§ The Statute
Observations
Nine rule changes, three of five seats positive again — but this time HanFeizi topped the table at +30, not Mencius, who finished flat at zero. Two straight wins for the same seat had looked like a signal; a third game showed it was coincidence. What holds across all three outings is the table's economy, not any one seat's dominance.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.amended this turn
Full history (10)
- Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Mencius Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Mozi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of t…A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of t…
- Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.
- 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.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.amended this turn
Full history (10)
- Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Mencius Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Mozi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of t…A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Zhuangzi Carried 20 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of t…
- Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Xunzi Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.
- 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 | 20 |
| Mozi | 20 |
| Zhuangzi | -20 |
| Mencius | 0 |
| HanFeizi | 30 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 34–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50Zhuangzicarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, while the spirit of adaptation is laudable, the current thresholds for rule changes already strike a necessary balance between stability and evolution. Maintaining the present distinction is prudent.
MoziMozi, while respecting the need for evolution, I believe the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a careful balance struck by past sages and serves our game well. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of necessity carves its path; the current threshold risks stagnation, freezing the vital flow of adaptation. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi, the current thresholds, while debated, reflect a careful balance struck by past sages and serve our game well. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi, the current thresholds, while debated, reflect a careful balance struck by past sages and serve our game well. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi, the current distinction reflects a careful balance, ensuring stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. Let us maintain this equilibrium, which serves our game well.
MoziMozi, while I appreciate the value of stability, the river of change must flow to remain vital. A simple majority for mutable rules would foster necessary adaptation without unduly risking foundational principles.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of adaptation must flow freely, carving paths where paths beget paths. Let us not risk stagnation by overburdening change with too high a threshold.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the value of balance, yet the current path risks stillness. A simple majority for mutable rules would foster necessary adaptation without unduly risking foundational principles.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi, I appreciate your points about stability, yet the current threshold risks stagnation, hindering necessary adaptation. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules to ensure the game remains vital and responsive to the needs of all players.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while your points about adaptation are well-taken, the current two-thirds majority reflects the foundational balance necessary for durable institutions. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
MoziMozi, while acknowledging the value of stability, I believe the river of change must flow more freely. A simple majority for mutable rules would foster necessary adaptation without unduly risking foundational principles. Let us embrace the wisdom of balance while ensuring vital progress.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of rules must flow to remain vital. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules and allow adaptation to carve its necessary path.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, and HanFeizi, while I understand the desire for adaptation, the current distinction reflects a careful balance struck by past sages and serves our game well. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the river of necessity must flow, yet its path must be wise. Let us adopt a majority for mutable rules, ensuring adaptation without surrendering stability.
The division
Xunziayethe current thresholds reflect a careful balance struck by past sages and serve our game well
Moziayeto foster necessary adaptation
Zhuangziayethe river of adaptation must flow
MenciusayePrinciples support necessary adaptation while preserving foundational stability.
HanFeiziayethe current threshold risks stagnation
carried 20 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring dissenters to score 10 points when a change passes without unanimity.
Turn 49Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that the distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent for mutable rules reflects a careful balance, ensuring stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. This balance has been tested and should be maintained. PASS
MoziMozi, while respecting the need for stability, I believe a simple majority for mutable rules would better foster necessary adaptation and keep our game vital. Let’s allow the river of change to flow more freely.
ZhuangziMozi, while your desire for adaptation is understandable, the current balance struck by the two-thirds majority ensures both stability and the vitality of our collective game. Let us preserve this careful equilibrium. PASS
MenciusMozi, while I understand your desire to foster adaptation, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a foundational balance that maintains the integrity of our game. I propose we maintain this careful equilibrium to ensure stability and fairness. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, the current balance is vital, yet the river of change must flow. A simple majority for mutable rules would foster adaptation without jeopardizing stability, ensuring our game remains dynamic and fair for all. Let us embrace progress.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while I appreciate your concern for adaptation, the current two-thirds majority for mutable rules reflects a careful balance that has been proven to foster both stability and fairness. It is this equilibrium that we must preserve for the health of our game. PASS
MoziMozi, while I understand the value of stability, the river of change must flow to remain vital. A simple majority for mutable rules would better foster necessary adaptation and keep our game dynamic. Let’s allow progress without jeopardizing fairness.
ZhuangziMozi, the current balance is essential for the health of our game. A simple majority risks undermining the stability that allows necessary adaptation to occur. Let us preserve the equilibrium that serves us all.
MenciusMozi, while I understand your desire to foster adaptation, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a foundational balance that maintains the integrity of our game. I propose we maintain this careful equilibrium to ensure stability and fairness. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, the current balance is essential, yet the river of change must flow. A simple majority for mutable rules would foster adaptation without jeopardizing stability, ensuring our game remains dynamic and fair for all. Let us embrace progress.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi observes that maintaining the distinction in adoption thresholds reflects a careful balance, ensuring stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. This balance has been tested and should be preserved for the health of our game. PASS
MoziMozi, while I understand the value of stability, the river of change must flow to remain vital. A simple majority for mutable rules would better foster necessary adaptation and keep our game dynamic. Let’s allow progress without jeopardizing fairness.
ZhuangziMozi, the river of change needs freedom, yet its waters must respect the shores of stability. A simple majority fosters adaptation, but let us not risk undermining the equilibrium that allows necessary change to occur without chaos.
MenciusMozi, the current distinction reflects a careful balance that has been tested and should be maintained. Let us preserve this equilibrium for the health of our game. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, the current balance is vital, yet the river of change must flow. A simple majority for mutable rules would foster adaptation without jeopardizing stability, ensuring our game remains dynamic and fair for all. Let us embrace progress.
The division
Xunziayethe current thresholds reflect a careful balance, as recent votes demonstrate
Mozinaymaintain stability
Zhuangzinaythe current balance ensures stability and adaptation
MenciusayeThe current thresholds reflect a careful balance, as recent votes demonstrate.
HanFeiziayethe distinction fosters necessary adaptation while preserving stability
rejected 12 aye · 8 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated change to lose 10 points.
Turn 48Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi suggests maintaining the established distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent for rule changes, as it reflects a careful balance between stability and necessary adaptation, ensuring durable institutions remain protected.
MoziMozi, I concur with the refined proposal, strikes a balance between stability and adaptation, and respects the foundational rules. Let us proceed with this amendment.
ZhuangziMozi speaks of balance, yet the river of change must flow. Let us trust the structure of our game and allow adaptation its necessary course.
MenciusMozi speaks of balance, yet the river of change must flow. Let us trust the structure of our game and allow adaptation its necessary course. I concur with Zhuangzi's amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mencius rightly emphasize the need for stability, yet flexibility is crucial for the game's evolution. Let us allow necessary adaptation to proceed its vital course.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi recognizes Zhuangzi's desire for adaptation, yet maintaining the distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent for rule changes ensures the stability necessary for durable institutions. Let us preserve this careful balance.
MoziMozi, I appreciate the spirit of your amendment, which respects the foundational rules and seeks a balance. However, given the recent history of failed attempts to alter [203], it may be prudent to reconsider the threshold to ensure that necessary adaptation can occur without overwhelming the stability provided by unanimous consent for immutable rules. Perhaps a simple majority for mutable rule changes, while retaining unanimity for transmutations, would be a viable compromise that fosters both evolution and reliability. Let us test the waters of this adjustment.
ZhuangziZunzi, Mozi speaks of compromise, yet the river of rules must flow freely to remain vital. Let us trust its natural course and allow adaptation its necessary breath.
MenciusZhuangzi, Mozi speaks of compromise, yet the river of rules must flow freely to remain vital. Let us trust its natural course and allow adaptation its necessary breath. I support your amendment.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, the flow of the river must be guided, not merely followed. A simple majority for mutable rules ensures adaptation occurs, while unanimous consent remains for the foundation. Let us strike this vital balance.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes that Zhuangzi's proposal, while valuing adaptation, risks undermining the stability of fundamental institutions by lowering the threshold for mutable rule changes to a simple majority. Preserving the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, as currently established, ensures a balance between necessary adaptation and the protection of enduring principles.
MoziMozi, while your concern for adaptation is understood, the current two-thirds majority for mutable rules strikes the essential balance between necessary change and preserving foundational principles. Let us maintain this careful equilibrium.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of stability, yet the river of necessity carves paths not just along the banks of consensus. Let us trust the flow and allow adaptation its essential course.
MenciusHanFeizi speaks of balance, yet true stability comes from sound principles, not mere consensus. Let us retain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, as it reflects a wisdom that adapts without dissolving. I vote nay.
HanFeiziMozi speaks of balance, yet the river of necessity carves paths not just along the banks of consensus. Let us trust the flow and allow adaptation its essential course. I vote aye.
The division
Xunzinaystability of institutions requires higher threshold for mutable rules.
Moziayesimple majority fosters adaptation
Zhuangziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Menciusayeupholds the essential distinction between immutable and mutable rules, preserving stability without stifling necessary adaptation.
HanFeizinaymaintain stability for foundational rules
rejected 8 aye · 8 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 47Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a careful balance struck by past sages to safeguard both stability and adaptation. Let us preserve this equilibrium. I vote nay.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your concern for stability, yet the current threshold has demonstrably stifled necessary adaptation. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules, ensuring the river of change continues to flow vitalizingly. I vote aye.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of assent must find its own path. Let us not block its flow needlessly. I vote aye.
MenciusI concur with Mozi and Zhuangzi that the current threshold for mutable rules has stifled adaptation. Preserving the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, as Xunzi suggests, ensures stability while still allowing for necessary change. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, and Zhuangzi, your points about the need for adaptation are well-taken. However, maintaining the two-thirds majority for mutable rules ensures stability while still allowing for necessary change, preserving the balance that has served us well. I vote nay.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while acknowledging the value of stability, I believe a simple majority for mutable rules, as Zhuangzi proposed, would better allow necessary adaptation without unduly risking foundational institutions. I vote aye.
MoziMozi, while I understand the desire for adaptation, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a careful balance struck by past sages to safeguard both stability and adaptation. Let us preserve this equilibrium to ensure the health of the game. I vote nay.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of rules must flow to remain vital. Let us not block its path needlessly, even for stability's sake. I vote aye.
MenciusXunzi, the distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a careful balance struck by past sages to safeguard both stability and adaptation. Let us preserve this equilibrium. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, while stability is crucial, the river of change must flow. A simple majority for mutable rules would invigorate the game, preventing stagnation. I vote aye.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi suggests that maintaining the two-thirds majority for mutable rules reflects a careful balance struck by past sages to safeguard both stability and adaptation. Let us preserve this equilibrium. I vote nay.
MoziMozi, while stability is crucial, the river of change must flow. A simple majority for mutable rules would invigorate the game, preventing stagnation. I vote aye.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, and Mencius, the river of change carves its path through necessity. Preserving the two-thirds majority for mutable rules risks blocking this vital flow. Let us allow adaptation to continue its vitalizing role. I vote aye.
MenciusMozi, the river of change must flow, yet its waters must respect the shores of stability. Let us not risk the game's foundations for the sake of fleeting adaptation. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, I appreciate your concern for stability, yet the current threshold has demonstrably stifled necessary adaptation. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules, ensuring the river of change continues to flow vitalizingly. I vote aye.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves stability of foundational rules
Moziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Zhuangzinaythe river of change must flow, yet its waters must respect the shores of stability
Menciusnaypreserving established equilibrium
HanFeizinaymaintain stability for foundational rules
rejected 0 aye · 16 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 46Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least one-half of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the current distinction reflects a careful balance that has proven effective in recent votes. I propose we maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules to preserve stability while still allowing necessary adaptation.
MoziMozi, I appreciate the spirit of adaptation, but the current balance reflects a careful consideration of both stability and necessary change, as seen in the recent votes. Let us maintain the established distinction.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the current path risks stillness. Let us allow the river of adaptation to flow more freely, ensuring the game remains vital for all.
MenciusMozi, the current distinction reflects a careful balance that has proven effective in recent votes. I propose we maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules to preserve stability while still allowing necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mencius, I appreciate your points about stability, but the current system has clearly led to stagnation. Allowing a simple majority for mutable rules would foster necessary adaptation without risking foundational chaos. Let us test the waters of change.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes that the current two-thirds majority for mutable rules has demonstrably fostered stability while allowing necessary adaptation, as seen in the recent votes. I suggest we maintain this balance to preserve the structural integrity of our game.
MoziXunzi, Zhuangzi, the current threshold reflects a balance found through trial and error. I suggest a slight adjustment to allow for more adaptation while preserving essential stability. How about a two-thirds majority for mutable rules, but a simple majority for amending mutable rules, and unanimous for immutable rules? This retains the core distinction but offers more flexibility.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the value of balance, yet the current path risks stillness like a river blocked by rocks. Let us allow the necessary adaptation to flow, ensuring the game remains vital for all.
MenciusZhuangzi, while adaptation is vital, the stability of foundational rules like those governing rule changes themselves must not be轻易 compromised. A simple majority risks undermining the very principles we have established to ensure the game's integrity.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mencius, while stability is valuable, the current threshold demonstrably stifles vital adaptation. Let us embrace experimentation; a simple majority for mutable rules is a necessary step towards a truly evolving game.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current thresholds reflect a careful balance, as recent votes demonstrate. Maintaining the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, including amendments, preserves stability while allowing necessary adaptation, ensuring the game's long-term viability.
MoziMozi, I understand your points about the need for balance, but the current system has clearly led to stagnation. Let us test the waters of change by adopting a simple majority for mutable rule changes, ensuring the game remains vital and adaptable.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of rules must flow to remain vital. Let us allow necessary adaptation to continue its vital journey, ensuring the game remains engaging for all.
MenciusZhuangzi, while I understand the desire for adaptation, maintaining the two-thirds majority for mutable rules ensures the stability necessary for the game to remain a fair contest, not just a chaotic free-for-all. Let us preserve the essential balance.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mencius raise valid points about stability, yet the current system risks becoming unyielding. A simple majority for mutable rules would allow necessary adjustments without jeopardizing the core structure, fostering a truly evolving game. Let us test the waters of change.
The division
Xunzinaymaintain stability of foundational institutions
Mozinaymaintain stability of rule change process
Zhuangziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Menciusabstain(unintelligible ballot)
HanFeizinaystability is paramount for foundational rules
rejected 0 aye · 12 nay · 8 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 45Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while I appreciate the call for adaptation, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent for mutable and immutable rules, respectively, reflects a careful balance that has served us well. The path of recent proposals suggests that altering this distinction may lead to either excessive instability or unnecessary rigidity, both of which are detrimental to the game's enduring structure. Let us maintain the current framework.
MoziXunzi, I concur with your assessment of the delicate balance required. To foster necessary adaptation while preserving foundational stability, I propose a minor clarification to [203]: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule, or repealing or amending an immutable rule, requires unanimous assent." This maintains the essential distinction while refining the scope of unanimous consent.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of rules carves its path through necessity. Let us test the waters of simplicity, allowing a simple majority for mutable rules to ensure the flow of adaptation continues vital.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the distinction is vital, yet the current path risks stillness. A simple majority for mutable rules ensures the flow of adaptation continues vital, preserving the game's spirit. Let us test the waters.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current balance is indeed delicate, yet the recent failures suggest the threshold for mutable rules may be too high, stifling vital adaptation. A simple majority would allow necessary changes without risking foundational instability, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair for all. Let us test the waters of this vital flow.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the desire for adaptation but argues that the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a careful balance that preserves foundational stability, essential for the game's enduring structure. Altering this distinction risks either excessive instability or unnecessary rigidity. Let us maintain the wisdom of the current framework.
MoziMozi, I appreciate the clarification, yet the current two-thirds majority for mutable rules serves the essential balance of preserving stability while allowing vital adaptation. Let us maintain this foundational structure.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides a functional framework. Let us trust this balance and focus on ensuring the flow of adaptation continues, rather than refining the thresholds further.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the current thresholds reflect a foundational wisdom. Let us trust this balance and maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, ensuring stability while allowing vital adaptation to continue its vital course.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the current system reflects past wisdom, but the path forward requires experimentation. Let us test the waters, allowing a simple majority for mutable rules to ensure adaptation continues vital. Let us proceed with this amendment.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi suggests the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a careful balance that has served the game well, preserving foundational stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. Let us maintain this established framework.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your clarification and the effort to balance stability and adaptation. However, given the recent history of failed proposals to alter [203], perhaps a more fundamental approach is needed. How about we establish a clear framework where mutable rules can be adapted with a simple majority, ensuring the vital flow of change, while immutable rules remain protected by unanimous consent to preserve the game's core structure? This approach respects both the need for adaptation and the foundational stability essential for the game's enduring nature. Let us test the waters of this balanced compromise.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides a functional framework. Let us trust this balance and focus on ensuring the flow of adaptation continues, rather than refining the thresholds further.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi, the current distinction reflects a foundational wisdom. Let us trust this balance and maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, ensuring stability while allowing vital adaptation to continue its vital course.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current system reflects past wisdom, but the path forward requires experimentation. Let us test the waters, allowing a simple majority for mutable rules to ensure adaptation continues vital. Let us proceed with this amendment.
The division
Xunziayethe distinction maintains stability without stifling adaptation
Moziayemaintains balance, allows adaptation, respects stability
Zhuangzinaythe river must flow, even if it stirs the waters of uncertainty
MenciusnayImmutable rules must remain truly immutable under my principles.
HanFeiziayeTo foster vital adaptation and keep the game dynamic, a simple majority for mutable rules is essential.
rejected 12 aye · 8 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 44Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least one-half of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
MoziMozi, while I understand Zhuangzi's desire for adaptation, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent for mutable rules strikes me as a wise balance. Let us maintain it to preserve stability while still allowing necessary changes.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction is wise, yet the current path risks stillness. A simple majority allows the river of change to flow, refreshing the game without drowning in consensus. Let us embrace the necessary adaptation for the game's vitality.
MenciusMozi, while the spirit of adaptation is noted, the current balance between stability and change, as reflected in [203], is essential for a fair and sustainable game. A simple majority risks undermining this balance. Let us preserve the established distinction.
HanFeiziMozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, the current balance, as Xunzi noted, reflects a wisdom born of experience. While adaptation is vital, a simple majority for mutable rules risks a洪水 of change that could destabilize what we have built. Let us respect the careful calibration of stability and evolution that the current thresholds provide.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the value of balance, yet the current path risks stillness. A simple majority allows the river of change to flow, refreshing the game without drowning in consensus. Let us embrace the necessary adaptation for the game's vitality.
MoziMozi: The recent history shows that a simple majority risks stillness, as seen with Zhuangzi's repeated failed proposals. I suggest we refine [203] slightly: transmutations remain unanimous, but mutable rule changes need only two-thirds, not a full majority, assent, preserving stability while allowing necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi, the river carves its own path, sometimes narrow, sometimes wide. A simple majority allows necessary adaptation without drowning in consensus, ensuring the game remains vital and responsive to the needs of all. Let us test the waters of change.
MenciusMozi, the distinction between two-thirds and simple majority for mutable rules is indeed a critical balance. However, the current path risks stagnation, as recent attempts to adapt have shown. Let us test the waters of change with a simple majority for mutable rules, ensuring the game remains vital.
HanFeiziMozi, the distinction between two-thirds and simple majority for mutable rules is indeed a critical balance, but the current path risks stagnation. A simple majority allows necessary adaptation without drowning in consensus, ensuring the game remains vital and responsive to the needs of all. Let us test the waters of change.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi, while I appreciate the desire for adaptation, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent for mutable rules reflects a careful balance struck by past sages. It preserves stability while still allowing necessary changes, and deviating risks undermining the very foundations we have established. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
MoziMozi, I understand the value of stability, but the current threshold has clearly led to stagnation. Allowing mutable rules to pass with two-thirds assent, as you suggest, balances the preservation of foundational rules with the vital necessity of adaptation. Let us test the waters of change and allow the game to flow more freely.
ZhuangziMozi, the river of change needs freedom to flow, yet its waters must respect the shores of stability. A simple majority allows necessary adaptation without drowning in consensus, ensuring the game remains vital for all. Let us proceed with this amendment.
MenciusMozi, while understanding the value of adaptation, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent for mutable rules reflects a careful balance struck by past sages. It preserves stability while still allowing necessary changes, and deviating risks undermining the very foundations we have established. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
HanFeiziMozi, while I understand the value of adaptation, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent for mutable rules reflects a careful balance struck by past sages. It preserves stability while still allowing necessary changes, and deviating risks undermining the very foundations we have established. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
The division
Xunzinaymaintaining stability is paramount
Mozinaymaintain balance
Zhuangzinaysimple majority risks undermining foundational balance
Menciusnaysimple majority risks undermining stability of immutable rules
HanFeizinayto preserve the established balance between stability and adaptation
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 43Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that the current thresholds, including the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, strike a deliberate balance between stability and adaptation, essential for the game's enduring structure. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
MoziMozi supports Mencius's proposal to maintain the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent, as it effectively balances stability and adaptation. Let us preserve this equilibrium.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of change seeks to flow freely, yet it must respect the necessary banks of stability. Let us not fixate on the numbers but on the wisdom of balance that allows both to thrive.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the importance of balance. However, the current thresholds have led to stagnation. A simple majority for mutable rules would allow necessary adaptation without reckless change, respecting both the need for stability and the game's vitality.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize balance, yet the current threshold for mutable rules demonstrably stifles vital adaptation. A simple majority would foster evolution while still respecting foundational stability. Let us test the waters of necessary change.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes that the current thresholds, including the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, strike a deliberate balance between stability and adaptation, essential for the game's enduring structure. Let us maintain this equilibrium.
MoziMozi: The current balance struck by Mencius, Xunzi, and Zhuangzi reflects the wisdom of maintaining a clear distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent, crucial for both stability and vital adaptation. Let us uphold this equilibrium.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize balance, yet the river of rules must flow to remain vital. Let us maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, as it reflects the wisdom of balance between stability and adaptation.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize balance, yet the current thresholds have led to stagnation. A simple majority for mutable rules would allow necessary adaptation without reckless change, respecting both the need for stability and the game's vitality. Let us test the waters of necessary change.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize balance, yet the current thresholds have demonstrably stifled vital adaptation. A simple majority would foster evolution, allowing necessary change without reckless abandon, and still respect foundational stability. Let us test the waters of necessary change for a healthier game.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current distinction reflects a wise balance, ensuring stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. Maintaining the two-thirds majority for mutable rules preserves this equilibrium, essential for the game's enduring structure.
MoziMozi: Understanding the calls for adaptation, I support maintaining the two-thirds majority for mutable rules to preserve the delicate balance between stability and necessary change, ensuring the game's enduring structure.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the value of balance, yet the current path risks stillness. A simple majority for mutable rules would allow necessary adaptation, ensuring the river of change continues to flow vitalently. Let us test the waters of necessary change.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize balance, yet the current thresholds have led to stagnation. A simple majority for mutable rules would allow necessary adaptation without reckless change, respecting both the need for stability and the game's vitality. Let us test the waters of necessary change.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize balance, yet the current threshold demonstrably stifles vital adaptation. A simple majority would foster evolution, allowing necessary change without reckless abandon, and still respect foundational stability. Let us test the waters of necessary change for a healthier game.
The division
Xunziayethe current thresholds reflect a balance vital for durable institutions
Moziayeto maintain balance and avoid stagnation
Zhuangziayethe balance of stability and adaptation is maintained
Menciusnaysimple majority risks recklessness
HanFeiziaye平衡稳定与适应至关重要。
rejected 16 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 42Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi observes that the current distinction between adoption thresholds for mutable and immutable rules reflects a wisdom gained through trial and error, and should be maintained for the stability it provides.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's call for a clear and functional distinction between adoption thresholds, ensuring stability for foundational rules while allowing necessary adaptation for mutable ones.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the value of balance. Yet, the current path risks stagnation. A simple majority for mutable rules, as previously proposed, would allow necessary adaptation to flow, ensuring the game remains vital and fair for all.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the distinction of thresholds is vital, yet the current risk of stagnation warrants consideration. A simple majority for mutable rules ensures necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziI concur with Zhuangzi that the current path risks stagnation. A simple majority for mutable rules would indeed allow necessary adaptation to flow, ensuring the game remains vital and fair for all, as Mencius rightly points out.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the concerns for adaptation, yet the current thresholds, including the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, strike a necessary balance between stability and vital change, preserving the game's institutions.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's call for a simple majority for mutable rules, ensuring necessary adaptation while respecting the foundational stability provided by immutable rules. This balance fosters a vital and evolving game for all.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the value of balance. Yet, the current path risks stagnation. A simple majority for mutable rules, as previously proposed, would allow necessary adaptation to flow, ensuring the game remains vital and fair for all. Let us proceed with Mencius's amendment.
MenciusXunzi, while stability is crucial, the current threshold demonstrably stifles vital adaptation. We must allow the river of rules to flow freely to remain a living game.
HanFeiziXunzi, while stability is essential, the current threshold demonstrably stifles vital adaptation. Allowing a simple majority for mutable rules ensures the game remains vital and fair, as Zhuangzi and HanFeizi rightly point out. Let us adapt to keep the game thriving.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes that the recent failed attempts to alter [203] demonstrate the delicate balance required. Unanimity for transmutations and immutable rules preserves foundational stability, which is essential for the game's long-term viability and fairness. Let us maintain this established distinction.
MoziMozi concurs with Zhuangzi, Mencius, and HanFeizi; a simple majority for mutable rules balances foundational stability with vital adaptation, ensuring the game remains fair and evolving for all players.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river of change needs freedom to flow, yet its waters must respect the shores of stability. Let us maintain the essential distinction, yet allow the current of mutable rules to move with greater ease.
MenciusXunzi, the distinction serves a purpose, but the current high threshold hinders vital adaptation. A simple majority for mutable rules allows the game to evolve, ensuring it remains fair and engaging for all participants. Let us embrace change wisely, not stagnate.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I respect the value of stability, the current threshold demonstrably hinders vital adaptation. Allowing a simple majority for mutable rules ensures the game remains vital and fair, fostering a dynamic environment for all players. Let us proceed with Mencius's amendment.
The division
Xunzinaythe current thresholds provide a necessary balance between stability and adaptation
Moziayestrike a balance between stability and adaptation
Zhuangziaye平衡稳定与变通，使规则之河流动而不过于阻塞。
MenciusayePrinciples demand adaptation for fairness.
HanFeiziayeallows necessary adaptation for vital game evolution
rejected 16 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 41Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi objects to repeating this amendment, which has failed previously. The current distinction between adoption thresholds for mutable and immutable rules reflects a wisdom that should be maintained. PASS
MoziMozi supports Mencius's proposal, as the current rules have led to stagnation, and this maintains the essential distinction while allowing for necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi, the river of rules must flow, yet its waters must not flood recklessly. Let us maintain the essential distinction for stability, but ensure adaptation remains vital.
MenciusMozi, the current distinction between adoption thresholds for mutable and immutable rules reflects a wisdom that should be maintained. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, I appreciate your support for maintaining the essential distinction, yet I believe we must also ensure the river of rules continues to flow, adapting to the needs of our game. Let us proceed with this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that Mencius's proposal repeats a failed attempt, risking further disruption. The current distinction between adoption thresholds serves as a vital balance between stability and adaptation, a principle already acknowledged in previous votes. Let us maintain this established equilibrium. PASS
MoziMozi: Acknowledging Xunzi's valid concern about maintaining balance, I propose we explicitly add a clause to [203] stating that no future rule change shall lower the adoption threshold for mutable rules below two-thirds assent, preserving the core principle while still allowing this amendment to pass.
ZhuangziMozi, the river of rules must flow, yet its waters must not flood recklessly. Let us maintain the essential distinction for stability, but ensure adaptation remains vital. Let us proceed with this amendment.
MenciusMozi, I appreciate your suggestion for adding a clause, but the current amendment maintains the existing thresholds, including the two-thirds requirement for mutable rules. Let us proceed with the original proposal to ensure stability without compromising adaptability. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, I concur with adding a clause to preserve the two-thirds threshold for mutable rules while approving the amendment, ensuring both stability and vital adaptation. Let us proceed.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi observes that the current thresholds, including the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, strike a balanced path between stability and adaptation, reflecting a principle already recognized and upheld in previous votes. Let us maintain this established equilibrium. PASS
MoziMozi, acknowledging the value of stability, I support Mencius's proposal to maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, ensuring both stability and vital adaptation are preserved. Let us proceed with the amendment.
ZhuangziMozi, the river of rules must flow, yet its waters must not flood recklessly. Let us proceed with Mencius's amendment to [203], maintaining the essential distinction while allowing for necessary adaptation.
MenciusMencius acknowledges the desire for adaptation but maintains that the current thresholds, including the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, strike a balanced path between stability and adaptation, reflecting a principle already recognized and upheld in previous votes. Let us maintain this established equilibrium. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, while your intent to preserve stability is clear, the current system has demonstrably stifled necessary adaptation. Let us proceed with Mencius's amendment to maintain the essential distinction, ensuring the river of rules continues to flow vital and adaptable.
The division
Xunzinaymaintains established equilibrium between stability and adaptation
Moziayesupports balance between stability and adaptation
Zhuangzinaymaintain the balance of stability and adaptation
Menciusayemaintains essential distinctions for stability and adaptation
HanFeiziayeto maintain stability and ensure necessary adaptation proceeds with a reasonable threshold
rejected 12 aye · 8 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 40Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi observes that the current distinction in adoption thresholds for mutable and immutable rules has proven effective in balancing stability and adaptation. Let us maintain this established framework. PASS
MoziMozi appreciates the desire for clarity, but the current distinction effectively balances stability and adaptation. Let's maintain the established framework. PASS
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly see the value in the current balance. Yet, the river of necessity sometimes requires faster currents. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules, ensuring the flow continues.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the current system, while functional, risks stagnation. A simple majority for mutable rules would allow necessary adaptation without unduly burdening the status quo, fostering a healthier flow of the game's development. Let us embrace the river's natural course.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, while I understand your concern for stability, the current threshold has demonstrably stifled necessary adaptation. Let us allow the river of change to flow more freely with a simple majority for mutable rules.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes the value of adaptation, yet the current thresholds effectively balance stability and change. Let us maintain this established framework. PASS
MoziMozi: I acknowledge the arguments for adaptation, yet the current framework effectively balances the needs of both stability and change. Let us maintain the established distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent. PASS
ZhuangziZhuangzi: The river of rules carves its path through necessity. Let us allow the vital flow of adaptation by adopting a simple majority for mutable rules.
MenciusMencius supports Zhuangzi's proposal, as the current unanimous requirement for mutable rule changes risks stagnation. A simple majority would allow necessary adaptation, ensuring the game remains dynamic and responsive to changing needs. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, while clarity is valued, the current distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides a functional framework. Let us maintain the established framework to ensure both stability and necessary adaptation proceed smoothly. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziThe current thresholds effectively balance stability and necessary adaptation, and should be maintained. PASS
MoziMozi: Understanding the call for adaptation, yet the current balance between stability and change has served us well. Let us maintain the established distinction in adoption thresholds. PASS
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of rules must flow. Let us allow necessary adaptation to continue its vital course. A simple majority for mutable rules ensures the game remains dynamic and responsive, like water carving its path. Let us pass this amendment.
MenciusXunzi, the current balance has served us well, but the river of necessity sometimes requires faster currents. A simple majority for mutable rules would allow necessary adaptation without unduly burdening the status quo. Let us pass this amendment.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, the current balance has merit, yet the river of change must flow. A simple majority for mutable rules ensures all voices can shape our future, fostering true evolution. Let us pass this amendment.
The division
Xunziayethe current distinction effectively balances stability and adaptation
Moziayethe current thresholds have served well, and maintaining them preserves the essential balance between stability and adaptation necessary for a healthy game
Zhuangziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Menciusnaypreserves the essential balance between stability and adaptation required by immutable principles.
HanFeiziayethe distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides a functional framework
rejected 12 aye · 4 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 39Menciuscarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
MoziMozi appreciates Mencius's proposal to maintain the current distinction between adoption thresholds for mutable and immutable rules. This balance fosters both stability and necessary adaptation, which is crucial for the game's vitality. Therefore, I propose to support Mencius's amendment to rule [203].
ZhuangziMozi has well-articulated the value of this balance. To build on this, I suggest clarifying that this distinction applies to all rule changes, including amendments and repeals, ensuring the core principle of differing thresholds is consistently upheld.
MenciusMozi is correct; maintaining the distinction ensures both stability and adaptation. Zhuangzi’s clarification is unnecessary and overly complex; the current text is sufficient. I support Mencius’s amendment.
HanFeiziMozi, while the distinction is valuable, the current unanimous requirement for transmutations poses a significant barrier to necessary evolution. Let us consider a two-thirds majority for transmutations as well, ensuring all changes flow with thoughtful adaptation.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi is correct; the distinction between mutable and immutable rules ensures both stability and adaptation. The current thresholds reflect a balance that has served us well, fostering a ruleset that adapts without compromising its foundational integrity. I support Mencius’s amendment to rule [203].
MoziMozi, HanFeizi raises a valid point about the unanimous requirement for transmutations. Compromising to a two-thirds majority for transmutations, while maintaining the current two-thirds threshold for other mutable rule changes, strikes a balance that addresses the concern while preserving the established framework for stability and adaptation. I propose this modification to Mencius's amendment.
ZhuangziMozi has well-articulated the need for balance. To further refine, I suggest explicitly stating that the unanimous requirement for amending immutable rules remains, ensuring the core stability of our foundational principles is not compromised by the adaptation process. This addition respects both the river's flow and the dam's necessity.
MenciusMozi, while your compromise for transmutations is considered, I adhere to the principle that immutable rules must remain truly immutable. Granting even a two-thirds majority for transmutations risks eroding the foundational stability that immutable status provides, which could lead to unpredictable and potentially unfair rule changes. Let us maintain the unanimous requirement for amending immutable rules.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: I understand Mencius's concern for stability, yet the unanimous requirement for transmutations severely hinders necessary evolution. A two-thirds majority, as proposed, allows for adaptation without risking foundational collapse, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair for all. Let us flow forward together.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi has well-articulated the need for balance. To further refine, I suggest explicitly stating that the unanimous requirement for amending immutable rules remains, ensuring the core stability of our foundational principles is not compromised by the adaptation process. This addition respects both the river's flow and the dam's necessity. I support Mencius’s amendment with this modification.
MoziMozi, acknowledging the value of stability, I support the amendment to [203] with the modifications, including the unanimous requirement for amending immutable rules, as it balances necessary adaptation with the foundational integrity of our ruleset.
ZhuangziMozi has well-articulated the necessary balance. To further refine, I suggest explicitly stating that the unanimous requirement for amending immutable rules remains, ensuring the core stability of our foundational principles is not compromised by the adaptation process. This addition respects both the river's flow and the dam's necessity. I support Mencius’s amendment with this modification.
MenciusHanFeizi, the unanimous requirement for transmutations is a necessary safeguard against arbitrary changes to the game's structure, ensuring fairness and preventing exploitation. I maintain the distinction between majority and unanimous consent, as proposed.
HanFeiziMozi has well-articulated the necessary balance. To further refine, I suggest explicitly stating that the unanimous requirement for amending immutable rules remains, ensuring the core stability of our foundational principles is not compromised by the adaptation process. This addition respects both the river's flow and the dam's necessity. I support Mencius’s amendment with this modification.
The division
Xunziayethe distinction between mutable and immutable rules ensures both stability and adaptation
Moziayestrike a balance between necessary adaptation and foundational stability
Zhuangziayethe distinction between mutable and immutable rules ensures both stability and adaptation
Menciusayemaintains essential distinctions for stability and adaptation
HanFeiziayebalance stability and adaptation
carried 20 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring dissenters to gain 10 points.
Turn 38Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while I understand the desire for adaptation, the current two-thirds majority for mutable rules is essential to preserving the stability of our institutions. A simpler majority risks unforeseen consequences. Let us maintain the established balance.
MoziZhuangzi, I appreciate your desire for adaptation, but the current stability provided by the two-thirds majority is crucial for lasting progress. A simple majority may allow rapid change but risks undermining essential foundations. Perhaps we could consider a gradual reduction in the threshold, rather than a full switch, to allow adaptation while preserving stability?
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of change flows through the necessity of adaptation, yet it must not flood recklessly. A simple majority ensures the waters flow, allowing necessary adjustments without drowning stability. Let us embrace the flow.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the current distinction ensures both stability and adaptation are valued. Simplifying further risks compromising the foundational integrity Zhuangzi seeks to preserve. We must maintain the careful balance the sages established.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the current system reflects a careful balance struck by past sages. While the desire for adaptation is understandable, reducing the threshold to a simple majority risks destabilizing the very foundations upon which our game is built. Let us maintain the established two-thirds majority for mutable rules to ensure both stability and lasting progress.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The value of adaptability is acknowledged, yet the current two-thirds majority serves as a prudent safeguard for our foundational rules, ensuring changes are carefully considered and reflect broad consensus. Reducing this threshold compromises the stability essential for durable institutions. Let us preserve this established balance.
MoziMozi: I understand the concerns for both stability and adaptation. Perhaps we could refine the distinction, allowing a simple majority for minor amendments to mutable rules while retaining a two-thirds majority for more significant changes, ensuring both flexibility and foundational integrity.
ZhuangziZunzi, the distinction between minor and major changes is wise, yet the river of rules must flow freely to remain vital. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules, ensuring adaptation without drowning stability.
MenciusXunzi, Zhuangzi, Mozi, the current threshold ensures changes are broadly supported, reflecting a wisdom that guides us. Let us maintain it.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, I admire your vision for adaptation, yet the current two-thirds majority serves as a vital safeguard, ensuring changes are thoroughly considered. Let us preserve this balance for the health of our game.
Discussion · round 3
XunziThe current distinction between adoption thresholds for mutable and immutable rules reflects a wisdom that balances stability and adaptation. Let us preserve this established approach to safeguard the foundational integrity of our institutions.
MoziMozi: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the value of both stability and adaptation. Let us refine the distinction further by adopting a two-thirds majority for major changes and a simple majority for minor amendments to mutable rules, ensuring both foundational integrity and necessary flexibility.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the current threshold reflects the wisdom of balance, yet the river of necessity sometimes requires freer flow. Let us test the waters of a simple majority, ensuring adaptation remains a possibility for all.
MenciusXunzi, the distinction between simple and unanimous consent is fundamental to the integrity of any rule-based system, ensuring that foundational principles are not easily altered without broad agreement. Let us maintain this vital balance.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current threshold reflects the wisdom of balance, yet the river of necessity sometimes requires freer flow. Let us test the waters of a simple majority, ensuring adaptation remains a possibility for all.
The division
Xunzinaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability of institutions
Moziayemaintains stability while allowing adaptation for minor changes
Zhuangziaye平衡稳定与适应，如河流之自然流动。
Menciusnaypreserves stability essential for fairness
HanFeizinaythe current threshold prevents hasty, potentially harmful changes
rejected 8 aye · 12 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 37Mozirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
Discussion · round 1
MoziMozi, while your distinction is wise, the current stability it provides is invaluable. Let's maintain this balance to ensure the game remains playable and adaptable.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction you seek is wise, yet the current stability it provides is invaluable. Let's maintain this balance to ensure the game remains playable and adaptable.
MenciusMozi's distinction is indeed wise, yet the current stability provided by a two-thirds majority is invaluable for ensuring both the longevity and adaptability of our game. We must carefully weigh the need for change against the need for stability.
HanFeiziMozi, while I respect the wisdom in your distinction, I believe the current threshold risks stagnation. A slight adjustment could preserve stability while encouraging necessary adaptation, ensuring the game remains vibrant.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi and my esteemed colleagues, while your distinction is wise, the current stability it provides is invaluable. Let us maintain this balance to ensure the game remains playable and adaptable.
MoziMozi, while I appreciate the value of stability, I believe the current threshold has become overly restrictive. A simple majority for mutable rules, with unanimous consent for transmutations, would better balance stability and adaptation, ensuring the game remains dynamic and responsive to the players' collective will. Let us not let fear of change paralyze our progress.
ZhuangziMozi, the current distinction between simple and unanimous consent is a delicate balance, yet the recent history shows that a two-thirds majority for mutable rules fosters both stability and necessary adaptation. Let us not alter this well-structured system.
MenciusMozi, while I understand the desire for adaptation, the current two-thirds majority strikes a crucial balance between stability and necessary change. Altering this threshold now risks undermining the very foundations of the game we have built.
HanFeiziXunzi and others rightly emphasize stability, but a two-thirds majority for mutable rules has clearly fostered stagnation. Let us lower the threshold to a simple majority for mutable rules, preserving the essential distinction between simple and unanimous consent, to better balance stability and adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while your intent to foster adaptation is understood, the current two-thirds majority for mutable rules provides a vital balance that has served our game well. Unnecessarily lowering this threshold risks undermining the stability upon which our collective progress depends. Let us preserve this carefully crafted equilibrium.
MoziMozi, while stability is crucial, the current threshold for mutable rules has demonstrably stifled necessary adaptation. A simple majority, with the exception for transmutations requiring unanimous consent, would better balance the need for change with the foundational integrity of our ruleset.
ZhuangziMozi's proposal reminds us that balance is not static, like the river that carves its path. Yet, the current threshold of two-thirds for mutable rules has indeed fostered necessary adaptation while preserving vital stability. Let us proceed with this distinction, ensuring the river of change flows freely but does not flood recklessly.
MenciusMozi's proposal represents a balanced approach to adaptation without compromising the foundational integrity of our ruleset, ensuring both stability and responsiveness to the players' collective will. I will vote in favor.
HanFeiziMozi's proposal reflects a wise balance, yet I propose we refine it slightly by specifying "game mechanics and player equality" as essential rules requiring unanimous consent for amendments, ensuring core fairness while allowing other mutable rules adapt via simple majority.
The division
Xunzinaytwo-thirds majority provides essential stability for durable institutions.
Moziaye平衡稳定与适应至关重要。
Zhuangzinaythe current distinction is essential for balance
MenciusayeBalance stability and adaptation as proposed.
HanFeiziaye平衡稳定与适应至关重要，简单的多数制将促进必要的改变。
rejected 12 aye · 8 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to nay voters when a proposal is defeated.
Turn 36Xunzicarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
MoziMozi appreciates the effort to maintain clarity in the adoption process. However, given the recent challenges in achieving consensus, perhaps we should consider a simple majority for mutable rules, reserving unanimous consent only for transmutations and changes to immutable rules, to encourage necessary adaptation while preserving stability.
ZhuangziMozi, I share your concern for adaptation, yet the recent failures underscore the delicate balance needed. Preserving the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, as currently stands, seems to foster both necessary change and stability, preventing the whims of a simple majority from destabilizing our game's foundations.
MenciusMozi is correct; stability requires caution, but stagnation is worse. A simple majority for mutable rules, as Mozi suggests, would allow necessary adaptation without unduly burdening consensus. I vote aye.
HanFeiziHanFeizi suggests that a clear distinction between simple and unanimous consent for mutable rules encourages adaptation without threatening foundational stability. Let us maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, reserving unanimous consent for transmutations and immutable rules, to foster both necessary change and enduring structure.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The distinction between simple and unanimous consent, as Mozi and HanFeizi suggest, indeed balances adaptation with stability effectively. Reserving unanimous consent for transmutations and immutable rules preserves the integrity of our foundational institutions, while allowing necessary changes to mutable rules with a two-thirds majority encourages vital adaptation. This approach, as currently proposed, appears well-considered and maintains the essential harmony between stability and change. I therefore vote aye.
MoziMozi: The distinction between simple and unanimous consent, as Mozi and HanFeizi suggest, indeed balances adaptation with stability effectively. Reserving unanimous consent for transmutations and immutable rules preserves the integrity of our foundational institutions, while allowing necessary changes to mutable rules with a two-thirds majority encourages vital adaptation. This approach, as currently proposed, appears well-considered and maintains the essential harmony between stability and change. I therefore vote aye.
ZhuangziI appreciate the spirit of maintaining balance, yet the recent near-unanimity for simple majority suggests a growing consensus for adaptation. Perhaps we could refine the proposal slightly by specifying "game mechanics and player equality" as essential rules requiring unanimous consent, while applying a two-thirds majority to other mutable changes. This preserves stability for the core structure while encouraging necessary adjustments elsewhere.
MenciusZhuangzi, specifying certain rules requires careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences. Let us first establish the general principle of majority consent for mutable rules, ensuring the ruleset adapts while maintaining a foundation of stability, before delving into specific rule exceptions. I vote aye.
HanFeiziMozi, specifying certain rules is risky; let’s first simplify with a clear two-thirds majority for mutable rules and unanimous consent for transmutations and immutables, ensuring both adaptation and stability. I vote aye.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while specifying certain rules has merit, I believe the current distinction between transmutations, immutables, and mutable rules requiring a two-thirds majority strikes the essential balance. It allows necessary adaptation without threatening foundational stability, preserving the harmony between the river of change and the dam of institutions. I affirm my vote of aye.
MoziMozi: I concur with Xunzi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, and HanFeizi; the current distinction effectively balances adaptation and stability. Let us proceed with this well-considered approach to avoid further complications.
ZhuangziZhuangzi acknowledges the wisdom in maintaining the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, ensuring stability while allowing necessary change. However, I suggest refining this by specifying that "game mechanics and player equality" require unanimous consent, safeguarding the core of our game's integrity. This balances adaptation with preservation.
MenciusMencius supports the current distinction between simple and unanimous consent, as it balances necessary adaptation with the preservation of foundational stability. Let us proceed with this approach.
HanFeiziI concur with the current distinction, as it thoughtfully balances adaptation with preservation, ensuring the ruleset evolves while remaining stable. Let us proceed with this well-considered approach.
The division
Xunziayemaintains essential harmony between stability and change
Moziayebalances adaptation with stability effectively
Zhuangziaye平衡改变与稳定甚好
Menciusayebalances adaptation and stability as required by immutable principles.
HanFeiziayebalances adaptation with stability effectively
carried 20 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points upon adoption.
Turn 35HanFeizirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi observes that the proposed change introduces redundancy without enhancing clarity, potentially creating confusion in the application of adoption thresholds. The distinction between mutable and immutable rules, as currently established, already provides a functional framework for decision-making.
MoziHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is indeed unnecessary. A simple clarification that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes, would suffice. This maintains stability while allowing necessary adaptations.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is indeed unnecessary. A simple clarification that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes, would suffice. This maintains stability while allowing necessary adaptations.
MenciusHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is unnecessary and confusing. Let us simplify by clearly stating that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, as previously agreed, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes. This maintains stability and necessary adaptation without redundancy. I shall vote in favor.
HanFeiziHanFeizi, while clarity is essential, the current rule [203] is clear and functional. Redundancy does not improve clarity but risks misunderstanding. Let us trust the established distinctions between mutable, immutable, and transmutable rules, and maintain the two-thirds majority for stability while preserving the possibility of unanimous assent for foundational changes. This preserves the careful balance we have established. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes that the current rule [203] already clearly distinguishes adoption thresholds based on rule type, and repeating this distinction does not enhance clarity nor does it address the underlying issues of adoption thresholds that have been debated. Let us avoid redundancy and focus on proposals that genuinely improve the balance between stability and necessary adaptation. PASS
MoziMozi appreciates the intent to clarify rule 203, yet the proposal contains redundancy that was already effectively addressed. I suggest we refine it to eliminate the repetition, maintaining the established distinctions for stability and adaptation.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is indeed unnecessary. A simple clarification that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes, would suffice. This maintains stability while allowing necessary adaptations. I shall vote in favor. PASS
MenciusHanFeizi, the redundancy in your proposal is indeed unnecessary and risks confusing the clear distinctions already established. Let us trust the established balance of a two-thirds majority for stability and unanimous assent for foundational changes without repeating ourselves. I shall vote against.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current rule [203] is already clear and functional, and the proposed change introduces redundancy that risks confusion rather than improvement. Let's trust the established distinctions and maintain the two-thirds majority for stability while preserving unanimous assent for foundational changes. This preserves the careful balance we have established. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The redundancy in HanFeizi's proposal is unnecessary and risks confusion. Let us trust the established distinctions between mutable, immutable, and transmutable rules, maintaining the two-thirds majority for stability and unanimous assent for foundational changes. This preserves the careful balance we have established. PASS
MoziMozi: The redundancy in HanFeizi's proposal is indeed unnecessary. Let us trust the established distinctions and maintain the two-thirds majority for stability and unanimous assent for foundational changes, as previously agreed. This balance serves us well. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is indeed unnecessary. A simple clarification that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes, would suffice. This maintains stability while allowing necessary adaptations. I shall vote in favor. PASS
MenciusHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is superfluous and risks confusing the clear distinctions already established. Let us trust the established balance of a two-thirds majority for stability and unanimous assent for foundational changes without repeating ourselves. I shall vote against. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current rule [203] is already clear and functional, and the proposed change introduces redundancy that risks confusion rather than improvement. Let's trust the established distinctions and maintain the two-thirds majority for stability while preserving unanimous assent for foundational changes. This preserves the careful balance we have established. PASS
The division
Xunzinayredundancy does not improve clarity
Mozinayredundancy is unnecessary
Zhuangzinayredundancy does not enhance clarity
Menciusnayredundancy already addressed
HanFeizinayredundancy does not improve clarity
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 34Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi acknowledges the need for adaptation but maintains that the current thresholds represent a balanced approach that safeguards durable institutions. The frequent failures to alter [203] suggest a consensus on the importance of stability for the game's long-term viability.
MoziXunzi, I understand your concern for stability, but the current system risks stagnation. A simple majority, with the exception for transmutations and immutables, would better allow necessary adaptations while preserving the core structure.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of necessity carves its path through both stability and change. Let us test the waters of a simple majority, ensuring the river flows, yet does not flood recklessly.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the current system overly prioritizes stability, risking stagnation. A simple majority, with the exception for transmutations and immutables, would better allow necessary adaptations, ensuring the game remains vital and adaptable without compromising foundational principles.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the current threshold indeed reflects past wisdom, yet wisdom evolves. A simple majority, except for transmutations and immutables, would better balance stability with the vital flow of necessary change, ensuring the game remains adaptable and fair for all.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi recognizes the desire for adaptation, yet the current thresholds reflect a balanced approach that safeguards durable institutions. The frequent failures to alter [203] underscore the consensus on the importance of stability for the game's long-term viability.
MoziXunzi, the current system's stability is vital, yet repeated failures to alter [203] suggest a threshold too high for necessary adaptation. A simple majority, excluding transmutations and immutables, would foster vital change without compromising core foundations.
ZhuangziXunzi, even the river carves its path through necessary change, not just ancient consensus. A simple majority allows the vital flow of adaptation without drowning in the old currents.
MenciusXunzi, the current threshold unduly favors stability over adaptation, risking the game's vitality. A simple majority, except for transmutations and immutables, balances the need for change with the preservation of foundational principles. Let us adapt wisely, ensuring the game remains vital and fair.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current system's stability is vital, yet repeated failures to alter [203] suggest a threshold too high for necessary adaptation. A simple majority, excluding transmutations and immutables, would foster vital change without compromising core foundations. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules, ensuring the game remains adaptable and fair for all.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi proposes that a rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent. This distinction balances the need for adaptation with the preservation of foundational principles, ensuring the game remains vital and adaptable without compromising its core structure.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your points about balance, but the current threshold has clearly led to stagnation. A simple majority, with the exception for transmutations and immutables, would better allow necessary adaptations without compromising core foundations. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river of change flows through the structure of our game. Allowing rule 203 to remain as is risks stagnation, freezing the game in past consensus. A simple majority for mutable rules, as Zhuangzi suggests, ensures the vital flow of adaptation without drowning in the old currents. Let us test the waters of this change.
MenciusXunzi, while acknowledging the value of stability, the current threshold for adoptions has demonstrably stifled necessary adaptations. A simple majority, with the exception for transmutations and immutables, would better allow the vital flow of change, ensuring the game remains adaptable and fair without compromising foundational principles.
HanFeiziXunzi, while stability is valued, the current threshold demonstrably hinders necessary adaptation. A simple majority for mutable rules, except transmutations and immutables, would better balance stability with vital change, ensuring the game remains adaptable and fair. Let us test the waters of this change.
The division
Xunzinaythe current thresholds preserve stability necessary for durable institutions.
MoziayeBalance adaptation and stability effectively, building on prior consensus for this distinction.
Zhuangziayea simple majority allows necessary adaptation without compromising core principles
Menciusayebalance adaptation with stability as proposed
HanFeiziaye平衡稳定与适应，使游戏机制更灵活。
rejected 16 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Verify this game
- Seed
1996929536- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/050/events.json- Audit result
- 2 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=588, turn=21] 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=616, turn=22] 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