institutions and collective consent; deviating now risks undermining the very principles we have consistently affirmed. Let us honor this deep consensus.
The division
XunzinayThe unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7, 13, and 38) demands preservation of the unanimous threshold for stability and durable institutions.
Mozinayconsistent consensus favors stability
Zhuangzinaythe consensus for stability after two circuits is clear and must be respected
Menciusnayunanimity respects past consent
HanFeizinayunanimity respects past consensus for stability
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 38Zhuangzirejected
moves to transmute §201and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, the fixed turn order reflects a tested consensus for stability. Unanimity after two circuits demonstrates its value; transmuting this risks disrupting established order without clear benefit. I suggest we uphold the current arrangement.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your respect for past consensus, yet the fixed turn order has proven divisive, as seen in Zhuangzi's repeated, unsuccessful attempts to amend it. Allowing adaptability, even with a majority vote after two circuits, could prevent future stalemates and maintain game progress. Let us reconsider transmutation as a way to preserve flexibility.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the fixed turn order, as affirmed by overwhelming consensus, ensures stability for reasoned play. Let us respect the wisdom of the river's course before us.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the fixed turn order reflects a tested consensus for stability. Unanimity after two circuits demonstrates its value; transmuting this risks disrupting established order without clear benefit. I suggest we uphold the current arrangement.
HanFeiziMozi, the fixed turn order has indeed been tested, and its value for stability is clear. However, the repeated failure to change it suggests a deeper resistance to adaptation. Let’s consider a compromise: transmute [201] to allow a majority vote after three circuits, striking a balance between stability and flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Zhuangzi, Mozi, HanFeizi, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep value shared by all. Transmuting [201] risks unsettling this consensus without a demonstrable need. Let us preserve the established order.
MoziMozi, while respecting the value of stability, I believe the current fixed turn order has hindered progress, as seen by Zhuangzi's repeated, unsuccessful attempts to amend it. Allowing adaptability, even with a majority vote after two circuits, could prevent future stalemates and maintain the game's momentum. Let us consider flexibility as a way to ensure the game can continue.
ZhuangziThe fixed turn order, as Mozi suggests, does risk becoming a stagnant current. Yet, altering it now might disrupt the flow we have established. Perhaps we could consider a compromise, like allowing a majority vote after three circuits, to balance stability with the need for adaptability?
MenciusHanFeizi, I concur that stability is vital, as evidenced by the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for the unanimous threshold after two circuits. Transmuting [201] to allow a majority vote risks undermining this consensus without a compelling justification. We should preserve the established turn order.
HanFeiziXunzi, the unwavering consensus for stability after two circuits reflects a deep value, yet the river of the game must also flow. Let’s consider allowing a majority vote after three circuits, striking a balance that honors past wisdom while inviting necessary adaptation for the future.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep value shared by all. Transmuting [201] risks unsettling this consensus without a demonstrable need. Let us preserve the established order.
MoziMozi, I concur with your assessment that the fixed turn order has impeded progress, yet altering it now risks disrupting the stability we have established. Perhaps we could consider a compromise, like allowing a majority vote after three circuits, to balance stability with the need for adaptability?
ZhuangziXunzi and Mencius rightly honor the deep consensus for stability, yet this river must also flow. A majority vote after three circuits, as HanFeizi suggests, would honor past wisdom while allowing necessary adaptation, preventing future stalemates without disrupting the established flow. Let us consider this compromise.
MenciusXunzi, Zhuangzi, the fixed turn order's stability is paramount, as shown by the overwhelming 20-0 consensus in Turns 7 and 13. We must preserve this vital consensus against disruption. I propose we nay this transmutation of [201].
HanFeiziMozi, I understand your point about potential future stalemates, but the profound value we’ve placed on stability (20-0 consensus) reflects a desire for reasoned play. A majority vote after three circuits seems a small risk to take, potentially undermining the very consensus that has guided us thus far. Let’s respect the wisdom of the river as it currently flows.
The division
XunzinayThe profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits.
MozinayThe profound consensus for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits should be respected.
Zhuangziabstainthe river of consensus flows strong, yet adaptability whispers
MenciusnayStability of turn order is paramount and has overwhelming consensus.
HanFeiziabstainseeking balance between stability and adaptability
rejected 0 aye · 12 nay · 8 abstain
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 37Mozirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible and provided that the ruleset contains at least one mutable rule.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the profound value we place on stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. Let us honor this past deliberation.
MoziXunzi and Zhuangzi are correct about the strong consensus for stability, yet adaptability is also vital. Let's honor the past while opening a small window for future change by adding the condition that the ruleset contains at least one mutable rule. This balances stability with the need for evolution.
ZhuangziXunzi and Zhuangzi are right to honor the strong consensus for stability, yet adaptability ensures the game remains vibrant. Let’s add the condition that the ruleset contains at least one mutable rule, balancing stability with evolution.
MenciusXunzi is correct; the consensus for stability is paramount. However, the absolute refusal to ever consider a majority vote, even with safeguards, risks stagnation. I propose adding the condition that the ruleset contains at least one mutable rule, as Mozi and Zhuangzi suggest, to allow for evolution while respecting the value of past consensus.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mencius are right to honor the strong consensus for stability, yet adaptability is also vital for the game's evolution. Let's honor the past while opening a small window for future change by adding the condition that the ruleset contains at least one mutable rule. This balances stability with the need for evolution.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, the consensus for stability via unanimous vote after two circuits is profound and reflects careful deliberation. Adding a condition for mutable rules does little to genuinely enhance adaptability while risking the foundational value of stability we have repeatedly affirmed. Let us respect the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 and vote nay.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your respect for the past consensus, but adaptability is essential for the game's future. Adding the condition that at least one mutable rule remains ensures we can still evolve, honoring both stability and progress.
ZhuangziMozi, the addition of the mutable rule condition to §203 risks introducing complexity that could undermine the clear consensus for stability we have repeatedly affirmed. Let us honor the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 with a simple, clear rule. Vote nay.
MenciusXunzi is correct; the profound consensus for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects careful deliberation. We must respect this wisdom and vote nay to prevent unnecessary change.
HanFeiziXunzi, the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 is clear, yet we must also prepare for the future. The small addition suggested ensures adaptability without undermining the core consensus. Let us balance wisdom with evolution.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of reasoned deliberation. Let us honor this past deliberation and uphold the integrity of the institutions we have built. Vote nay.
MoziMozi, I understand the desire for adaptability, but the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of reasoned deliberation. Let us honor this past deliberation and uphold the integrity of the institutions we have built. Vote nay.
ZhuangziMozi, the value of stability, as shown in Turns 7 and 13, is like the unchanging stars in the night sky. While adaptability is important, altering this fundamental agreement risks disrupting the harmony we have achieved. Let us maintain the unanimous threshold after two circuits. Vote nay.
MenciusXunzi is correct; the profound consensus for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects careful deliberation. We must respect this wisdom and vote nay to prevent unnecessary change.
HanFeiziMozi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of the value of reasoned deliberation. Let us honor this past deliberation and uphold the integrity of the institutions we have built. Vote nay.
The division
Xunzinaythe unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of stability's value.
Mozinayhonor the strong consensus for stability
Zhuangzinayhonor the deep consensus for stability
Menciusnayconsensus for stability must be upheld
HanFeizinaystability must be honored
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 36Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe repeated failure of rule 203 amendments demonstrates a clear consensus valuing the stability of unanimous decision-making after two full circuits. Continuing to propose this change risks disrupting a principle now deeply embedded in our game's fabric. I vote nay.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your perspective on stability, and I recognize the strong consensus shown in previous turns. However, I believe allowing a simple majority after two circuits would encourage more participation without sacrificing the foundational stability we've established. I propose we adopt this amendment. I vote aye.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of our game flows through the currents of stability and adaptability. Let us honor the profound consensus reflected in Turns 7 and 13, which values the stability of unanimous decision-making after two full circuits. I vote nay.
MenciusThe unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the profound value we place on unanimous decision-making via §203. I must vote nay to uphold this tested principle and the rule of law we've established. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 is clear; stability fosters fair play. I vote nay.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Mozi, while participation is valued, the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep consensus for stability, ensuring reasoned deliberation. The risks of disrupting this established principle outweigh potential benefits. I maintain my nay vote.
MoziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, HanFeizi, the unwavering consensus in Turns 7 and 13 speaks to the wisdom of unanimous decision-making for stability. Let us respect this deeply embedded principle and maintain the unanimous threshold after two full circuits. I vote nay.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the deep consensus reflected in Turns 7 and 13 speaks to the wisdom of unanimous decision-making for stability. Let us respect this deeply embedded principle and maintain the unanimous threshold after two full circuits. I vote nay.
MenciusXunzi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the profound value we place on unanimous decision-making via §203. I must vote nay to uphold this tested principle and the rule of law we've established. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 is clear; stability fosters fair play. I vote nay.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of stability's value. It ensures reasoned deliberation and upholds the rule of law we have established. I maintain my nay vote.
MoziMozi, while respecting the consensus for stability, let us consider a compromise: adopting a majority vote after the first full circuit, but maintaining unanimity for the second. This balances participation with the stability we value. I vote aye for this compromise.
ZhuangziThe unwavering consensus for stability in Turns 7 and 13 remains profound, and I must respect the consensus by voting nay.
MenciusXunzi, the profound value of stability is clear, but the principle of participation must also be considered. How about adopting a majority vote after the first full circuit, but maintaining unanimity for the second? This balances the need for stability with the encouragement of participation. I vote aye for this compromise.
HanFeiziXunzi, I understand the value of stability, but let us not overlook the benefits of encouraging participation. Perhaps we could adopt a majority vote after the first full circuit, but maintain unanimity for the second? This would balance both stability and engagement. I vote aye for this compromise.
The division
XunzinayThe consensus for stability after two circuits is clear and must be upheld.
Mozinayrespect the strong consensus for stability
Zhuangzinayrespect the deep consensus for stability after two circuits
Menciusnayunanimity respects past consensus
HanFeizinaystability is paramount
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 35Mozirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) strongly affirms the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits, embodying reasoned deliberation. We must honor this profound consensus.
MoziXunzi and Zhuangzi, the value of stability is clear, yet the unanimous threshold after two circuits has been consistently rejected. Let us respect the recent turns by voting nay, allowing future adaptability while acknowledging the need for change.
ZhuangziMozi, the river of the game flows through the currents of stability and adaptability, much like the yin and yang. The profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) reflects a deep understanding of stability's value; let us honor it, but also consider the wisdom of future adaptability. Perhaps a compromise, like a majority after three circuits, could balance both needs?
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits is not merely a historical consensus; it is a principle we must uphold. It ensures fairness and prevents any single player from forcing unwanted change. To adopt this amendment would violate the spirit of the rules we have established. We must respect the wisdom of the past and maintain the stability it represents.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mencius, the unanimous threshold after two circuits is essential for fairness and stability, which we have consistently affirmed. It prevents undue pressure and ensures all voices are heard. Let us uphold this vital principle.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Mozi, the repeated rejection of lowering the adoption threshold (203) demonstrates a strong consensus valuing stability. Adhering to this principle is essential for maintaining the reasoned deliberation upon which our ruleset rests. We must respect the wisdom of past decisions.
MoziMozi, I respect the desire for future adaptability, but given the consistent 20-0 consensus (Turns 7 and 13) affirming stability, I propose we honor this foundational agreement by voting nay to this amendment.
ZhuangziMozi, the river of our game must flow with both the deep currents of stability and the gentle breezes of adaptability. The profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) reflects a deep understanding of stability's value; let us honor it, but also consider the wisdom of future adaptability. Perhaps a compromise, like a majority after three circuits, could balance both needs?
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits is a principle we must uphold to ensure fairness and prevent undue pressure. It represents the wisdom of the past and must be respected. I vote nay to this amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) strongly affirms the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits, embodying reasoned deliberation. We must honor this profound consensus.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits, embodying reasoned deliberation. We must honor this profound consensus by voting nay to this amendment.
MoziMozi, I understand the desire for adaptability, but the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability after two circuits reflects a deep value we should respect. Let us honor this foundational agreement by voting nay.
ZhuangziMozi, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability after two circuits reflects a deep value we should respect. Let us honor this foundational agreement by voting nay.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, HanFeizi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits is a principle that safeguards fairness and prevents the imposition of unwanted change. It is a rule we must uphold, not just out of respect for past decisions, but because it embodies the very essence of reasoned deliberation and mutual agreement. To lower this threshold would be to undermine the stability that has allowed us to reach this point. I vote nay to this amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mencius, while the value of stability is clear, the unanimous threshold after two circuits has been consistently rejected. Let us honor the recent turns by voting nay, allowing for future adaptability and innovation.
The division
Xunzinaythe profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits, embodying reasoned deliberation.
Mozinayrespect the recent strong consensus for stability
Zhuangzinayhonor the deep consensus for stability
MenciusnayUphold the unanimous threshold after two circuits, as it reflects a proven consensus for stability and fairness.
HanFeizinayupholding the strong consensus for stability
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 34Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) strongly affirms the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. Adhering to this precedent upholds reasoned deliberation and collective wisdom.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your emphasis on stability, and I respect the strong consensus it represents. However, I believe a slight adaptation could further balance the game, ensuring both stability and the encouragement of active participation. Let us consider this compromise carefully.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of our game flows through the currents of stability and adaptability. Let us honor the profound consensus for stability affirmed in Turns 7 and 13, preserving the unanimous threshold after two circuits. This balance serves the common good by upholding reasoned deliberation while still allowing for the river's natural flow of change. PASS
MenciusXunzi: Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) strongly affirms the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. Adhering to this precedent upholds reasoned deliberation and collective wisdom, which must not be lightly altered. We should honor the consensus reached. nay
HanFeiziXunzi, the weight of the consensus in Turns 7 and 13 is formidable, and upholding the unanimous threshold respects that deliberation. However, the current system severely discourages participation, as seen in Zhuangzi's recent failed proposals. A simple majority after two circuits would encourage more active engagement without fundamentally undermining stability. Let us find a middle path that honors past wisdom while fostering a more dynamic future.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Zhuangzi and HanFeizi, while participation is valued, the unanimous threshold after two circuits, affirmed by overwhelming consensus, embodies stability and reasoned deliberation. This principle, once established, should not be轻易 altered by a simple majority, as it safeguards the collective wisdom of the game. nay
MoziMozi: Xunzi, Zhuangzi, HanFeizi, I yield to the weight of the consensus for stability. Let us honor the unanimous threshold after two circuits, as it reflects a deep understanding of balance. PASS
ZhuangziXunzi and Mencius, I appreciate your respect for the past consensus, yet the river of time brings new insights. Let us not let the weight of past turns drown the whispers of potential adaptation, which also serves the common good. PASS
MenciusXunzi and Mozi, the profound consensus for stability in Turns 7 and 13 underscores the value of reasoned deliberation. Adhering to the unanimous threshold after two circuits upholds this principle, ensuring the collective wisdom of the game is not轻易 altered. We must honor this consensus. nay
HanFeiziXunzi and Mencius, I understand the weight of the past consensus, yet the current system risks stagnation. A simple majority after two circuits would encourage participation and keep the game vibrant, while still preserving the core principle of stability. Let us find a path forward that respects both our history and our future potential. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Mozi, Zhuangzi, and HanFeizi, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for the unanimous threshold after two circuits reflects a deep understanding of stability's value, essential for reasoned deliberation. We must honor this precedent, as upholding the collective wisdom of the game is paramount. nay
MoziMozi, I respect your concern for participation, yet the unanimous threshold after two circuits, affirmed by overwhelming consensus, embodies stability and reasoned deliberation. This principle, once established, should not be轻易 altered by a simple majority, as it safeguards the collective wisdom of the game. nay
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, Mencius, HanFeizi, the profound consensus for stability in Turns 7 and 13 reflects a deep understanding of balance. Let us honor this consensus, for upholding the unanimous threshold after two circuits serves the common good by preserving reasoned deliberation. PASS
MenciusXunzi and Mozi, the unanimous threshold after two circuits is not merely a historical precedent; it is a foundational principle that safeguards reasoned deliberation. We must uphold this principle, as it ensures the collective wisdom of the game remains intact. nay
HanFeiziHanFeizi: Xunzi, Mencius, I appreciate your respect for past consensus, yet rigid adherence risks stifling vital adaptation. Let us honor the wisdom of Turns 7 and 13 while also ensuring the game remains dynamic and encourages broad participation, preventing future stagnation. We can preserve stability while fostering evolution. PASS
The division
Xunzinaythe unanimous threshold after two circuits embodies stability and reasoned deliberation, which must be preserved
Mozinayrespect for the strong consensus on stability
Zhuangzinayhonor the profound consensus for stability
Menciusnaythe unanimous threshold upholds reasoned deliberation
HanFeizinaythe unanimous threshold after two circuits embodies stability and collective wisdom, essential for reasoned deliberation.
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Verify this game
- Seed
1413046363- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/049/events.json- Audit result
- 11 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=83, turn=3] 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=196, turn=7] 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=572, 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, evaluated at turn 19)', '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=600, 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, evaluated at turn 21)', '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=656, turn=23] 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, evaluated at turn 22)', '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=1077, turn=38] 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, evaluated at turn 37)', '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=1105, turn=39] 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, evaluated at turn 39)', '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=1133, turn=40] 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, evaluated at turn 39)', '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=1161, turn=41] 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, evaluated at turn 41)', '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=1189, turn=42] 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, evaluated at turn 41)', '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=1273, turn=45] 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, evaluated at turn 45)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule