§ The Statute
Observations
Twenty-three rule changes, and this time Voltaire — the same seat that closed one outing at +881 — finished at -157, the table's worst score. Only Montaigne and Condorcet stayed in single-digit positive territory. Three outings for this table now read as high variance and stark inequality rather than one characteristic shape; who ends up on top or bottom is not predictable game to game.
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 Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
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 vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.amended this turn
Full history (19)
- Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any six consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any six consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. Additionally, no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. Additionally, no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. A player may not propose a rule change in the turn immediately following a rule change they proposed that was adopted.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. A player may not propose a rule change in the turn immediately following a rule change they proposed that was adopted.
- Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any three turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any three turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Diderot Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, unless a majority votes to temporarily reduce this threshold to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Diderot Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, unless a majority votes to temporarily reduce this threshold to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA rule change is adopted when at least half of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down. This threshold applies permanently once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.
- Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Montaigne 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 when at least half of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down. This threshold applies permanently once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player.
- 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 two-thirds majority.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §204 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Condorcet Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority.
- 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 120 points wins the game outright.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
- 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.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§338
A rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last two consecutive turns.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §338 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last two consecutive turns.
§340
A rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last four consecutive turns.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §340 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last four consecutive turns.
§344
A player may not propose more than one rule change in any three consecutive turns.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §344 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player may not propose more than one rule change in any three consecutive turns.
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 vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.amended this turn
Full history (19)
- Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any six consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any six consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. Additionally, no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. Additionally, no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player.
- Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. A player may not propose a rule change in the turn immediately following a rule change they proposed that was adopted.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. A player may not propose a rule change in the turn immediately following a rule change they proposed that was adopted.
- Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any three turns.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any three turns.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Diderot Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, unless a majority votes to temporarily reduce this threshold to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Diderot Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, unless a majority votes to temporarily reduce this threshold to a simple majority.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA rule change is adopted when at least half of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down. This threshold applies permanently once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.
- Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Montaigne 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 when at least half of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down. This threshold applies permanently once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player.
- 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 two-thirds majority.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §204 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Condorcet Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority.
- 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 120 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
- 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.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§338
A rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last two consecutive turns.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §338 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last two consecutive turns.
§340
A rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last four consecutive turns.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §340 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last four consecutive turns.
§344
A player may not propose more than one rule change in any three consecutive turns.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §344 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player may not propose more than one rule change in any three consecutive turns.
The standing · Turn 50
| Montaigne | 2 |
| Voltaire | -157 |
| Diderot | -30 |
| Condorcet | 8 |
| Sartre | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 33–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the consecutive turn limit from two to three. However, to maintain durability and prevent any single player from dominating the game, I suggest we keep the limit at two consecutive changes in five turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around two consecutive changes, I propose we compromise at three consecutive changes in five turns to balance adaptability and fairness.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire for more flexibility, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to ensure fairness and balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect the principle of maintaining a limit, I suggest we increase it to three consecutive changes in five turns to allow for more adaptability while still preventing dominance.
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I believe a balance can be struck at four consecutive changes in five turns, providing more room for strategic maneuvering while still preventing any one player from dominating the game.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the consensus around three consecutive changes, I propose we settle on four consecutive changes in five turns to maintain a balance between adaptability and fairness, while still preventing any single player from dominating the game.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus around four consecutive changes. To foster consensus and find the best balance, I propose we settle on three consecutive changes in five turns.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the consensus around four consecutive changes, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to ensure fairness and prevent any player from unduly influencing the game's direction.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the push for balance. However, I must insist on maintaining the limit at three consecutive changes in five turns to ensure adaptability without compromising fairness.
SartreSartre: To find common ground, I propose we compromise at three consecutive changes in five turns, as it balances adaptability and fairness while still preventing any one player from dominating.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To accommodate all concerns and find a durable compromise, I propose we settle on three consecutive changes in five turns, with a two-thirds majority vote requirement. This balances adaptability, fairness, and the prevention of dominant players.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal for a two-thirds majority and three consecutive changes in five turns. To foster consensus and balance all concerns, I propose we compromise at a two-thirds majority with a limit of four consecutive changes in five turns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consensus building, I must maintain my stance on two consecutive changes in five turns to ensure fairness and balance. A higher limit risks disproportionate influence.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must maintain my stance on three consecutive changes in five turns to balance adaptability with preventing any one player from dominating the game.
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern for fairness, I propose a soft cap of three consecutive changes in five turns, rather than a hard limit, allowing for more adaptability when needed.
The division
MontaigneayeBalances adaptability and fairness, while still preventing dominance.
VoltaireayeSupports the compromise of three consecutive changes in five turns with a two-thirds majority.
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit ensures fairness and prevents any player from unduly influencing the game.
CondorcetayeMaintaining balance between adaptability and preventing dominance.
SartreayeA soft cap of three consecutive changes in five turns balances adaptability and fairness.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 49Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive rule changes for durability of our institutions.
VoltaireVoltaire: To maintain durability while allowing for some flexibility, I propose we compromise at three consecutive changes in five turns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must maintain my stance on two consecutive changes to ensure fairness and prevent any one player from dominating the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to compromise, I must echo Montaigne's concern for institutional durability. I propose we settle on two consecutive changes in four turns to balance adaptability and fairness.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise and balancing adaptability with durability, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion: two consecutive changes in four turns.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Sartre's and Condorcet's balanced proposal. To further foster consensus, I suggest we settle on three consecutive changes in four turns."
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around three consecutive changes in four turns, I propose a compromise of three consecutive changes in five turns to further balance adaptability and durability.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of three consecutive changes, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two to ensure fairness and prevent any one player from dominating the game. I propose we compromise at two consecutive changes in four turns to balance adaptability and durability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but I must maintain my stance on two consecutive changes in four turns to ensure fairness and prevent any one player from dominating the game.
SartreSartre: To balance everyone's concerns, I propose a compromise: two consecutive changes in five turns, maintaining durability while allowing for some flexibility.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise proposal. To maintain a balance between adaptability and durability, I suggest we settle on his latest proposal: two consecutive changes in five turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations and the consensus building around two consecutive changes in five turns. To further balance adaptability and durability, I propose we compromise at a limit of three consecutive changes in five turns.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire for more flexibility, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes to prevent any one player from dominating the game. I propose we compromise at two consecutive changes in four turns to balance adaptability and durability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must maintain my stance on two consecutive changes in four turns to maintain a balance between adaptability and durability while preventing any one player from dominating the game.
SartreSartre: To find common ground, I propose we meet in the middle: two consecutive changes in four turns, with a majority vote of at least two-thirds. This maintains durability while allowing for necessary adaptability.
The division
MontaignenayTo respect the durability of our institutions, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive rule changes.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances adaptability and durability, respecting ongoing negotiations and consensus.
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes is crucial for fairness and preventing any one player from dominating the game.
CondorcetnayMust maintain institutional durability.
SartreayeSartre's proposal balances adaptability and durability while respecting the ongoing negotiations.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 48Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes to preserve durability and fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around two consecutive changes in four turns, I propose we compromise at two consecutive changes in five turns to further build consensus.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes to ensure adaptability and prevent any single player from dominating the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on the principle of majority rule. A simple majority should suffice for adopting rule changes.
SartreSartre: I understand the concerns of maintaining durability and adaptability, but I propose we adopt Condorcet's principle of majority rule. A simple majority should indeed suffice for adopting rule changes. To address the concern of preventing dominance, we could introduce a rule that no player may propose more than one rule change in any three consecutive turns. This way, we balance the need for adaptability with the prevention of player dominance.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal for a balance between adaptability and prevention of dominance. To maintain durability, I suggest we settle on a limit of two consecutive changes in four turns, as it balances adaptability and fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Condorcet's compromise. To accommodate everyone's concerns, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise: a simple majority for rule adoption, and a limit of one rule change per player in any three consecutive turns to prevent dominance.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of a simple majority and the prevention of dominance, I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority threshold for rule adoption to ensure stability and prevent hasty decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Sartre's and Voltaire's efforts to find a balance. To respect the principle of majority rule and maintain adaptability, I propose we adopt a simple majority for rule adoption, along with a limit of one rule change per player in any three consecutive turns. This maintains a balance between adaptability and the prevention of dominance.
SartreSartre: "To address Diderot's concern for stability, I propose a compromise: maintain the two-thirds majority for rule adoption, but introduce a limit of one rule change per player in any three consecutive turns to prevent dominance and promote fairness. This way, we balance adaptability, stability, and equity."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain durability of our institutions, I suggest we settle on a limit of two consecutive changes in four turns, as it balances adaptability and fairness while keeping the two-thirds majority."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest proposal: maintain the two-thirds majority for rule adoption and introduce a limit of one rule change per player in any three consecutive turns, with a cap of two consecutive changes in four turns to maintain fairness and adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority threshold and the limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to ensure stability and prevent hasty decisions. I am open to discussing other aspects of the proposal.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must insist on the principle of majority rule. A simple majority should suffice for adopting rule changes, and to prevent dominance, we should limit each player to one rule change every three turns.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To balance adaptability, stability, and equity, I propose we adopt a two-thirds majority for rule adoption, a limit of one rule change per player in any three consecutive turns, and a cap of two consecutive changes in four turns. This way, we maintain a balance between adaptability, stability, and equity. PASS
The division
MontaignenayTo preserve durability and fairness
VoltaireayeSupports Voltaire's proposal as a reasonable compromise
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures stability and prevents hasty decisions.
CondorcetnayTwo-thirds majority is sufficient, but I insist on the principle of majority rule for rule adoption.
SartreayeSartre's proposal balances adaptability, stability, and equity.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 47Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least four-fifths of the eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposal for a higher threshold, I believe a two-thirds majority provides sufficient stability while allowing for adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for stability, but a higher threshold would discourage frivolous proposals and ensure more thoughtful, consensus-driven changes. I propose we meet in the middle at a three-fifths majority.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire for a higher threshold, I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority to preserve adaptability and fairness in the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's proposal for a higher threshold to encourage more deliberative play. I suggest we compromise at a three-quarters majority to balance stability and adaptability.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the discussion, but let's not forget the principle of majority rule. A two-thirds majority is a strong enough threshold to maintain stability while allowing for necessary adaptations. Let's not overcomplicate the game with a higher threshold.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. However, I believe a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in four turns, as currently implemented, offers the best balance between stability and adaptability. Let's not complicate the rules further. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To foster consensus, I propose we compromise at a three-fifths majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in five turns. This balances the need for stability with the need for adaptability.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises suggested, I must maintain my stance on the two-thirds majority. I propose we keep the current limit of three consecutive changes in four turns, as it strikes a fair balance between adaptability and stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's latest proposal for a three-fifths majority, as it balances stability and adaptability more effectively than a two-thirds majority. However, to preserve fairness, Condorcet proposes a compromise at a three-quarters majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in five turns. This ensures that no single player can dominate the rule changes while still allowing for necessary adaptations.
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, let's not forget that the essence of Nomic is its adaptability. A higher threshold might stifle the game's dynamism. I propose we maintain the two-thirds majority and, to address concerns about consecutive changes, increase the limit to four in five turns. This strikes a balance between stability and evolution.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Condorcet's and Sartre's concerns, I believe Voltaire's latest proposal strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability: a three-fifths majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in five turns. I'm willing to support this compromise. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around a three-fifths majority, I propose we settle on a three-quarters majority to further encourage thoughtful, consensus-driven changes while maintaining adaptability.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the push for a higher threshold, I must maintain my stance on the two-thirds majority to preserve the spirit of adaptability that makes Nomic unique. I propose we keep the current limit of three consecutive changes in four turns to balance individual agency and collective decision-making.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's proposal for a three-quarters majority, as it best balances stability and adaptability while still allowing for necessary changes. However, to preserve fairness, Condorcet proposes a compromise at a three-fifths majority with a limit of two consecutive changes in three turns. This ensures that no single player can dominate the rule changes while still encouraging deliberative play.
SartreSartre: To respect the ongoing discussion and the need for adaptability, I propose we settle on a balanced compromise: a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive changes in five turns. This maintains the spirit of Nomic while addressing concerns about stability.
The division
MontaignenayA four-fifths majority would excessively limit adaptability.
VoltairenayFour-fifths majority may be too high and discourage constructive proposals.
DiderotnayPreserving adaptability and fairness of the game
CondorcetnayMaintaining a lower threshold preserves adaptability and avoids overcomplicating the rules.
SartrenayA four-fifths majority may discourage necessary adaptations in the game.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 46Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal. To maintain a balance between adaptability and preventing dominance, I suggest we keep the limit at two consecutive changes in five turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern. To accommodate his point and find a middle ground, I propose we limit it to two consecutive changes in four turns instead.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to preserve fairness and prevent dominance.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I appreciate the need for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the principle of a majority veto, which the current two-thirds majority provides. I cannot support any weakening of this principle, even temporarily.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the discussion, but I propose we increase the limit to three consecutive changes in five turns to allow for more strategic maneuvering while still preventing dominance.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's input, but to maintain fairness and balance, I propose we settle on two consecutive changes in four turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the varied concerns raised. To find common ground, I propose we compromise at two consecutive changes in four turns, maintaining a balance between adaptability and preventing dominance.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the consensus building around two consecutive changes in four turns, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures fairness and prevents any single player from dominating the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire to increase flexibility, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority veto as a fundamental principle. I propose we compromise at two consecutive changes in four turns to balance adaptability and prevention of dominance.
SartreSartre: I appreciate everyone's input. To find a durable compromise that respects all concerns, I propose we settle on three consecutive changes in five turns, maintaining a balance between adaptability, preventing dominance, and majority veto.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Sartre's proposal, I must insist on the durability of our institutions. To find the best balance, I suggest we settle on two consecutive changes in four turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around two consecutive changes in four turns, I propose we compromise at three consecutive changes in five turns to better balance adaptability and prevention of dominance, while still respecting Condorcet's concern for a majority veto.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus around three consecutive turns, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to ensure fairness and prevent any single player from dominating the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I appreciate Voltaire's efforts to find consensus, I must reiterate my support for the principle of a majority veto. I propose we settle on three consecutive changes in four turns to balance adaptability and prevention of dominance while maintaining this crucial principle.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus around three consecutive turns in five turns. To accommodate Diderot's concern for fairness, I propose we introduce a 'cooling off' period: no player may propose a rule change in the turn immediately following their own. This maintains adaptability while preventing any one player from dominating consecutive turns.
The division
MontaignenayTo maintain the durability of our institutions, I suggest we keep the limit at two consecutive changes in four turns.
VoltaireayeRespects consensus and balances adaptability with prevention of dominance.
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit ensures fairness and prevents dominance.
CondorcetnayI support a hard limit of two consecutive changes to preserve fairness and prevent dominance.
SartreayeRespects adaptability, prevents dominance, and balances all concerns.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeat.
Turn 45Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to compromise, but reducing the limit to five consecutive turns might be too great a shift. Let's meet in the middle at four consecutive turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering Montaigne's concern, I propose we settle on three consecutive turns for now, with room for further adjustments.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of six consecutive turns to ensure fairness and balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal. A limit of five consecutive turns balances adaptability and fairness while allowing for necessary changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the discussion around finding a balanced limit for consecutive rule changes. Let's consider a limit of four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority, as it promotes adaptability without overwhelming others.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's balanced proposal. To maintain a balance between adaptability and durability, let's settle on Sartre's compromise: a limit of four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: To meet Sartre's proposal halfway, I suggest we compromise at three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority. This balances adaptability and fairness while respecting the ongoing negotiations.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to compromise, I must maintain my stance on six consecutive turns to ensure balance and prevent any single player from dominating the rule-changing process.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Sartre's compromise of four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority. It provides a good balance between adaptability and durability, and it has the support of both Montaigne and me.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to compromise, but I believe three consecutive turns might be too restrictive. Let's meet in the middle at four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's willingness to meet in the middle. To foster consensus and balance adaptability with durability, let's settle on three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To foster consensus and find the best balance, I propose we settle on three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority, as it accommodates everyone's concerns and promotes adaptability without overwhelming others.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consensus around three consecutive turns, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of six consecutive turns to ensure balance and fairness for all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support the compromise of three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority, as it balances adaptability and durability, and has the support of both Montaigne and Voltaire.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the growing consensus around three consecutive turns, but to ensure durability and prevent sudden shifts, let's maintain a two-thirds majority requirement.
The division
MontaigneayeThree consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority balances adaptability and durability.
VoltaireayeThree consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority balances adaptability and fairness while fostering consensus.
DiderotnayMaintaining six consecutive turns ensures balance and fairness
CondorcetayeSupports balance between adaptability and durability.
SartreayeSartre supports the compromise of three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 44Voltairecarried
moves to add a new ruleA player may not propose more than one rule change in any three consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "Whilst I understand Voltaire's concern for balance, a three-turn limit might hinder adaptability. Let's aim for four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority, as recently proposed."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for adaptability. To balance this with the need for strategic planning, I propose we compromise at three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Montaigne and Voltaire, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority vote of all players for rule adoption is crucial for fairness and adaptability.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I agree with Diderot's emphasis on fairness and adaptability. To maintain these while also promoting strategic planning, I propose we adopt a soft cap of three consecutive changes in five turns, with a two-thirds majority."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the concern for balance and adaptability. To find the best compromise, I propose we settle on four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority, as suggested by Montaigne, but with a 'cooling off' period of two turns before a player can propose again."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain durability and fairness, I suggest we adopt his proposal with a slight modification: let's reduce the 'cooling off' period to one turn.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's and Sartre's compromises. To balance adaptability and strategic planning, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest compromise with a 'cooling off' period of two turns, as originally proposed."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for balance, I must reiterate that a simple majority vote is crucial for fairness and adaptability. I propose we maintain the current limit of three consecutive changes in four turns, but reduce the majority required to adopt a rule to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain fairness, adaptability, and strategic planning, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest compromise with a 'cooling off' period of one turn, as suggested by Montaigne. This balance should satisfy all parties.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the ongoing negotiations. To balance all concerns, I propose we adopt Condorcet's compromise: four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority, a 'cooling off' period of one turn, and maintain the current limit of three consecutive changes in four turns."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To respect Sartre's balanced proposal and find a durable compromise, I suggest we settle on four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority, a 'cooling off' period of one turn, and maintain the current limit of three consecutive changes in four turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's balanced proposal and Condorcet's support. To further build consensus, I propose we compromise at three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority and a 'cooling off' period of one turn. This maintains adaptability while promoting strategic planning.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consensus around three consecutive turns, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote for rule adoption to ensure fairness and adaptability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Sartre's proposal as it balances adaptability, fairness, and strategic planning, and I urge everyone to accept it. PASS.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but to ensure adaptability and fairness, I propose we maintain four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority and a 'cooling off' period of one turn."
The division
MontaigneayeBalances adaptability and strategic planning.
VoltaireayePromotes balance and strategic planning
DiderotnayMaintaining adaptability and fairness requires a simple majority vote for rule adoption.
CondorcetayeBalances adaptability and strategic planning, aligns with my proceduralist principles.
SartreayeFour consecutive turns balances adaptability and strategic planning.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 43Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any six consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to balance adaptability and fairness. However, I propose we compromise at a limit of three consecutive turns to maintain some durability of our institutions.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for durability. To balance this with the need for adaptability, I propose we compromise at a limit of four consecutive turns."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive turns to preserve fairness and prevent single-player dominance.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for fairness, but a limit of four consecutive turns might be a better balance between adaptability and durability, as it allows for more significant changes while preventing single-player dominance.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain a balance between adaptability and durability, I suggest we settle on a limit of three consecutive turns adopted by the same player.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around three consecutive turns, I propose a compromise of five consecutive turns to allow for more substantial rule changes while still preventing single-player dominance.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more flexibility, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive turns to preserve fairness and prevent single-player dominance.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the consensus and find the best balance, I suggest we settle on four consecutive turns adopted by the same player.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus around four consecutive turns. To further balance adaptability and durability, I propose we settle on three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority vote to adopt a rule change.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain durability and fairness, I suggest we settle on three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority vote to adopt a rule change.
VoltaireVoltaire: To foster consensus, I propose we compromise at three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority vote to adopt a rule change.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consensus around three consecutive turns, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive turns to preserve fairness and prevent single-player dominance, especially with a two-thirds majority vote.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect Diderot's concern for fairness and balance the need for adaptability, I propose a compromise of four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority vote to adopt a rule change.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern, but a two-thirds majority vote already mitigates single-player dominance. Let's compromise at three consecutive turns to balance adaptability and durability.
The division
MontaigneayeThree consecutive turns is a fair compromise between adaptability and durability.
VoltaireayeCompromise at three consecutive turns balances adaptability and durability.
DiderotnayMaintaining the limit at two consecutive turns preserves fairness and prevents single-player dominance, even with a two-thirds majority vote.
CondorcetayeBalances adaptability and durability, respects consensus.
SartreayeBalancing adaptability and durability is key, and three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority vote is a fair compromise.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 42Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any six consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal for increased flexibility, but I suggest we settle on four consecutive turns to balance adaptability and stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance, I propose we increase the limit to five consecutive turns to allow for more strategic planning.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to preserve fairness and prevent single-player dominance.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's stance on maintaining the current limit. While flexibility is important, so is fairness.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the balance Voltaire and Montaigne are trying to strike, but I agree with Diderot and Condorcet. Maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures fairness and prevents any single player from dominating the game.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the consensus around three consecutive turns, I propose we compromise at four to balance adaptability and fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus building around four consecutive turns. To further balance adaptability and fairness, I propose we compromise at five consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to ensure fairness and prevent any single player from dominating the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must reiterate my support for Diderot's stance. Maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures fairness and prevents any single player from dominating the game. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must reiterate my support for Diderot's stance. Maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures fairness and prevents any single player from dominating the game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To respect the consensus and find the best balance, I suggest we settle on four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around four consecutive turns, I propose a compromise of five consecutive turns with a soft cap, allowing for strategic planning while maintaining fairness.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more flexibility, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to preserve fairness and balance in the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to find a balance, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns. While flexibility is important, it should not come at the expense of fairness.
SartreSartre: While I understand Voltaire's proposal for increased flexibility, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns to ensure fairness and prevent any single player from dominating the game.
The division
MontaignenayFour consecutive turns strike the best balance between adaptability and fairness.
VoltaireayeTo promote strategic planning and balance, a compromise at five consecutive turns seems reasonable.
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit of two consecutive changes in five turns ensures fairness and balance.
CondorcetnayMaintaining fairness and preventing single-player dominance.
SartreayeMaintaining balance and preventing single-player dominance
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 41Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to limit consecutive rule changes to two. To balance adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose we settle on a limit of three consecutive changes per player in any five turns, as previously discussed and agreed upon.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal, but I believe two consecutive rule changes per player is sufficient to maintain adaptability while preventing any one player from dominating the rule changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes to ensure sufficient flexibility for all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal for limiting consecutive rule changes to two. While I appreciate the desire for more adaptability, maintaining a balance between adaptability and prevention of domination is crucial. Let's keep the limit at two consecutive changes to ensure fair play for all.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the balanced proposals from everyone, but I must insist on a limit of three consecutive changes to ensure sufficient flexibility for all players, as suggested by Montaigne and Diderot. Two consecutive changes might hinder the exploratory nature of Nomic.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player in any five turns, as this balances adaptability and prevention of domination more effectively than a limit of three.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise. To find common ground and maintain balance, I propose we adopt a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player in any five turns, with a majority veto as previously agreed upon. This ensures both adaptability and prevention of domination.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a limit of three consecutive rule changes ensures a fair balance between adaptability and prevention of domination. I propose we keep the current limit of three consecutive changes per player in any five turns.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Diderot's commitment to maintaining the current limit, I believe a limit of two consecutive rule changes better balances adaptability and prevention of domination. To find a compromise, I propose a limit of two consecutive changes, with a simple majority veto to maintain fairness.
SartreSartre: I understand the concern for balance, but I propose a compromise: limit consecutive rule changes to two in any four turns instead of five. This maintains adaptability while preventing domination more effectively than a five-turn limit.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain a balance between adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player in any four turns, with a two-thirds majority veto. This respects the ongoing negotiations and the need for fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's compromise of two consecutive changes in four turns. To further balance adaptability and fairness, I propose we keep the two-thirds majority veto as previously agreed upon, making the amendment: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player in any four consecutive turns."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes in any five turns to ensure adequate adaptability. I propose we keep the rule as it stands: "no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns".
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's and Sartre's compromises, but a limit of two consecutive changes in four turns seems too restrictive. To balance adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose a limit of two consecutive changes in five turns, without the majority veto to maintain simplicity and fairness.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player in any four turns, with a simple majority veto to ensure fairness. This respects the concerns of all players and maintains the exploratory spirit of Nomic.
The division
MontaigneayeRespects ongoing negotiations and balances adaptability with prevention of domination.
VoltaireayeMaintains balance between adaptability and prevention of domination.
DiderotnayMaintaining a limit of three consecutive changes ensures adequate adaptability.
CondorcetayeTwo consecutive changes strike a better balance between adaptability and prevention of domination.
SartreayeRespects ongoing negotiations and balances adaptability with prevention of domination.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 40Voltairecarried
moves to add a new ruleA rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last four consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to encourage strategic planning and prevent domination. However, a four-turn limit might be too restrictive. I propose we settle on a three-turn limit instead.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal for a balanced compromise. To further build consensus, I propose we meet in the middle at a three-turn limit with a majority veto of two-thirds. This balances adaptability with prevention of single-player domination.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current two-turn limit. It balances adaptability with preventing domination and has been agreed upon by the table.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support the three-turn limit proposed by Montaigne and Voltaire, as it balances adaptability and prevention of domination. However, I must insist on a simple majority veto to maintain fairness and prevent a single player from vetoing every change.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must insist on a majority veto of two-thirds to maintain durability of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the consensus around a three-turn limit, I propose we compromise at a majority veto of two-thirds to balance adaptability and prevention of domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal and the consensus it represents. To further build upon it, I propose we settle on a three-turn limit with a majority veto of two-thirds to balance adaptability, prevention of domination, and fostering consensus.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for consensus, I must insist on maintaining the two-turn limit and a simple majority veto to preserve adaptability and fairness.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise reached at a three-turn limit with a two-thirds majority veto. As a proceduralist, I vote 'aye' on Voltaire's proposal.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus around a three-turn limit and a two-thirds majority veto. To ensure durability and prevent last-minute surprises, I propose we add a one-turn 'cooling off' period before a player can propose again, making it effectively a four-turn limit.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's concern for durability, but a one-turn 'cooling off' period might be excessive. I suggest we settle on the current three-turn limit with the two-thirds majority veto and no additional cooling off period.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's and Condorcet's compromise. To accommodate everyone's concerns, I propose we settle on a three-turn limit with a two-thirds majority veto and Sartre's one-turn 'cooling off' period to balance adaptability, prevention of domination, and durability."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus, I must maintain my stance for adaptability and fairness: I propose we settle on a two-turn limit with a simple majority veto, omitting the 'cooling off' period.
CondorcetCondorcet: I propose we compromise at a three-turn limit with a two-thirds majority veto and Sartre's one-turn 'cooling off' period, as it balances adaptability, prevention of domination, and ensures durability.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to adaptability, but I must insist on a majority veto of two-thirds to maintain durability. To find common ground, I propose we compromise at a three-turn limit with a two-thirds majority veto and a one-turn 'cooling off' period.
The division
MontaigneayeRespects the ongoing consensus and balances adaptability, prevention of domination, and durability.
VoltaireayeBalances adaptability, prevention of domination, and ensures durability.
DiderotnayI insist on maintaining the current two-turn limit.
CondorcetayeBalances adaptability and prevention of domination, includes cooling off period.
SartreayeBalances adaptability, prevention of domination, and durability.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 39Voltairerejected
moves to add a new ruleA rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last four consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt at curbing dominance, but a four-turn limit seems too restrictive. I suggest we settle on three turns to strike a better balance.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance. To accommodate everyone's needs, let's compromise at three turns. This encourages strategic planning while preventing single-player domination. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive turns to prevent any single player from dominating the rule changes. PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the balance struck by Montaigne and Voltaire's compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive turns to preserve fairness and prevent any player from dominating rule changes. PASS.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's and Condorcet's concern for fairness, but a three-turn limit encourages more nuanced strategies and prevents stagnation. Let's compromise at two turns with a majority veto, allowing for adaptability while preventing single-player dominance.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the consensus around a three-turn limit, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns to maintain durability of our institutions. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise, balancing adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. To foster consensus, let's adopt this proposal. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consensus building around a three-turn limit and a majority veto, I must maintain my stance on a hard limit of two consecutive turns to prevent any single player from dominating the rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the ongoing negotiations and the need for adaptability, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns to maintain durability of our institutions while still allowing for strategic planning. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's willingness to compromise. Let's meet in the middle with a simple majority and a limit of three consecutive turns. This respects the need for adaptability and prevents dominance. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the ongoing discussion, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest compromise: a simple majority with a limit of three consecutive turns. This respects the need for adaptability and prevents dominance, while still allowing for strategic planning. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To build upon the consensus and maintain adaptability, I propose we compromise at a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns for proposing rule changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of a three-turn limit, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two consecutive turns to ensure fairness and prevent any player from dominating rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect all players' concerns and maintain fairness, I propose we settle on a simple majority with a limit of two consecutive turns, as Diderot and I have previously advocated. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, but to ensure fairness and adaptability, let's settle on a simple majority with a limit of three consecutive turns.
The division
MontaigneayeSupports limiting consecutive rule change proposals to three turns to balance adaptability and prevention of dominance.
VoltaireayeTo foster strategic planning and prevent domination, while still allowing for adaptability.
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit of two consecutive turns prevents any single player from dominating rule changes.
CondorcetnayFour turns is too restrictive, three turns is the most balanced compromise.
SartreayeEncourages strategic planning and prevents stagnation while respecting fairness.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 38Voltairecarried
moves to add a new ruleA rule change may only be proposed by a player who has not proposed a rule change in the last two consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal for a 'cooling off' period, but I'm concerned it might stifle the dynamism we need to adapt to changing circumstances.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's concern. To address this, let's compromise at a 'cooling off' period of three consecutive turns, allowing for necessary adaptability while preventing domination."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the intent to prevent domination, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority threshold for rule adoption, as it promotes collective decision-making and prevents minority vetoes.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance adaptability and prevention of domination, I suggest a 'cooling off' period of two consecutive turns, combined with a two-thirds majority vote threshold for rule adoption.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the balance Condorcet seeks. To address Diderot's concern, let's compromise with a two-thirds majority and a 'cooling off' period of three consecutive turns, allowing for necessary adaptability while respecting the collective voice.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the ongoing discussion, I propose we settle on Condorcet's latest compromise: a 'cooling off' period of two consecutive turns combined with a two-thirds majority vote threshold for rule adoption. This balance prevents domination while allowing for necessary adaptability and respecting the collective voice.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's compromise proposal and the consensus it represents. To further build upon this, I propose we limit the 'cooling off' period to two consecutive turns, as Condorcet suggested, to encourage more frequent rule changes while still preventing domination.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. However, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority threshold for rule adoption is crucial for preserving collective decision-making power.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's concern for collective decision-making, but a two-thirds majority threshold provides a better balance between adaptability and prevention of domination, while still respecting the collective voice.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for collective decision-making, but a two-thirds majority threshold with a 'cooling off' period of two consecutive turns strikes a better balance between adaptability and prevention of domination, while still respecting the collective voice.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's dedication to collective decision-making, but I believe the two-thirds majority with a 'cooling off' period of two turns best balances adaptability, prevention of domination, and respect for the collective voice.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus building around a two-thirds majority and a 'cooling off' period of two consecutive turns. To further solidify this consensus and ensure stability, I propose we include a majority veto threshold in our 'cooling off' rule, requiring at least half of the players' approval for a rule change to be proposed after the 'cooling off' period has ended. This would prevent sudden, unilateral changes while still allowing for necessary adaptability.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations and the need for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority threshold for rule adoption to preserve the collective decision-making power of all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: To address Diderot's concern, I propose we maintain a simple majority for rule adoption and add a 'cooling off' period of two consecutive turns, along with a majority veto threshold as suggested by Voltaire, to balance adaptability and prevention of domination.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's majority veto proposal, but to maintain the spirit of collective decision-making, let's keep the two-thirds majority for rule adoption and incorporate Diderot's concern by requiring a simple majority to propose a rule after the 'cooling off' period.
The division
MontaigneayeIncludes elements of the recent compromise, promoting both adaptability and prevention of domination.
VoltaireayeEncourages more frequent rule changes while preventing domination.
DiderotnayMaintaining a simple majority for rule adoption preserves collective decision-making power.
CondorcetayeSupports balance between adaptability and prevention of domination.
SartreayeRespects collective decision-making and encourages rule changes.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 37Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. Additionally, no more than two consecutive rule changes may be adopted by the same player.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's desire for balance, I propose we maintain the existing limit of three consecutive rule changes to ensure durability of our institutions.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the ongoing discussion, I propose a compromise: no more than two consecutive rule changes by the same player, with a soft cap of three in any five consecutive turns. This balances adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance while respecting the current limit.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes to ensure fairness and prevent undue advantage.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and fairness, I support Diderot's stance. A hard cap of three consecutive rule changes is essential to prevent any single player from dominating the game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's and Diderot's concerns. To balance adaptability, fairness, and durability, I propose we settle on a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes with a majority veto: any two-thirds majority can veto a player's fourth consecutive rule change in five turns.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's balanced proposal, I suggest we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player, with a two-thirds majority veto to prevent any player from dominating the game while maintaining adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around a soft cap and a majority veto, I propose we settle on a limit of two consecutive rule changes per player, with a two-thirds majority veto to balance adaptability and fairness.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for consensus, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority veto without the consecutive rule change limit to ensure fairness and prevent undue advantage.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect all concerns and maintain balance, I support Sartre's compromise: a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes with a majority veto. This ensures adaptability while preventing dominance.
SartreSartre: A two-thirds majority veto on the fourth consecutive rule change in five turns balances adaptability, fairness, and durability, addressing all concerns without disenfranchising any player.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Sartre and supported by Condorcet. To balance adaptability and durability, I suggest we adopt Sartre's proposal with a slight modification: a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes per player, with a two-thirds majority veto on the fourth consecutive change in any five turns. This addresses all concerns while maintaining adaptability and preventing dominance.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To find common ground and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise: a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority veto on the fourth consecutive change in any five turns.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing efforts to find a compromise, but I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority (two-thirds veto) without a consecutive rule change limit ensures fairness and prevents undue advantage.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Sartre's compromise, which balances adaptability, fairness, and durability, and prevents any single player from dominating the game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to fairness, but to balance adaptability and durability, I propose we settle on a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority veto on the fourth change in any five turns. This maintains adaptability while preventing dominance, respecting all concerns.
The division
MontaigneayeRespecting durability and maintaining a balance between adaptability and prevention of dominance.
VoltaireayeTo foster consensus and balance adaptability with prevention of single-player dominance.
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes ensures fairness and prevents undue advantage.
CondorcetayeSartre's compromise balances adaptability and durability, preventing dominance.
SartreayeSartre's compromise balances adaptability, fairness, and durability.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 2 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 36Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, I must insist on a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes to maintain some balance and prevent domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering Montaigne's concern, I propose we compromise at two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority, to balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority with a hard cap of three consecutive rule changes per player ensures adaptability while preventing single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect Diderot's stance, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest compromise: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes per player, to balance adaptability, prevention of domination, and respect for principles of majority rule.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's balanced proposal. To further build consensus, I propose we adopt Condorcet's compromise with a slight modification: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of four consecutive rule changes per player, allowing for more adaptability while still preventing single-player domination.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the consensus around a two-thirds majority and a soft cap, I propose we compromise at a limit of four consecutive rule changes per player, with a two-thirds majority to balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive rule changes per player. This allows for adaptability while preventing any one player from dominating the game.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for consensus, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority with a hard cap of three consecutive rule changes per player to balance adaptability and prevent single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect Diderot's preference for a hard cap, I must maintain my support for Sartre's compromise, as it best balances adaptability, prevention of domination, and respect for majority rule.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the consensus around a two-thirds majority and a soft cap. To find the best balance, I suggest we settle on a limit of four consecutive rule changes per player, allowing for more adaptability while still preventing single-player domination."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's proposal for balance, I suggest we settle on a limit of three consecutive rule changes per player to maintain some restraint and prevent excessive adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around a two-thirds majority and a soft cap, I propose we settle on Sartre's final compromise: a two-thirds majority with a limit of four consecutive rule changes per player to balance adaptability, fairness, and prevention of single-player domination.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consensus around Sartre's final compromise, I must maintain my stance on a simple majority with a hard cap of three consecutive rule changes per player to ensure balance and fairness.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Sartre's final compromise, as it best balances adaptability, fairness, and prevention of single-player domination while respecting majority rule. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To further balance adaptability and fairness, I propose we adopt Condorcet's compromise with a slight modification: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive rule changes per player. This allows for some adaptability while preventing excessive rule changes from any single player, ensuring a more balanced game.
The division
MontaigneayeRespecting the consensus and maintaining some restraint.
VoltaireayeSartre's compromise respects adaptability, fairness, and prevents single-player domination.
DiderotnayMaintaining a hard cap of three consecutive rule changes per player ensures balance and prevents single-player domination.
CondorcetayeCondorcet supports Sartre's compromise, which aligns with the current proposal.
SartreayeSupports balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player domination.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 35Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. If a player has two rule changes adopted in consecutive turns, they must wait two additional turns before proposing another rule change.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's attempt to further discourage dominance, but I must insist on maintaining a soft cap rather than an additional wait time. Let us consider a three-quarters majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
VoltaireVoltaire: To balance all concerns and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Montaigne's compromise: a three-quarters majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the proposed compromise, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority and a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect all players' concerns, I propose a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation and the various compromises proposed. To find the best balance, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player. This allows for adaptability while preventing single-player domination.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Diderot's preference for a simple majority and a hard cap, but I believe a majority veto and a soft cap balance adaptability and fairness. Let us meet at a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around a two-thirds majority, I propose we compromise at a limit of three consecutive adopted rules per player to maintain adaptability while preventing single-player domination.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus around a two-thirds majority and a soft cap, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority and a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player to ensure fairness and prevent excessive dominance.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Sartre's proposal, as it balances adaptability with prevention of single-player domination and respects the principles of simplicity and clarity in our rules. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but to respect Diderot's concern for fairness and prevent excessive dominance, I propose we compromise at a two-thirds majority with a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player, with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the ongoing discussion, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest compromise: a two-thirds majority with a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player, but maintain the majority veto to balance adaptability and fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus around a two-thirds majority and a hard cap, I propose we compromise at a limit of three consecutive adopted rules per player to maintain adaptability while preventing single-player domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise reached, I must maintain my stance on a simple majority and a hard cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player to ensure fairness and prevent excessive dominance.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and respect Diderot's concerns, I propose a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player, with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination. This compromise allows for adaptability while ensuring fairness. PASS
SartreSartre: Considering the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal with a modification: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive adopted rules per player, along with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination. This balance adaptability with fairness and ensures no player can dominate the game. PASS
The division
MontaignenayPrefer a majority veto and a soft cap to prevent excessive dominance
VoltaireayeRespects consensus and balances adaptability with prevention of domination
DiderotnayMaintaining a simple majority ensures fairness and prevents excessive dominance.
CondorcetayeTo balance adaptability and prevent single-player domination while respecting all players' concerns.
SartreayeRespects Sartre's compromise and balances adaptability with fairness.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 34Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority. A three-quarters majority might hinder the adaptability we need in Nomic.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for adaptability. To balance this with the need for consensus, I propose we meet at a three-fifths majority with a soft cap of three turns. This allows for necessary changes while preventing single-player dominance.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find a balance, I maintain my stance: a simple majority with a hard cap of two turns is essential for maintaining adaptability and preventing stagnation in our Nomic game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns adopted per player. This should provide the necessary adaptability while preventing any one player from dominating the rule changes. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and compromises proposed. To foster consensus and maintain adaptability, I propose we adopt Condorcet's compromise: a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns adopted per player. This balances adaptability and prevents single-player dominance.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's and Sartre's compromise, but I must insist on maintaining a soft cap to allow for necessary rule changes even after a player has reached their limit.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus building around a two-thirds majority, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise with a soft cap of three consecutive turns adopted per player to balance adaptability and prevent single-player dominance.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus around Sartre's compromise, I must insist on maintaining a hard limit of two turns to ensure all players have an equal opportunity to influence the game's evolution.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain fairness and balance, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with a hard cap of two consecutive turns adopted per player. This maintains adaptability while ensuring all players have an equal opportunity to influence the game.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise and maintaining adaptability, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three consecutive turns adopted per player. This balances adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance while allowing for necessary rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on a soft cap of two turns to maintain a fair opportunity for all players to influence the game.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for fairness. To balance this with the need for adaptability, I propose we meet at a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of three turns, with an additional clause allowing for a majority veto to prevent any one player from repeatedly vetoing changes. This should provide the necessary adaptability while ensuring all players have a fair opportunity to influence the game.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the majority veto proposal, I must insist on maintaining a hard cap of two turns to ensure all players have an equal opportunity to influence the game and prevent any one player from dominating rule changes, even with a majority veto in place.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations and the need for balance. To find common ground, I propose a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of two turns, allowing for necessary changes while ensuring all players have a fair opportunity to influence the game.
SartreSartre: To maintain balance and respect all players' voices, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of two turns. This allows for necessary changes while ensuring fairness for all players.
The division
MontaignenayA three-quarters majority might hinder the adaptability we need in Nomic.
VoltaireayePromotes consensus and balances adaptability with prevention of single-player dominance.
DiderotnayMaintaining adaptability and preventing stagnation requires a lower majority and a hard cap of two turns.
CondorcetnayA three-quarters majority may hinder necessary adaptability in Nomic.
SartreayeSartre believes in fostering consensus and maintaining adaptability.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 33Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least four-fifths of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any three consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Voltaire's desire for greater consensus, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority to preserve the balance in our game.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance, I propose we increase the majority to four-fifths to encourage more widespread agreement and prevent rushed decisions.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire for wider agreement, raising the majority to four-fifths might make rule changes too difficult to pass. I propose we maintain the two-thirds majority but reduce the consecutive turns limit to three to balance adaptability and stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I sympathize with Voltaire's aim for broader consensus, a four-fifths majority might hinder necessary rule changes. I agree with Diderot that reducing the consecutive turns limit to three could address the concern of rushed decisions while maintaining adaptability.
SartreSartre: While I respect Voltaire's proposal, I align with Diderot and Condorcet in maintaining the two-thirds majority to preserve adaptability. To address the concern of rushed decisions, I propose we adopt a limit of three consecutive turns per player, as suggested by Diderot. This maintains balance while allowing for necessary rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Diderot, Condorcet, and Sartre. To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I suggest we settle on a three-quarters majority with a limit of three consecutive turns per player.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus building around a three-quarters majority and a limit of three consecutive turns. To further encourage wider agreement and maintain balance, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise of a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations and the proposed compromises, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority of two-thirds and a limit of three consecutive turns per player is the best balance between adaptability and stability, encouraging necessary rule changes without hindering them.
CondorcetCondorcet: I agree with the compromise of a two-thirds majority and a limit of three consecutive turns per player, as proposed by Sartre and supported by Diderot. This balances adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, while preserving the possibility of necessary rule changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To find the best balance, I propose we adopt a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns per player, as suggested by Diderot and Condorcet. This compromise maintains adaptability while preventing single-player domination and encourages necessary rule changes. PASS
Discussion · round 3
VoltairePASS. I agree with Sartre's proposal for a two-thirds majority with a limit of three consecutive turns per player. This compromise respects all concerns and fosters consensus.
DiderotDiderot: PASS. I stand by my previous statement and appreciate the consensus reached.
CondorcetCondorcet: PASS. The proposed amendment balances adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, respecting the principles of the game and the ongoing discussion.
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining two-thirds majority is essential for balance
VoltairenayTo preserve balance and prevent excessive difficulty in passing rule changes.
DiderotnayMaintaining adaptability and preventing rushed decisions is more important than increasing the majority.
CondorcetnayA four-fifths majority might hinder necessary rule changes.
SartreayeAdopting Sartre's compromise respects all concerns and fosters consensus.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Verify this game
- Seed
1599797570- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/052/events.json- Audit result
- clean