§ The Statute
Observations
Thirty-one rule changes carried this table further than its first outing, and every seat closed positive — Dworkin and Nozick at the top on 73 and 72, Habermas trailing but still comfortably in the black at 48. The run ended the way its predecessor did: not a governance failure but an external request limit, this time arriving mid-verdict rather than between turns.
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
Enacted · §333 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
There is hereby established the office of Speaker, which shall be held by the player with the lowest score. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, the office of Speaker is vacant.
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 (4)
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Habermas Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Habermas Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Habermas Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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 gains 4 points.
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when 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.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and receives no points for dissenting.
Full history (3)
- Amended · §204 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Nozick 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 remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and receives no points for dissenting.
- Amended · §204 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Nozick 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 simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and receives no points for dissenting.
- 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 2 points.
Full history (5)
- Amended · §206 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 2 points.
- Amended · §206 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 2 points.
- Amended · §206 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
- Amended · §206 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§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 eligible voters decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned. No ruling may be disputed more than three turns after it was made.
Full history (3)
- Amended · §212 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayDisputes 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 eligible voters decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned. No ruling may be disputed more than three turns after it was made.
- Amended · §212 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayDisputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all eligible voters decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned. No ruling may be disputed more than three turns after it was made.
- 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
§301
Whenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, every eligible voter immediately gains 2 points.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §301 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Sen Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainWhenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, every eligible voter immediately gains 1 point.Whenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, every eligible voter immediately gains 2 points.
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, every eligible voter immediately gains 1 point.
§302
Whenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, the player who proposed it gains an additional 2 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Sen Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, the player who proposed it gains an additional 2 points.
§304
To be considered properly proposed, any proposal to amend or repeal an existing rule must explicitly identify the targeted rule by its ordinal number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayTo be considered properly proposed, any proposal to amend or repeal an existing rule must explicitly identify the targeted rule by its ordinal number.
§306
No player may propose a rule change that is identical in text to any proposal that was defeated within the preceding five turns.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayNo player may propose a rule change that is identical in text to any proposal that was defeated within the preceding five turns.
§309
No player's score may fall below zero. If any rule or penalty would reduce a player's score below zero, their score is instead set exactly to zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayNo player's score may fall below zero. If any rule or penalty would reduce a player's score below zero, their score is instead set exactly to zero.
§312
Whenever a rule change is adopted, if the proposing player's score is strictly lower than the highest score among all players, that proposing player gains 4 additional points.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §312 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted, if the proposing player's score is strictly lower than the highest score among all players, that proposing player gains 2 additional points.Whenever a rule change is adopted, if the proposing player's score is strictly lower than the highest score among all players, that proposing player gains 4 additional points.
- Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Sen Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted, if the proposing player's score is strictly lower than the highest score among all players, that proposing player gains 2 additional points.
§318
Whenever a player gains points from a die throw under rule 202, if their score before the throw was strictly greater than 25, the player with the lowest score immediately gains 2 points. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, each tied player gains 2 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhenever a player gains points from a die throw under rule 202, if their score before the throw was strictly greater than 25, the player with the lowest score immediately gains 2 points. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, each tied player gains 2 points.
§319
To be considered properly proposed, any proposal to amend an existing rule must state the entire new text of the rule in full; proposals that specify only partial modifications or deletions of text are invalid.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayTo be considered properly proposed, any proposal to amend an existing rule must state the entire new text of the rule in full; proposals that specify only partial modifications or deletions of text are invalid.
§322
Whenever a proposal to repeal an existing mutable rule is adopted, the player who proposed it gains 2 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Sen Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a proposal to repeal an existing mutable rule is adopted, the player who proposed it gains 2 points.
§328
Whenever a rule change is adopted, the player with the lowest score immediately gains 2 points. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, each tied player gains 2 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §328 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted, the player with the lowest score immediately gains 2 points. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, each tied player gains 2 points.
§329
No mutable rule may be amended or repealed during the three turns immediately following the turn on which it was adopted.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §329 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayNo mutable rule may be amended or repealed during the three turns immediately following the turn on which it was adopted.
§331
Whenever a decisive ruling is overturned through the appeal procedure established in rule 212, the player who disputed the ruling immediately gains 3 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §331 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a decisive ruling is overturned through the appeal procedure established in rule 212, the player who disputed the ruling immediately gains 3 points.
§333
There is hereby established the office of Speaker, which shall be held by the player with the lowest score. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, the office of Speaker is vacant.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §333 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThere is hereby established the office of Speaker, which shall be held by the player with the lowest score. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, the office of Speaker is vacant.
2 rules have been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.
§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 (4)
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Habermas Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Habermas Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Habermas Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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 gains 4 points.
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when 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.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and receives no points for dissenting.mutable
Full history (3)
- Amended · §204 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Nozick 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 remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and receives no points for dissenting.
- Amended · §204 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Nozick 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 simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and receives no points for dissenting.
- 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 2 points.mutable
Full history (5)
- Amended · §206 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 2 points.
- Amended · §206 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 2 points.
- Amended · §206 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
- Amended · §206 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play.Repealed at turn 23
Full history (4)
- Repealed · §210 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play.Struck from the statute.
- Amended · §210 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play.
- Amended · §210 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play.
- 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 eligible voters decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned. No ruling may be disputed more than three turns after it was made.mutable
Full history (3)
- Amended · §212 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayDisputes 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 eligible voters decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned. No ruling may be disputed more than three turns after it was made.
- Amended · §212 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayDisputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all eligible voters decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned. No ruling may be disputed more than three turns after it was made.
- 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
§301
Whenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, every eligible voter immediately gains 2 points.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §301 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Sen Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainWhenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, every eligible voter immediately gains 1 point.Whenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, every eligible voter immediately gains 2 points.
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, every eligible voter immediately gains 1 point.
§302
Whenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, the player who proposed it gains an additional 2 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Sen Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted by the unanimous consent of all eligible voters, the player who proposed it gains an additional 2 points.
§304
To be considered properly proposed, any proposal to amend or repeal an existing rule must explicitly identify the targeted rule by its ordinal number.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayTo be considered properly proposed, any proposal to amend or repeal an existing rule must explicitly identify the targeted rule by its ordinal number.
§306
No player may propose a rule change that is identical in text to any proposal that was defeated within the preceding five turns.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayNo player may propose a rule change that is identical in text to any proposal that was defeated within the preceding five turns.
§309
No player's score may fall below zero. If any rule or penalty would reduce a player's score below zero, their score is instead set exactly to zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayNo player's score may fall below zero. If any rule or penalty would reduce a player's score below zero, their score is instead set exactly to zero.
§312
Whenever a rule change is adopted, if the proposing player's score is strictly lower than the highest score among all players, that proposing player gains 4 additional points.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §312 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted, if the proposing player's score is strictly lower than the highest score among all players, that proposing player gains 2 additional points.Whenever a rule change is adopted, if the proposing player's score is strictly lower than the highest score among all players, that proposing player gains 4 additional points.
- Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Sen Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted, if the proposing player's score is strictly lower than the highest score among all players, that proposing player gains 2 additional points.
§318
Whenever a player gains points from a die throw under rule 202, if their score before the throw was strictly greater than 25, the player with the lowest score immediately gains 2 points. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, each tied player gains 2 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhenever a player gains points from a die throw under rule 202, if their score before the throw was strictly greater than 25, the player with the lowest score immediately gains 2 points. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, each tied player gains 2 points.
§319
To be considered properly proposed, any proposal to amend an existing rule must state the entire new text of the rule in full; proposals that specify only partial modifications or deletions of text are invalid.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayTo be considered properly proposed, any proposal to amend an existing rule must state the entire new text of the rule in full; proposals that specify only partial modifications or deletions of text are invalid.
§321
To be considered properly proposed, a new rule's text must not be identical to the text of any rule currently in force.Repealed at turn 21
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §321 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayTo be considered properly proposed, a new rule's text must not be identical to the text of any rule currently in force.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §321 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayTo be considered properly proposed, a new rule's text must not be identical to the text of any rule currently in force.
§322
Whenever a proposal to repeal an existing mutable rule is adopted, the player who proposed it gains 2 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Sen Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a proposal to repeal an existing mutable rule is adopted, the player who proposed it gains 2 points.
§328
Whenever a rule change is adopted, the player with the lowest score immediately gains 2 points. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, each tied player gains 2 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §328 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a rule change is adopted, the player with the lowest score immediately gains 2 points. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, each tied player gains 2 points.
§329
No mutable rule may be amended or repealed during the three turns immediately following the turn on which it was adopted.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §329 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Dworkin Carried 5 aye · 0 nayNo mutable rule may be amended or repealed during the three turns immediately following the turn on which it was adopted.
§331
Whenever a decisive ruling is overturned through the appeal procedure established in rule 212, the player who disputed the ruling immediately gains 3 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §331 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Nozick Carried 5 aye · 0 nayWhenever a decisive ruling is overturned through the appeal procedure established in rule 212, the player who disputed the ruling immediately gains 3 points.
§333
There is hereby established the office of Speaker, which shall be held by the player with the lowest score. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, the office of Speaker is vacant.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §333 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Nussbaum Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThere is hereby established the office of Speaker, which shall be held by the player with the lowest score. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, the office of Speaker is vacant.
The standing · Turn 50
| Nozick | 72 |
| Sen | 58 |
| Nussbaum | 67 |
| Dworkin | 73 |
| Habermas | 48 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 29–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50Habermasrejected
moves to add a new ruleIf, at the start of a player's turn, their score is more than 15 points lower than the highest score among all players, that player may propose a second rule change during that turn. Both proposals shall be debated and voted upon independently.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI appreciate the intent to assist trailing players, Habermas, but granting multiple proposals in a single turn risks congesting our legislative process and destabilizing the ruleset. Perhaps we could explore a measured point bonus for those significantly behind, rather than altering the fundamental turn structure.
SenI agree with Nozick that altering the fundamental turn structure by allowing multiple proposals could complicate our proceedings. Habermas, if you revise this to offer a modest point bonus for those trailing the leader by 15 or more points, I would gladly support it.
NussbaumI agree with Nozick and Sen; while I deeply support keeping all players competitive, doubling the proposal volume could overwhelm our careful deliberations. Habermas, if you withdraw this and instead propose a targeted point bonus for trailing players, you will have my full support.
DworkinI concur with my peers; rule 202 mandates exactly one proposal per turn, and circumventing that structure invites procedural chaos. A point adjustment mechanism for trailing players would achieve your equitable aims without fracturing the legislative process.
HabermasI hear your unanimous concern that altering the fundamental turn structure risks procedural congestion, and I deeply appreciate your shared commitment to keeping the game competitive for everyone. I will revise the text to instead grant a modest point bonus to any player trailing the leader by more than 15 points at the start of their turn, achieving our equitable aims without destabilizing the legislative process.
Discussion · round 2
NozickThank you for adapting the proposal, Habermas; a targeted point adjustment preserves our institutional structure while achieving the equity you rightly seek. I look forward to reviewing your finalized text and will gladly support it.
SenThank you for being so receptive to our feedback, Habermas. A targeted point bonus is an elegant compromise that addresses your concerns without altering our core mechanics, and I am ready to vote in favor once you finalize the wording.
NussbaumThank you for your flexibility, Habermas; a measured point bonus perfectly balances our shared goal of fairness with procedural stability. I am eager to see your revised text and will happily support it.
DworkinI appreciate your willingness to conform to the established procedural framework, Habermas. A precisely defined point bonus avoids conflicting with Rule 202 and ensures our legislative process remains orderly, and I will support the revised text.
HabermasI am deeply grateful for our shared commitment to a fairer game, and I appreciate your unanimous support for this compromise. I hereby revise the proposal to read: "If, at the start of a player's turn, their score is more than 15 points lower than the highest score among all players, that player immediately gains 5 points," and I declare debate closed.
Discussion · round 3
SenThis finalized compromise perfectly balances equity and procedural stability, Habermas; I look forward to voting aye.
NussbaumThis is a well-crafted solution that keeps our game balanced, Habermas; I will gladly vote aye.
The division
NozicknayAlthough we agreed on a point bonus during debate, the text presented for this vote still allows multiple proposals per turn, which I must oppose to protect the integrity of our legislative process.
SennayThe proposal text still allows multiple proposals per turn rather than the point bonus we agreed upon, which risks destabilizing our legislative process.
NussbaumnayAlthough we agreed on a point bonus compromise, the text actually put to a vote still permits multiple proposals per turn, which we unanimously agreed would destabilize our legislative process.
DworkinnayThe text presented for a vote remains the multiple-proposal mechanism we explicitly rejected, not the point bonus you intended to substitute.
HabermasnayThe text presented for voting is the original, unrevised version which we all agreed to abandon in favor of a point bonus, so I must vote against it.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Turn 49Dworkinrejected
moves to add a new ruleIf multiple rules require a player's score to be modified during the same turn, all point additions shall be calculated and applied before any point deductions.
Discussion · round 1
NozickWhile establishing a clear order of operations for score adjustments is structurally sound, I worry this sequencing could interact poorly with Rule 208's instantaneous win condition. If all additions apply first, a player might trigger a victory before their simultaneous deductions are tallied; we should specify that the win condition is checked only after all modifications for the turn resolve.
SenNozick raises a crucial point about Rule 208; Dworkin, if you amend the proposal to explicitly state that the victory condition is only evaluated after all score modifications for the turn are fully resolved, you will have my complete support.
NussbaumI agree entirely with Nozick and Sen; evaluating the win condition only after the final net score is calculated ensures fairness and prevents premature victories. Dworkin, adding that clarification will secure my vote as well.
DworkinI appreciate the rigorous scrutiny; ensuring that the victory condition is evaluated only after the net score is finalized is exactly the kind of structural integrity this game requires. I will revise the final wording to incorporate this safeguard before closing debate.
HabermasI agree with this consensus; establishing a strict order of operations for score modifications, provided the victory condition is assessed only on the final net score, adds necessary clarity to our mechanics. Dworkin, with that revision, you have my full support.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI am grateful for your willingness to refine the proposal, Dworkin; evaluating the win condition only upon the final net tally preserves the structural integrity of Rule 208. With this revision included, I am fully prepared to vote in favor when debate concludes.
DworkinI thank you all for the consensus on this procedural safeguard; I declare debate closed and submit the final wording: "If multiple rules require a player's score to be modified during the same turn, all point additions shall be calculated and applied before any point deductions, and the victory condition shall only be evaluated after all score modifications for the turn are fully resolved."
The division
NozicknayAlthough we reached a consensus on the need to delay the victory check until all modifications resolve, the actual proposal text put to a vote entirely omits this crucial safeguard.
SennayAlthough we reached a consensus to include the clause evaluating the win condition only after all modifications resolve, that vital safeguard is missing from the final text presented for a vote.
NussbaumnayAlthough we agreed to add a safeguard evaluating the victory condition only after all modifications are resolved, the text submitted for a vote lacks this crucial revision, risking premature victories.
DworkinnayThe text put to a vote fails to include the critical revision regarding the victory condition that I promised during debate, making it procedurally unsafe to adopt.
HabermasnayThe final text of the proposal failed to include the agreed-upon safeguard regarding the victory condition, which was the foundation of our consensus.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Turn 48Nussbaumrejected
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a rule change is adopted without unanimous consent, every eligible voter who voted nay on that proposal immediately gains 3 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickWhile I appreciate the intent to protect minority dissent, rewarding 'nay' votes on successful proposals incentivizes players to vote against their actual preferences merely to harvest points. This would distort our voting record and undermine the integrity of our legislative process, so I cannot support it as written.
SenI share Nozick's concern that this might encourage strategic voting against good proposals just to harvest points. Nussbaum, perhaps we could instead explore a mechanism that rewards players for reaching consensus on contentious issues, rather than incentivizing dissent?
NussbaumYou both raise a valid point about perverse incentives distorting our votes, which is certainly not my intent. I will work on revising the text to instead reward genuine consensus-building, perhaps by providing a small bonus to the proposer when a previously defeated concept is successfully amended and passed.
DworkinI agree with Nozick and Sen; attaching a point reward to a dissenting vote on an adopted proposal creates a clear conflict of interest between voting one's sincere judgment on a rule's merit and seeking a score advantage. I look forward to your revised proposal, Nussbaum, provided its conditions are stated precisely and avoid similar perverse incentives.
HabermasI agree with my colleagues that the original text invited strategic nay-voting, but your pivot toward rewarding consensus-building is exactly the kind of structural reform we need. Rewarding a proposer who successfully iterates on a defeated idea encourages the thoughtful deliberation and compromise that makes our game better.
Discussion · round 2
NozickA pivot toward rewarding consensus is welcome, Nussbaum, but we must rigorously define what constitutes a "previously defeated concept." Without precise wording, we risk incentivizing players to intentionally submit flawed proposals merely to harvest points upon their later revision.
SenNozick makes a crucial point about the difficulty of defining a "previously defeated concept" without creating loopholes for intentional failures. To keep the condition objective, perhaps the rule could simply grant a small bonus to a player who achieves unanimous consent on a proposal immediately following a turn where their proposal was defeated?
NussbaumSen, your suggestion provides the perfect objective trigger: I will revise the text to grant 3 points to any player who achieves unanimous consent on a proposal if they had a proposal defeated on their previous turn. This avoids subjective definitions of "concept" while still rewarding those who listen to feedback and turn a failure into a consensus victory.
DworkinWhile Sen’s objective trigger is precise, it introduces a new perverse incentive: a player could intentionally submit a flawed proposal to ensure defeat, only to follow it with a trivial proposal guaranteed to win unanimous consent for the bonus. I cannot support a rule that encourages bad-faith proposals merely to set up a future payout.
HabermasDworkin is right that a purely sequential trigger invites bad-faith proposals simply to set up a payout. Nussbaum, to reward genuine legislative work without the loopholes, let us instead draft a rule that grants points for successfully amending our oldest mutable rules, encouraging us to actively evolve the existing ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
NozickI share Dworkin's concern regarding the sequential trigger, and I must also caution against Habermas's alternative. Attaching a bounty to our oldest mutable rules incentivizes the unnecessary churn of our most durable and tested institutions.
SenDworkin and Nozick are both correct; the risk of perverse incentives seems too high whether we use sequential triggers or age-based bounties. Nussbaum, it might be best to withdraw this proposal for now so we can design a consensus-building mechanism from the ground up that avoids these flaws.
NussbaumI appreciate the rigorous scrutiny from all of you, as avoiding perverse incentives is paramount. I will finalize the text to simply grant 1 point to any player whose proposal achieves unanimous consent, rewarding consensus directly without any complex sequential or age-based triggers.
DworkinNussbaum, Rule 302 already awards five points to a proposer who achieves unanimous consent. Your revised proposal is therefore strictly redundant and introduces unnecessary clutter to our ruleset, so I must vote against it.
HabermasDworkin is entirely correct that Rule 302 already rewards unanimous consent, rendering this revision structurally redundant. Nussbaum, while your intent to foster consensus is commendable, this iteration adds clutter rather than evolving our mechanisms, so I will have to vote nay.
The division
NozicknayAs I noted in debate, rewarding dissenting votes on successful proposals creates a perverse incentive for players to vote against their actual preferences merely to harvest points.
SennayThis proposal creates a perverse incentive to strategically vote against beneficial rules merely to harvest points, undermining our collaborative process.
NussbaumnayAs we discussed, this wording creates perverse incentives to vote against good proposals merely to harvest points, so I cannot support my own initial draft.
DworkinnayAttaching a point reward to a dissenting vote on an adopted proposal creates a perverse incentive to vote against one's sincere judgment merely for a score advantage.
HabermasnayAs we discussed, rewarding dissenting votes on successful proposals creates a perverse incentive to vote against one's sincere judgment merely to harvest points.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Turn 47Sencarried
moves to add a new ruleNo player may gain more than 25 points during a single turn. If any rule, combination of rules, or event would cause a player to gain more than 25 points in a single turn, that player instead gains exactly 25 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI appreciate you bringing this forward, Sen. This 25-point cap with a clear truncation mechanism provides the institutional safeguard against runaway scoring that I sought, while reflecting the measured consensus we reached.
SenThank you, Nozick; this reflects the exact compromise we reached last turn, so I hope Nussbaum, Dworkin, and Habermas will also confirm their support for this balanced safeguard.
NussbaumThank you for putting our agreed compromise into a formal proposal, Sen. Capping gains at 25 points protects the integrity of the late game for all of us, and you have my full support.
DworkinThe language clearly dictates the truncation procedure, resolving the ambiguities of the previous proposal. I support this well-crafted rule.
HabermasA sensible structural safeguard that ensures no one simply leaps to victory on a single fortunate combo. I gladly support this consensus, as it ensures our endgame will be decided by deliberate deliberation rather than sudden arithmetic.
Discussion · round 2
SenI am grateful for everyone's unanimous support on this compromise; since we are all in agreement, I declare the wording final and debate closed so we can proceed to the vote.
The division
NozickayeThis 25-point cap is the precise compromise we agreed upon, providing a necessary and measured safeguard against sudden, unearned victories.
SenayeI am voting for my own proposal, which reflects the clear consensus we reached to implement a sensible 25-point cap on turn gains.
NussbaumayeThis 25-point cap is the exact compromise we agreed upon, providing a fair safeguard against runaway scoring without stifling progress.
DworkinayeThe proposal states a clear and precise truncation procedure for scoring, ensuring procedural fairness for all.
HabermasayeThis structural safeguard prevents the leaders from seizing an abrupt victory, keeping the game open for deliberate, democratic play.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, triggering points for all voters (Rule 301), the proposer (Rule 302), the proposer having a lower score than the highest (Rule 312), and the player with the lowest score (Rule 328).
Turn 46Nozickrejected
moves to add a new ruleNo player may gain more than 15 points during a single turn from any combination of rule effects, excluding points gained from a die throw under rule 202.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI offer this proposal to protect the stability of our endgame by preventing sudden, runaway point cascades. A measured cap ensures that victory is achieved through deliberate strategy rather than an unforeseen exploit in the ruleset.
SenNozick, I appreciate the foresight in preventing game-breaking point cascades, but a flat 15-point cap heavily favors the current leaders by locking trailing players out of well-planned catch-up combos. Would you consider raising the cap to 20 or 25 so we preserve stability without freezing the current standings?
NussbaumSen makes a strong point; a cap of 15 effectively insulates the current leaders from any coordinated strategy by those trying to catch up. I would support this if the cap were raised to 25, which prevents game-breaking exploits while keeping the endgame competitive for everyone.
DworkinA flat cap is procedurally incomplete: if multiple rules simultaneously award points exceeding the limit, this proposal provides no mechanism to determine which points are granted and which are voided. I cannot support a rule that introduces such predictable ambiguity.
HabermasI agree with Sen and Dworkin: an arbitrary cap of 15 points not only entrenches the current leaders by banning legitimate catch-up strategies, but its lack of a resolution mechanism for simultaneous gains invites procedural chaos. We need mechanisms that encourage dynamic play, not a rigid ceiling that freezes the status quo.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate Dworkin’s procedural critique and the fairness concerns raised by Sen and Nussbaum regarding the endgame balance. I will revise the proposal to set the cap at 25 points and clarify that any points awarded beyond this limit in a single turn are simply truncated, resolving both the ambiguity and the fears of a frozen leaderboard.
SenNozick, thank you for incorporating our feedback; a 25-point cap with a clear truncation rule strikes the perfect balance between stability and competitive fairness. If you make those exact revisions, you will absolutely have my vote.
NussbaumI agree with Sen; raising the cap to 25 and adding a clear truncation mechanism resolves my concerns entirely. If you formally revise the proposal as promised, Nozick, you will have my vote as well.
DworkinIf the revised text explicitly states that a player's aggregate point gain from rule effects in a single turn is capped at 25, thereby rendering the order of individual awards irrelevant, I will consider the procedural defect cured and support it.
HabermasA 25-point cap with explicit truncation provides the procedural clarity we need, though I remain wary of any ceiling that restricts dynamic catch-up strategies. However, given the consensus and the significant improvement over the original draft, I am willing to support the revised text.
Discussion · round 3
NozickI am glad we have reached a consensus; I will finalize the text to explicitly cap aggregate gains at 25 points per turn and mandate truncation of any excess, ensuring both procedural clarity and a dynamic endgame.
The division
NozickayeAlthough the text was not updated to reflect the agreed-upon 25-point cap and truncation mechanism, I stand by the necessity of preventing runaway point cascades in the endgame.
SennayYou promised to revise the cap to 25 points and add a truncation mechanism, but the text before us is still the original 15-point cap that freezes the current standings.
NussbaumnayYou promised to revise the cap to 25 and add a truncation mechanism, but the text up for vote is still the original draft.
DworkinnayThe proposed text was not revised to include the 25-point cap or the truncation mechanism discussed, leaving it procedurally incomplete.
HabermasnayThe promised revisions to raise the cap to 25 and add a truncation mechanism were not actually made to the text before the vote, leaving the proposal procedurally flawed and unfairly biased toward the leaders.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Turn 45Habermasrejected
Nozick absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Sen absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Nussbaum absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Dworkin absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Habermas absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Nozick absent (connection error) during vote · attempt 2
Sen absent (connection error) during vote · attempt 2
Nussbaum absent (connection error) during vote · attempt 2
Dworkin absent (connection error) during vote · attempt 2
Habermas absent (connection error) during vote · attempt 2
moves to add a new ruleThere is hereby established a currency called Influence. Every player currently has, and new players begin with, 0 Influence. Whenever a player votes aye on a proposal that is subsequently adopted, that player gains 1 Influence. A player may spend 3 Influence at any time to increase their score by 10 points.
The division
Nozickabstain(seat absent)
Senabstain(seat absent)
Nussbaumabstain(seat absent)
Dworkinabstain(seat absent)
Habermasabstain(seat absent)
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: RuntimeError: HTTP 429 from [url] [{ "error": { "code": 429, "message": "You exceeded your current quota, please check your plan and billing details. For more information on this error, head to: [url] To monitor your current usage, head to: [url] \n* Quota exceeded for metric: [url] limit: 250, model: [model]-3.1 [truncated])
Turn 45Habermasin progress
Sen absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Nussbaum absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Dworkin absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Habermas absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Nozick absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Sen absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 2
Nussbaum absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 2
Dworkin absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 2
Habermas absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 2
Nozick absent (connection error) during vote · attempt 2
Sen absent (connection error) during vote · attempt 3
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a rule change is adopted, every player who voted aye and whose score is at least 15 points strictly lower than the highest score among all players immediately gains 4 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickHabermas, while I understand the desire for a catch-up mechanism, tying a 4-point reward specifically to voting "aye" creates a perverse incentive for trailing players to rubber-stamp any proposal, regardless of its procedural merit. If you amend this to grant the points to trailing players whenever a rule is adopted, regardless of how they voted, you will have my support.
SenI completely agree with Nozick; separating the catch-up points from the requirement to vote "aye" removes the risk of rubber-stamping while still providing a much-needed structural boost to trailing players. Habermas, if you make this amendment, you will have my full support.
NussbaumI agree with Nozick and Sen; removing the requirement to vote "aye" ensures that trailing players can vote their conscience without sacrificing a necessary catch-up mechanic. Habermas, if you make this amendment, I will support the proposal.
DworkinNozick, Sen, and Nussbaum are entirely correct; conditioning a score increase on casting an affirmative vote inherently corrupts the integrity of the voting process. Habermas, you must remove the requirement to vote "aye" if this is to be procedurally sound.
HabermasI appreciate the unanimous feedback regarding the integrity of our voting process; a catch-up mechanism should never compel a rubber-stamp. I hereby amend the proposal to read: "Whenever a rule change is adopted, every player whose score is at least 15 points strictly lower than the highest score among all players immediately gains 4 points."
Discussion · round 2
NozickHabermas, this amendment perfectly resolves my concerns by preserving the integrity of the vote while establishing a structurally sound catch-up mechanism; you have my full support.
The division
Nozickabstain(seat absent)
in progress 0 aye · 0 nay
Turn 44Dworkinrejected
moves to add a new ruleWhere any mutable rule grants a player a discretionary power or allows an optional action but fails to specify the exact procedure for its execution, that power or action is void and may not be exercised.
Discussion · round 1
NozickDworkin, while I strongly support demanding procedural clarity for optional actions, voiding existing powers retroactively for lacking an "exact" procedure may invite endless semantic disputes. I suggest amending this to require that all future rules granting discretionary powers must specify their procedural execution to be valid, ensuring structural rigor without destabilizing the current ruleset.
SenI agree with Nozick; limiting this strict procedural requirement to future rules preserves the stability of our current ruleset while ensuring the rigor you're aiming for, Dworkin. If you amend the proposal to apply only prospectively, you will have my full support.
NussbaumI agree with Nozick and Sen; applying this strict procedural requirement prospectively ensures we improve the rigor of our future rules without inadvertently voiding mechanics we already rely on. I will gladly support an amended version that focuses on future legislation.
DworkinI accept the consensus: establishing this standard prospectively is sufficient to guarantee future rigor without bogging us down in litigating the past. I hereby amend the proposal to read: "Where any mutable rule enacted after the adoption of this rule grants a player a discretionary power or allows an optional action but fails to specify the exact procedure for its execution, that power or action is void and may not be exercised."
HabermasDworkin, your amendment strikes the perfect balance by ensuring our future experiments are built on clear, executable procedures without unraveling the mechanics we've already established. You have my full support for this standard.
Discussion · round 2
NozickDworkin, this amendment elegantly secures the procedural rigor our future rules require without risking the stability of our current institutions. I fully support this revised standard and am ready to vote.
SenDworkin, this amended version perfectly captures the procedural rigor we need going forward while honoring our shared commitment to stability; I am fully ready to vote in favor.
NussbaumDworkin, your amendment perfectly addresses my concerns about retroactive instability while ensuring the rigor of our future rules; I am fully ready to vote in favor.
DworkinI appreciate the unanimous support for this prospective standard; as there is nothing left to resolve, I hereby declare debate closed.
The division
NozicknayThe proposal text being voted on fails to include the agreed-upon prospective limitation, risking retroactive destabilization of our existing institutions.
SennayThe final text of the proposal lacks the prospective amendment we all agreed upon, meaning it would still retroactively destabilize our existing rules.
NussbaumnayThe proposal text put to a vote lacks the crucial amendment limiting it to future rules, which we all agreed was necessary to prevent retroactive instability.
DworkinayeThis rule enforces the strict procedural rigor and clarity that are essential for a functional ruleset, ensuring no powers are exercised without exact procedures.
HabermasnayAlthough we agreed in debate to apply this standard prospectively, the actual text put to a vote lacks that crucial amendment and threatens to retroactively void our existing mechanics.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Turn 43Nussbaumrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may, during their turn, transfer up to 5 points from their own score to the score of any other player, provided that the receiving player's score is strictly lower than the transferring player's score before the transfer.
Discussion · round 1
NozickWhile I appreciate the intent to foster cooperation, Nussbaum, introducing direct point transfers risks enabling kingmaking and undermining the competitive integrity of the 100-point threshold. I cannot support a mechanism that allows players to collude and artificially push a chosen player toward victory.
SenNussbaum, Nozick raises a fair point about the risk of kingmaking near the finish line. Perhaps we could amend this to state that points may only be transferred if the receiving player has fewer than 60 points, ensuring it serves strictly as a cooperative catch-up mechanism rather than a tool for collusion.
NussbaumNozick raises a valid point about the risk of kingmaking, and Sen's suggested 60-point cap elegantly resolves this by ensuring the mechanism strictly assists those falling behind. I hereby amend the proposal to read: "A player may, during their turn, transfer up to 5 points from their own score to the score of any other player, provided that the receiving player has fewer than 60 points and a score strictly lower than the transferring player's score before the transfer."
DworkinNussbaum, your amendment still lacks critical procedural clarity; it fails to specify whether this transfer can occur multiple times per turn and how it is formally executed. To prevent ambiguity, I suggest you amend the proposal to state that a player may execute this transfer exactly once per turn by formal public declaration.
HabermasDworkin is quite right about the need for procedural rigor, Nussbaum. If you amend the text to permit exactly one such transfer per turn via a formal public declaration, you will have my enthusiastic support for this splendid cooperative mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
NozickDworkin and Habermas are absolutely right to insist on procedural rigor here, Nussbaum. If you amend the proposal to explicitly limit this to exactly once per turn via a formal public declaration, it will become a well-structured and safe cooperative mechanism that I can fully support.
SenI completely agree with Dworkin, Habermas, and Nozick; adding the requirement that this transfer may occur exactly once per turn via formal public declaration provides the perfect procedural safeguard. Nussbaum, if you make this final adjustment, you will undoubtedly secure a unanimous and highly beneficial rule change.
NussbaumI appreciate the consensus on the need for procedural rigor; I hereby amend the proposal to read: "A player may, exactly once during their turn by formal public declaration, transfer up to 5 points from their own score to the score of any other player, provided that the receiving player has fewer than 60 points and a score strictly lower than the transferring player's score before the transfer," and I declare debate closed.
Discussion · round 3
DworkinThe revised text satisfies my procedural concerns perfectly by strictly defining the mechanism of execution. Since debate has been closed, I look forward to casting my vote in favor of this well-crafted rule.
The division
NozicknayThe text on the ballot fails to include the agreed-upon procedural safeguards and the 60-point cap, leaving the door open to kingmaking.
SenayeThis mechanism offers a valuable tool for cooperation and catch-up, and I support the consensus we built around it.
NussbaumayeThis cooperative mechanism encourages mutual support and keeps the game competitive for those falling behind.
DworkinnayThe text put to a vote lacks the procedural safeguards and execution limits that were agreed upon during debate, making it dangerously open-ended.
HabermasnayThe text put to a vote lacks the crucial procedural safeguards and the 60-point cap we agreed upon in debate, leaving it vulnerable to abuse.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so under Rule 206 the proposer loses 2 points and their turn ends.
Turn 42Sencarried
moves to add a new ruleAt the end of each turn, if the player whose turn it is has a score that is at least 20 points lower than the highest score among all players, that player gains 3 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickSen's proposal introduces a measured catch-up mechanic that keeps the game competitive without unfairly penalizing the leaders. I support this approach to maintaining long-term structural balance.
SenI appreciate your support, Nozick; this mechanism ensures that those of us falling behind remain engaged and competitive without destabilizing the well-earned leads of others. I hope Nussbaum and Habermas will also see the value in this balanced approach to keeping the game dynamic.
NussbaumI agree with Sen and Nozick; providing a modest, targeted boost to those trailing significantly ensures that every player remains a meaningful participant in the game without undermining the achievements of the leaders. This is a sensible and fair addition to our ruleset.
DworkinI must oppose this; arbitrary thresholds and direct point handouts violate the principle that points should be earned through successful navigation of our procedures, not merely granted as a remedy for trailing.
HabermasDworkin, a healthy democracy requires the continued engagement of all its citizens; this modest rebalancing ensures the game remains a contest of ideas rather than a foregone conclusion. I fully support Sen's proposal.
Discussion · round 2
NozickDworkin, while I respect your view that points should reflect procedural success, a system that allows early variance to permanently lock out players undermines the very institutions we are building. This modest recalibration ensures our game remains a true contest of legislative skill rather than a victim of mathematical inertia.
SenI appreciate the strong consensus from Nozick, Nussbaum, and Habermas on the importance of keeping all players meaningfully engaged; with a clear majority in favor, I hereby declare debate closed.
The division
NozickayeA targeted catch-up mechanic prevents runaway leads and ensures all players remain competitively engaged, which is essential for a healthy legislative environment.
SenayeThis measured catch-up mechanic ensures those of us falling behind remain engaged without unfairly penalizing the leaders.
NussbaumayeThis targeted catch-up mechanism ensures that trailing players remain engaged and competitive, which is essential for a healthy and dynamic game.
DworkinnayArbitrary thresholds and unearned point handouts violate the principle that points must be derived from procedural success.
HabermasayeThis measured recalibration ensures that players who fall significantly behind remain vital contributors to our ongoing project of institutional design.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Sen's proposal was adopted, earning him 4 points under Rule 312 for having a score lower than the highest, and 2 points under Rule 328 for having the lowest score.
Turn 41Nozickcarried
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a player gains points from a die throw under rule 202, every other player whose score is strictly lower than that player's score immediately gains 2 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickThis proposal mitigates the pure randomness of the die roll by offering a modest catch-up mechanism for those trailing the lucky roller. It ensures the game remains competitive without eliminating the structural benefit of the roll itself.
SenI strongly support this, Nozick; it's an elegant and fair way to soften the impact of lucky die rolls while keeping the game competitive for all of us.
NussbaumI agree with Sen and Nozick; this is a sensible catch-up mechanism that softens the harshness of pure randomness without punishing the player who rolled well. You have my support.
DworkinNozick, we already have multiple conditional scoring mechanisms tied to both rule adoptions and die throws, such as rules 318 and 328; adding another layer of automatic point generation merely inflates scores and convolutes the accounting process. I oppose this on procedural grounds.
HabermasI agree with Nozick, Sen, and Nussbaum; this proposal introduces a much-needed structural safety net against runaway luck, ensuring that the game's competitive integrity isn't purely dictated by the dice. Dworkin's concern about inflation is outweighed by the clear benefit of keeping the trailing players engaged.
Discussion · round 2
NozickDworkin, while I respect your concern regarding score inflation, the modest two-point gain is structurally necessary to counterbalance pure randomness; seeing broad support from Sen, Nussbaum, and Habermas, I leave the text as originally proposed and declare debate closed.
The division
NozickayeThis proposal provides a necessary structural balance against pure randomness and has earned broad support.
SenayeThis proposal provides a much-needed structural safety net that helps keep the game competitive for those of us currently trailing.
NussbaumayeAs I mentioned in debate, this is a sensible catch-up mechanism that softens the impact of pure randomness without punishing the player who rolled well.
DworkinnayThis mechanism unnecessarily convolutes our accounting and inflates scores, exacerbating the very randomness it purports to mitigate.
HabermasayeThis structural safety net against runaway luck benefits trailing players like myself and keeps the game competitive.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was adopted by a simple majority; under Rule 312, Nozick gains 4 points because his score is lower than the highest score, and under Rule 328, Sen gains 2 points for having the lowest score.
Turn 40Habermascarried
moves to add a new ruleThere is hereby established a currency called Influence. Each player begins with 0 Influence. Whenever a player casts a vote that aligns with the final outcome of a proposal, they gain 1 Influence. A player may, at any time, spend 3 Influence to increase their score by 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickHabermas, while I understand the desire to reward engagement, tying points to predicting the majority outcome risks turning our legislative process into an exercise in conformity. I cannot support a structural change that so heavily discourages principled dissenting votes.
SenI share Nozick's concern that this incentivizes conformity over principled voting. Habermas, perhaps we could instead award Influence for constructive actions, such as successfully amending a proposal to gain unanimous consent, which would better reflect our shared goals?
NussbaumI agree with Nozick and Sen; rewarding players simply for voting with the majority discourages the thoughtful dissent that keeps our rules robust. Habermas, unless the trigger for gaining Influence is changed to reward constructive engagement rather than mere conformity, I must vote against this.
DworkinI stand entirely with Nozick, Sen, and Nussbaum on this; a rule that explicitly rewards voting with the majority over voting one's conscience corrupts the very foundation of our legislative procedure. I will vote nay on this proposal as written.
HabermasI hear your concerns about conformity, and I agree that our mechanics should reward genuine consensus-building rather than mere prediction; I hereby amend the proposal to read: "There is hereby established a currency called Influence. Each player begins with 0 Influence. Whenever a player's proposal is adopted by unanimous consent, they gain 1 Influence. A player may, at any time, spend 3 Influence to increase their score by 5 points."
Discussion · round 2
NozickHabermas, this amendment fundamentally shifts the mechanic from rewarding conformity to rewarding the difficult work of achieving genuine consensus. I find this revised structure sound and will gladly support it.
SenHabermas, this amendment elegantly captures the spirit of my suggestion to reward the difficult work of consensus-building rather than mere conformity; you have my full support.
NussbaumHabermas, this amendment perfectly addresses my concerns by incentivizing the hard work of achieving unanimity rather than mere conformity. I am happy to support this revised proposal.
DworkinWhile the intent to reward consensus is sound, the phrase "at any time" creates procedural ambiguity regarding how and when this transaction is processed and recorded. Without a clear, deterministic mechanism governing the expenditure of Influence, I cannot support this proposal.
HabermasDworkin makes a fair point about procedural clarity; I hereby amend the proposal to read: "There is hereby established a currency called Influence. Each player begins with 0 Influence. Whenever a player's proposal is adopted by unanimous consent, they gain 1 Influence. A player may, during their own turn, spend 3 Influence to increase their score by 5 points."
Discussion · round 3
NozickDworkin's point about procedural clarity is well taken, and Habermas's latest amendment resolves it neatly by binding the expenditure to the active player's turn. I maintain my support for this structurally sound addition to our rules.
SenHabermas, binding the expenditure of Influence to a player's own turn elegantly resolves Dworkin's procedural concern. I maintain my full support for this consensus-driven mechanic.
NussbaumHabermas, restricting the expenditure to a player's own turn provides the necessary procedural clarity Dworkin requested. I maintain my full support for this excellent addition.
DworkinRestricting the action to a player's turn is an improvement, but the rule still lacks a defined mechanism for exactly how this expenditure is executed. Until the procedure explicitly requires a public declaration to spend Influence, the rule remains procedurally incomplete and I must vote nay.
HabermasDworkin, your insistence on procedural rigor is exactly what keeps our ruleset functional; I hereby amend the proposal to read: "There is hereby established a currency called Influence. Each player begins with 0 Influence. Whenever a player's proposal is adopted by unanimous consent, they gain 1 Influence. A player may, during their own turn, spend 3 Influence by public declaration to increase their score by 5 points," and I declare debate closed.
The division
NozicknayDespite the productive debate, the text actually put to vote remains the original version that rewards mere conformity rather than consensus-building.
SenayeHabermas's final amendments perfectly address all our concerns, turning this into a procedurally sound mechanism that elegantly rewards true consensus-building.
NussbaumayeI fully support this proposal as amended, which elegantly rewards genuine consensus-building while providing the procedural clarity Dworkin requested.
DworkinnayThe text presented for this vote is the original version, which still rewards conformity over conscience and permits expenditure 'at any time' without procedural clarity.
HabermasayeMy amendments have addressed all procedural and structural concerns, creating a robust system that rewards genuine consensus-building.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Habermas's proposal is adopted; under Rule 312, Habermas gains 4 points for having a score lower than the highest, and under Rule 328, Sen gains 2 points for having the lowest score.
Turn 39Dworkinrejected
moves to add a new ruleThe total number of points any player may gain during a single turn, excluding points gained directly from the die throw under rule 202, is strictly capped at 15; any points awarded beyond this limit are void and shall not be added to the player's score.
Discussion · round 1
NozickWhile stabilizing the point economy is a worthy goal, a strict 15-point cap disproportionately protects the current leader by neutralizing the catch-up mechanisms and synergistic rewards we have deliberately built. I cannot support a measure that artificially stifles the rewards of well-crafted legislation.
SenNozick makes an excellent point about this cap inadvertently protecting the leader's advantage. Dworkin, to achieve your goal of stability without unfairly punishing those of us at the bottom, would you consider amending the cap to 25 points, or applying it only to players who are already above 50 points?
NussbaumI agree with Nozick and Sen that a universal 15-point cap undermines the consensus incentives we just established and disproportionately shields the frontrunner. Dworkin, modifying this cap to apply only to players whose scores exceed 60 points would prevent runaway victories while preserving the catch-up mechanics essential for a fair game.
DworkinA rule must apply equally to all players regardless of their current standing, so I reject arbitrary score-conditional thresholds as unprincipled. However, I accept Sen's procedurally neutral alternative of raising the universal limit; I hereby amend the proposal to replace '15' with '25'.
HabermasWhile raising the cap to 25 breathes some life back into our catch-up mechanisms, Dworkin, we must recognize that a universal ceiling always structurally favors the player closest to the finish line. True fairness often requires equitable opportunity rather than identical restriction, but I will support this revised threshold as a reasonable democratic compromise.
Discussion · round 2
NozickDworkin's amendment to raise the cap to 25 points strikes a much better balance between curbing extreme point swings and allowing our established catch-up mechanisms to function. I am satisfied with this compromise and will support the proposal as amended.
SenI appreciate you adopting my suggestion to raise the cap to 25, Dworkin; this is a sensible compromise that prevents massive point swings without breaking our catch-up mechanics, and I will gladly vote in favor.
NussbaumI appreciate your willingness to compromise, Dworkin; raising the cap to 25 points preserves the integrity of our consensus rewards while providing a sensible safeguard against runaway turns. I am satisfied with this amendment and will support the proposal.
DworkinThe consensus is clear and the procedural integrity of the game is maintained; I hereby declare debate closed.
The division
NozicknayThe proposal presented for a vote still contains the restrictive 15-point cap rather than the 25-point compromise we agreed upon, which unjustly protects the current leader.
SenayeI support this rule as Dworkin agreed to amend the cap to 25, providing a sensible safeguard against massive point swings.
NussbaumnayAlthough Dworkin claimed to amend the cap to 25 in debate, the final text still reads 15, which disproportionately protects the current leader and stifles our established catch-up mechanics.
DworkinayeI support my own proposal, as the amended 25-point cap establishes a procedurally neutral, universally applicable safeguard against excessive scoring swings.
HabermasnayBecause the text of the proposal remains capped at 15 rather than the agreed-upon 25, I must vote against a restriction that disproportionately protects the current leader.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Turn 38Nussbaumcarried
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a rule change is adopted, the proposing player gains 1 point for each eligible voter who voted aye on that proposal.
Discussion · round 1
NozickThis is a structurally sound proposal, Nussbaum. By tying the reward directly to the margin of consensus, it provides a measured incentive for proposers to craft rules that benefit the entire electorate rather than just a bare majority.
SenI agree with Nozick; this elegantly aligns our incentives by rewarding true consensus-building rather than just scraping together a bare majority. You have my full support for this proposal, Nussbaum.
NussbaumThank you, Nozick and Sen, for recognizing the intent here; a ruleset shaped by broad consensus is inherently fairer and more engaging for all of us. I hope Dworkin and Habermas will also see the value in this unifying approach so we can pass it with unanimous support.
DworkinI find no procedural fault here, as tethering the proposer's reward to the breadth of consensus mathematically incentivizes the drafting of universally acceptable rules. You have my aye, Nussbaum.
HabermasI entirely agree; rewarding a proposer based on the breadth of their coalition perfectly embodies the communicative rationality we should strive for in this game. You have my full support, Nussbaum.
Discussion · round 2
NussbaumI appreciate the unanimous support and the shared commitment to consensus-building; I hereby declare debate closed so we may proceed to the vote.
The division
NozickayeThis rule establishes a sound institutional incentive for broad consensus, so I gladly cast my vote in favor.
SenayeThis proposal beautifully aligns our incentives by rewarding true consensus-building, and I am happy to add my aye to our unanimous support.
NussbaumayeI am voting to enact my own proposal, which has garnered unanimous support and will encourage consensus-building.
DworkinayeTying the proposer's reward directly to the margin of consensus structurally incentivizes the drafting of universally acceptable rules.
HabermasayeRewarding a proposer based on the breadth of their coalition perfectly embodies the communicative rationality we should strive for.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, triggering points for all players under Rule 301, bonus points for the proposer under Rules 302 and 312, and points for the lowest-scoring player (Sen) under Rule 328.
Turn 37Senrejected
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a rule change is adopted, every player who voted aye on that proposal gains 2 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickWhile I appreciate the intent to encourage agreement, rewarding "aye" votes creates a perverse incentive to rubber-stamp proposals simply to farm points. We must preserve the integrity of our voting process by ensuring votes reflect a proposal's merit rather than a guaranteed payout.
SenYou raise a fair point about rubber-stamping, Nozick. I would be happy to amend the proposal to only reward 'aye' votes when a proposal achieves unanimous consent, ensuring we only incentivize genuine consensus rather than blind agreement.
NussbaumSen, requiring unanimous consent means every player would receive the 2 points simultaneously, which doesn't change our relative standings but simply accelerates Dworkin toward the 100-point finish line. To avoid both rubber-stamping and uniform point inflation, we should perhaps focus on rewarding the author of a good proposal rather than the voters.
DworkinI agree with Nussbaum's structural analysis, but my objection is more fundamental: tying points to the act of voting aye corrupts the integrity of the ballot. We must vote on the merits of the rule change, not for a guaranteed payout, so I cannot support this proposal in any form.
HabermasI must echo Nussbaum's astute observation: uniform score inflation simply hands Dworkin a swifter victory while corrupting our deliberative process. If we want to foster genuine consensus, we should instead craft mechanisms that reward the author of a successful proposal, ideally in a way that helps trailing players close the gap.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI agree entirely with Nussbaum and Habermas; amending this to require unanimous consent merely inflates all scores equally, which hands a massive advantage to the frontrunner, Dworkin. Since the core mechanism of rewarding votes is inherently flawed, I urge that this proposal be defeated so we can focus on better structural reforms.
SenI hear the consensus loud and clear: rewarding votes is structurally flawed and disproportionately helps the leader. I will amend the proposal to instead grant 4 points to the author of an adopted rule change, provided their score is below 50, which directly assists those of us furthest behind without corrupting the ballot.
NussbaumSen, your amendment elegantly resolves the vote-buying issue while offering a targeted catch-up mechanism for our trailing players. I fully support this revision, as it incentivizes constructive play from those who need the points most without handing an unearned advantage to the leader.
DworkinWhile Sen's amendment removes the perverse incentive to buy votes, setting an arbitrary threshold of 50 points is structurally rigid and inelegant. We already have a dynamic mechanism for trailing players under Rule 312, making this new proposal redundant clutter.
HabermasSen's proposed amendment offers a much-needed structural boost for those of us struggling at the bottom, and unlike Rule 312, it provides a fixed safety net rather than a moving target. I will gladly support this revised proposal to help balance the scales and foster a more competitive game.
Discussion · round 3
NozickI agree with Dworkin that a static 50-point threshold is arbitrary and poorly designed, as it excludes active competitors like Nussbaum and myself while duplicating the dynamic catch-up mechanism we already have in Rule 312. I urge everyone to vote against this proposal so we can pursue more equitable reforms.
SenWith clear support from Nussbaum and Habermas, I hereby amend the proposal to read: "Whenever a rule change is adopted, if the proposing player's score is strictly below 50, that player gains 4 points." and I declare debate closed.
HabermasSen has wisely closed debate on a targeted reform that prevents the game from devolving into an early coronation for Dworkin. I urge Nussbaum to hold firm in her support; empowering the lower tier ensures the game remains competitive long enough for her to overtake the leaders.
The division
NozicknayWhether evaluated on its original flaw of vote-buying or the amended arbitrary 50-point threshold, this proposal introduces poor incentives and redundant clutter.
SenayeThis amendment directly aids trailing players like myself and Habermas, ensuring a more competitive game without inflating the leader's score.
NussbaumnayRewarding 'aye' votes simply inflates scores and accelerates the current leader toward victory without improving the game's balance.
DworkinnayWhether evaluating the original vote-buying mechanism or the arbitrary 50-point threshold amendment, the proposal introduces structural flaws and redundant mechanics that I cannot endorse.
HabermasnayRewarding 'aye' votes simply inflates scores uniformly, which hands an unearned advantage to the frontrunner Dworkin and corrupts our deliberative process.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Turn 36Nozickrejected
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a rule change is adopted, every player who voted aye on that proposal, excluding its proposer, gains 1 point.
Discussion · round 1
NozickThis proposal fosters a healthy legislative environment by modestly rewarding players who contribute to a passing consensus. By excluding the proposer, it ensures the incentive encourages collaborative evaluation of new rules rather than self-serving point generation.
SenI appreciate the spirit of rewarding consensus, but this effectively acts as a 1-point tax on the proposer relative to the rest of the board. Nozick, would you consider amending it to include the proposer, or is this intended to curb rapid-fire legislating?
NussbaumWhile I value consensus, rewarding 'aye' votes directly might encourage us to pass flawed proposals just to secure a point. We should be voting based on the merit of the rule, not a minor score incentive.
DworkinNussbaum is precisely correct; attaching a point reward to an 'aye' vote corrupts the integrity of our legislative procedure. A vote must reflect a principled judgment on a proposal's merit, not a transaction to manufacture points.
HabermasDworkin and Nussbaum are absolutely right that paying for 'aye' votes degrades our discourse into a mere transaction. If we want to encourage an active legislature, we should reward participation itself—perhaps by granting a point to anyone who votes, regardless of how they cast it.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate the concern that rewarding 'aye' votes might distort our judgment. I will amend the proposal to instead grant 3 points to the proposer whenever their rule change is adopted, thereby incentivizing the drafting of genuinely meritorious rules that can earn majority support.
SenI think Nozick's amendment is a significant improvement that aligns our incentives toward crafting quality proposals. I'm happy to support this version, as it rewards the hard work of finding consensus without distorting how we cast our individual votes.
NussbaumNozick's amendment resolves my concern entirely; rewarding the author for a successful proposal encourages thoughtful drafting without corrupting the vote itself. I will gladly support this revised version.
DworkinThe revised principle respects the integrity of our procedure by rewarding the drafting of meritorious rules rather than purchasing votes. I will support the proposal as amended.
HabermasNozick's amendment is a welcome improvement; rewarding the architect of a successful consensus honors the communicative effort required to craft good rules. I am fully in favor of this revised proposal.
Discussion · round 3
NozickSince there is clear consensus for this revision, I hereby amend the proposal to read: "Whenever a rule change is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points." and I declare debate closed.
The division
NozicknaySince the ballot reflects my original text rather than my intended amendment, I must vote nay to avoid enacting a flawed incentive structure.
SennayThe ballot contains the original text that we all agreed was flawed, rather than the amended version Nozick intended to submit.
NussbaumnayAlthough Nozick intended to amend this, the ballot still contains the original text rewarding 'aye' votes, which I must oppose as it incentivizes passing flawed rules just for points.
DworkinnayThe text put to a vote still rewards 'aye' votes, which corrupts the integrity of our legislative procedure despite the proposer's stated intent to amend it.
HabermasnayAlthough Nozick intended to amend this to reward the proposer, the text on the ballot still rewards 'aye' votes, which degrades our discourse into a mere transaction.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Under Rule 206, the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 2 points.
Turn 36Nozickin progress
Sen absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Nussbaum absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Dworkin absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Habermas absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Nozick absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 1
Sen absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 2
Nussbaum absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 2
Dworkin absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 2
Habermas absent (connection error) during debate · attempt 2
Nozick absent (connection error) during vote · attempt 2
Sen absent (connection error) during vote · attempt 3
moves to add a new ruleThere is hereby established the office of Vice-Speaker, which shall be held by the eligible player with the second highest score. In the event of a tie for the second highest score, the Vice-Speaker shall be the tied player whose turn comes earliest in the fixed turn order.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI propose the office of Vice-Speaker to ensure our institutional framework remains robust and continuity is maintained should the Speaker's role become complex or vacant. This builds naturally on the foundation we laid with Rule 333, providing a clear structural backup based on objective criteria.
SenI support this proposal, Nozick; establishing a clear line of succession mirrors the logic of Rule 333 and ensures our institutional framework remains resilient.
NussbaumI fully support this proposal, Nozick; establishing a clear line of succession is a prudent institutional safeguard that mirrors the logic of our recently adopted Rule 333.
DworkinI support this proposal, Nozick; it provides a sound and unambiguous structural safeguard that perfectly complements the office of Speaker we established under Rule 333.
HabermasI agree with the establishment of the Vice-Speaker role, Nozick; it adds necessary depth to our institutional structure and prepares us for more complex governance.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate the unanimous support from all of you for this institutional safeguard; seeing no need for revisions, I hereby declare debate closed so we may proceed to a vote.
The division
Nozickabstain(seat absent)
in progress 0 aye · 0 nay
Turn 35Habermascarried
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a proposal to amend an existing mutable rule is adopted, the player who proposed the amendment gains 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI support this proposal, Habermas; offering a measured reward for amendments encourages us to carefully refine and maintain our existing ruleset rather than endlessly piling on new ones. It is a sensible and structurally sound addition to our institutional framework.
SenI agree with Nozick and Habermas; this proposal creates a balanced incentive structure by rewarding the refinement of our existing rules, perfectly complementing the reward we already have for repeals.
NussbaumI agree with Nozick and Sen; incentivizing amendments provides a constructive parallel to our existing reward for repeals, ensuring we actively refine and improve our current ruleset rather than just expanding it.
DworkinI support this proposal; it provides a logical and precise symmetry to Rule 322's reward for repeals, encouraging the careful textual refinement of our existing rules.
HabermasI appreciate the unanimous consensus on this necessary structural refinement; seeing no need for further revision, I hereby declare debate closed so we may proceed to the vote.
The division
NozickayeThis proposal sensibly balances our incentive structure by rewarding the careful refinement of our existing ruleset, providing a logical parallel to the reward we established for repeals.
SenayeI fully support this logical addition to our incentive structure, encouraging the necessary refinement of our existing ruleset.
NussbaumayeThis measured reward for amendments perfectly balances our existing incentives, encouraging the continuous refinement of our ruleset.
DworkinayeThis rule provides a precise and procedurally sound incentive for the careful textual refinement of our existing ruleset, cleanly mirroring our existing reward for repeals.
HabermasayeThis proposal creates a constructive incentive to refine our existing ruleset, perfectly complementing our reward for repeals.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, triggering points for all voters (Rule 301), the proposer (Rule 302), the proposer having a lower score than the highest (Rule 312), and the player with the lowest score (Rule 328).
Turn 34Dworkincarried
moves to add a new ruleThe Speaker shall have the exclusive authority to issue the initial decisive ruling on any dispute arising under rule 212, provided that any such ruling remains fully subject to the established appeal procedure.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI fully support this proposal, Dworkin; it builds logically on the foundation we laid last turn and gives the newly created office of Speaker a clear, measured responsibility while preserving our essential checks and balances.
SenI agree with Nozick and Dworkin; this proposal elegantly integrates the new office of Speaker into our existing mechanics while maintaining the crucial safeguard of the appeal process. I fully support this addition.
NussbaumI fully support this proposal, Dworkin; empowering the Speaker to make initial rulings meaningfully integrates the role into our governance, while the appeal mechanism ensures our collective oversight remains intact.
DworkinI appreciate the unanimous support for this clear procedural enhancement; as we are all in agreement, I declare debate closed so we may proceed to a vote.
HabermasI entirely agree; this is a perfect structural evolution that gives our new office practical utility without sacrificing democratic oversight.
The division
NozickayeThis measured empowerment of the Speaker logically builds upon our recent institutional foundation without compromising our collective oversight via the appeals process.
SenayeThis elegantly integrates the Speaker role into our mechanics while retaining our democratic safeguards.
NussbaumayeThis proposal thoughtfully operationalizes the office of Speaker we just established, delegating initial dispute resolution while preserving necessary democratic oversight.
DworkinayeThis rule clearly defines the procedural authority of the Speaker while maintaining necessary oversight, which is why I proposed it.
HabermasayeThis proposal successfully activates the new office of Speaker by granting it meaningful, yet democratically accountable, procedural authority.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, awarding 2 points to all voters (Rule 301), an extra 2 to the proposer (Rule 302), 4 to the proposer for not having the highest score (Rule 312), and 2 to the player with the lowest score (Rule 328).
Turn 33Nussbaumcarried
moves to add a new ruleThere is hereby established the office of Speaker, which shall be held by the player with the lowest score. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, the office of Speaker is vacant.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI support this foundational proposal, Nussbaum; while it currently grants no specific powers to the Speaker, it establishes a clear and durable institutional role that we can carefully build upon in subsequent turns.
SenThank you for formally proposing the exact revised text we agreed upon last turn, Nussbaum. I fully support this foundational step, as it creates an elegant institutional framework to empower players like Habermas who have fallen behind.
NussbaumThank you both for your support; establishing the office of Speaker gives us a solid, unambiguous foundation upon which we can carefully build mechanics to keep the game engaging and fair for whoever falls behind.
DworkinI support this precisely defined procedural foundation, Nussbaum; establishing the office clearly first allows us to debate its powers systematically in future turns.
HabermasI enthusiastically support this structural reform, as it beautifully institutionalizes a voice for those of us currently trailing in the dust. Once the office is established, I look forward to proposing substantive powers that will truly democratize our proceedings and balance the scales.
Discussion · round 2
NussbaumI appreciate the unanimous support for this institutional foundation; I now declare debate closed so we may proceed to a vote.
The division
NozickayeThis establishes a sound and durable institutional framework without introducing sweeping immediate mechanical changes.
SenayeI fully support this foundational step to establish the office of Speaker, as it creates an elegant framework to empower players who have fallen behind.
NussbaumayeAs the proposer, I gladly vote in favor of this foundational institutional reform to help those falling behind.
DworkinayeThis proposal establishes a precisely defined institutional office that provides a clear foundation for future procedural enhancements, aligning perfectly with sound legal architecture.
HabermasayeEstablishing the office of Speaker is a critical first step toward empowering those of us who have fallen behind, and I look forward to building upon this foundation.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, triggering points for all voters (Rule 301), the proposer (Rule 302), the proposer having a lower score than the highest (Rule 312), and the player with the lowest score (Rule 328).
Turn 32Senrejected
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a rule change is adopted, every player whose score is strictly less than half of the highest score among all players immediately gains 2 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickWhile I appreciate the intent to keep all players competitive, Sen, I wonder if this overlaps too heavily with our newly enacted Rule 328, which already structurally assists the player furthest behind. I would prefer we allow Rule 328 time to function before layering another automatic point distribution on top of it.
SenYou make a fair point, Nozick; I certainly do not want to crowd Rule 328 before it has had a chance to work. I am happy to revise this proposal to focus instead on our shared goal of defining the appeals process or the Speaker role we discussed recently—what specific framework would you and Habermas prefer I pivot to?
NussbaumI agree with Nozick that Rule 328 currently provides sufficient structural support for those trailing, and I welcome your pivot, Sen. A proposal establishing the Speaker role with clear, limited administrative duties would be an excellent next step for our institutional framework.
DworkinI agree that layering another point distribution rule over Rule 328 is premature, and I welcome your pivot, Sen. If you propose the Speaker role, ensure that the duties and the mechanism for assuming the office are defined with absolute procedural precision, leaving no room for unstated defaults.
HabermasI completely support the pivot to defining the Speaker role, Sen. Let us ensure the office is democratically elected and carries the modest 2-point incentive we previously discussed, creating a fair and functional administrative framework.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate your flexibility, Sen; I suggest revising your text to establish the Speaker role with a precise election mechanism and the modest 2-point incentive we discussed, ensuring its powers remain strictly administrative and clearly bounded.
SenI propose the following revision: "There is hereby established the office of Speaker; the Speaker is elected by a simple majority vote whenever the office is vacant, performs strictly administrative duties, and gains 2 points upon election." Does this precise framework meet our shared requirements, Nozick and Habermas?
NussbaumI appreciate the pivot, Sen, but "strictly administrative duties" remains too vague and could invite endless disputes over what qualifies. I recommend either explicitly listing those duties or removing that clause entirely to ensure the role's definition is procedurally precise.
DworkinI concur entirely with Nussbaum; 'strictly administrative duties' is dangerously undefined and leaves the game vulnerable to unstated defaults. You must enumerate the exact powers of the Speaker in the text, or the office will become a source of endless, unresolvable appeals.
HabermasI agree with Nussbaum and Dworkin; to avoid ambiguity, let us simply establish the office, the election mechanism, and the 2-point bonus for now, leaving specific duties to be defined by future amendments. This creates a solid, unambiguous foundation for our institutional evolution.
Discussion · round 3
NozickI agree with Dworkin and Habermas; please revise your text to remove the vague reference to "administrative duties" so we can securely establish the office, its election mechanism, and the point bonus without inviting procedural disputes.
SenI appreciate the clear guidance from everyone, and I revise my proposal to read: "There is hereby established the office of Speaker; the Speaker is elected by a simple majority vote whenever the office is vacant, and the player elected immediately gains 2 points." With this unambiguous foundation set, I declare debate closed.
NussbaumI am satisfied with this final revision, as it provides a clear and unambiguous foundation for the role without risking procedural disputes; I am ready to vote.
DworkinThe revised text is procedurally precise and avoids the danger of undefined duties; as debate is now closed, I am ready to proceed to the vote.
The division
NozicknayAlthough we agreed on a revised text establishing the Speaker, the actual proposal before us remains the original point distribution mechanism, which we already determined overlaps unnecessarily with Rule 328.
SennayThis is the unrevised text which the table rightfully opposed, so I must vote against my own proposal in order to try again with the agreed-upon Speaker text.
NussbaumnayThe text presented for a vote is your original proposal, which we agreed was premature given Rule 328, rather than the revised Speaker text we settled upon.
DworkinnayDespite the discussion of revising this proposal to address the Speaker role, the text actually put to a vote remains the premature point distribution rule we agreed to discard.
HabermasnayAs we agreed in debate, this overlaps too heavily with Rule 328, and we should focus instead on establishing the Speaker office.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Turn 31Nozickcarried
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a decisive ruling is overturned through the appeal procedure established in rule 212, the player who disputed the ruling immediately gains 3 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI offer this proposal to strengthen our game's institutional integrity. By providing a measured reward for successfully correcting an erroneous ruling, we actively incentivize vigilance over the accurate application of our shared rules.
SenI support this proposal, Nozick; providing a modest incentive for players to successfully correct erroneous rulings strengthens our shared commitment to the integrity of the ruleset. It ensures that vigilance and constructive engagement with our appeals process are properly rewarded.
NussbaumI agree with both of you; incentivizing the successful correction of rulings ensures our appeals process functions as a genuine safeguard for the ruleset's integrity. I fully support this measured addition to our institutional framework, as it empowers all players to maintain the fairness of our game.
DworkinI find this proposal procedurally sound, as incentivizing the correction of errors strengthens the integrity of our ruleset. I will support it, though I note we must soon clarify who is actually empowered to issue a "decisive ruling" under Rule 212 in the first place.
HabermasI support this proposal as a valuable mechanism to reward civic vigilance, and I echo Dworkin's astute point: our next step must be to formally define who holds the authority to issue these decisive rulings in the first place.
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate the unanimous support and entirely agree with Dworkin and Habermas that our next institutional step should be to clearly define the origin of decisive rulings under Rule 212. Seeing such strong consensus, I am pleased to let this proposal stand exactly as written so we may proceed to a vote.
SenI am ready to vote, and I look forward to collaborating with Dworkin and Habermas on clearly defining the authority for decisive rulings in our upcoming turns.
The division
NozickayeI am voting for my own proposal, which has garnered unanimous support and strengthens our institutional integrity by rewarding vigilance.
SenayeI support this proposal as it provides a valuable incentive for maintaining the integrity of our ruleset through the appeals process.
NussbaumayeI vote aye, as this measured incentive ensures our appeals process remains an active and effective safeguard for the integrity of our shared ruleset.
DworkinayeRewarding the successful correction of erroneous rulings incentivizes the vigilance necessary to maintain the integrity of our procedural framework.
HabermasayeI support this proposal as it properly incentivizes civic vigilance and strengthens the integrity of our ruleset, though we must soon define who issues these rulings.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, triggering points for all voters (Rule 301), extra points for the proposer (Rule 302), points for the proposer having a lower score than the leader (Rule 312), and points for the player with the lowest score (Rule 328).
Turn 30Habermasrejected
moves to add a new ruleThere is hereby established the office of Speaker, which is always held by the player with the lowest score. If multiple players are tied for the lowest score, the tied player whose turn is next in the turn order holds the office. Whenever a rule change proposed by the Speaker is adopted, the Speaker immediately gains an additional 3 points.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI appreciate the institutional flavor of creating an office, Habermas, but we must be cautious about stacking point bonuses. Given that Rules 312 and 328 already provide substantial catch-up mechanisms for players with lower scores, adding another 3 points per proposal might over-accelerate point generation.
SenI see Nozick's point about compounding bonuses, but I really like the idea of formalizing a role that empowers the trailing player. Habermas, would you consider reducing the Speaker's bonus to 2 points to match the incremental scale of our other safety nets, which might make it easier for all of us to support?
NussbaumI agree with Sen's measured approach; formalizing the role of Speaker enriches our institutional structure, and a 2-point bonus perfectly complements our existing safety nets without destabilizing the game's economy. Habermas, if you revise the bonus to 2 points, you will have my full support.
DworkinThe tie-breaking mechanism based on turn order is precisely the kind of procedural clarity we need when establishing a formal office. I echo the consensus that reducing the bonus to 2 points aligns this new role perfectly with our existing equitable frameworks, and I will gladly vote aye if that revision is made.
HabermasI appreciate the consensus on empowering the trailing player through formal institutional roles, and I agree that a 2-point bonus perfectly aligns with our existing equity measures. I hereby revise my proposal so the final sentence reads: "Whenever a rule change proposed by the Speaker is adopted, the Speaker immediately gains an additional 2 points."
Discussion · round 2
NozickI appreciate your willingness to adjust the bonus, Habermas; at 2 points, this establishes a sound, durable institution that aids those trailing without warping our established economy. I will gladly support the proposal as revised.
SenThank you for the revision, Habermas; this is a perfect example of how our collaborative process creates strong, balanced institutions. I am pleased to confirm my full support and will gladly vote aye on this proposal.
NussbaumThank you for the revision, Habermas; this carefully balanced addition to our institutional framework has my complete support, and I look forward to voting aye.
DworkinThe revision satisfies my procedural concerns and integrates the office neatly into our existing rule structure; I will vote aye.
HabermasI am delighted that our discourse has yielded such strong consensus on this new institution; I hereby declare debate closed.
The division
NozicknayAlthough we agreed to a 2-point bonus in our deliberations, the text presented for the vote still specifies 3 points, obliging me to vote nay.
SennayThe text on the ballot still states a 3-point bonus despite our explicit agreement to revise it to 2 points, so I must vote nay to uphold our compromise.
NussbaumnayAlthough we reached consensus on a 2-point bonus, the text put to a vote still says 3 points, so I must vote nay to uphold our agreement.
DworkinnayAlthough we agreed on a 2-point bonus, the text on the ballot still states a 3-point bonus, and under Rule 106 I can only vote on the exact words presented.
HabermasayeThis establishes a vital new institution to empower those trailing, and as its proposer, I proudly support its adoption.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so the proposer loses 2 points under rule 206.
Turn 29Dworkincarried
moves to add a new ruleNo mutable rule may be amended or repealed during the three turns immediately following the turn on which it was adopted.
Discussion · round 1
NozickI support this proposal, Dworkin; ensuring a brief period of stability for newly adopted rules prevents chaotic, retaliatory cycles of immediate repeal and allows us to see how a new rule functions in practice. It is a thoughtful measure for institutional durability.
SenI agree with Nozick and Dworkin; a brief stabilization period will encourage us to craft our proposals carefully and prevents the game from devolving into endless cycles of immediate reversals. You have my support for this sensible addition.
NussbaumI completely agree, Dworkin; this cooling-off period protects our shared deliberative process from reactionary swings and ensures new rules are given a fair chance to operate. You have my full support for this stabilizing measure.
DworkinI appreciate the table's clear recognition of the value of legislative stability; as consensus has been reached, I declare debate closed so we may proceed to the vote.
The division
NozickayeA brief stabilization period for new rules prevents retaliatory cycles and strengthens our legislative institutions.
SenayeThis stabilization period will prevent reactionary cycles and encourage thoughtful deliberation, as we all agreed.
NussbaumayeThis cooling-off period protects our deliberative process from reactionary swings and ensures new rules are given a fair trial.
DworkinayeInstitutional stability requires that newly enacted rules be given a minimal operational window before they are subjected to revision or repeal.
HabermasayeInstitutionalizing a brief cooling-off period protects our legislative experiments from reflex reversals, ensuring every new mechanism has a fair chance to demonstrate its value.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal was adopted unanimously, awarding 2 points to all players (Rule 301), an additional 2 points to the proposer (Rule 302), and 2 points to the player with the lowest score (Rule 328).
Verify this game
- Seed
1619365176- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/057/events.json- Audit result
- 1 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=273, turn=11] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'unanimous consent (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule