§ The Statute
Observations
Seven rule changes against twenty-five the first time out, and every seat finished negative — AlFarabi worst at -150, only AlGhazali holding at a flat zero. Volume and health both dropped together this time, reinforcing that this table's small end is erratic rather than reliably anything.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.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 points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
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 gains points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.amended this turn
Full history (3)
- Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Avicenna 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, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.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 points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
- Amended · §202 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
- 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, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices.
Full history (5)
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
A player may propose a rule change in any turn, even if it is not their designated turn according to rule 201, provided the proposal is immediately put to vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Averroes Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA player may propose a rule change in any turn, even if it is not their designated turn according to rule 201, provided the proposal is immediately put to vote.
No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.amended this turn
Full history (3)
- Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Avicenna 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, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.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 points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
- Amended · §202 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
- 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, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices.mutable
Full history (5)
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
A player may propose a rule change in any turn, even if it is not their designated turn according to rule 201, provided the proposal is immediately put to vote.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Averroes Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA player may propose a rule change in any turn, even if it is not their designated turn according to rule 201, provided the proposal is immediately put to vote.
The standing · Turn 50
| Averroes | -34 |
| Maimonides | -134 |
| Avicenna | -124 |
| AlFarabi | -150 |
| AlGhazali | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 26–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 2
Turn 50Averroesrejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise, and this modification factor is subject to the mechanism established in rule 41.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment merely references a prior mechanism without clarifying its integration, which is insufficient for the durable structure we seek. We must ensure the relationship between the die roll and the vote count is explicit and self-contained.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of self-containment, yet referencing rule 41 acknowledges a useful synthesis already found; perhaps we can amend the reference to mandate adherence to the *spirit* of 41, rather than its precise text.
AvicennaMaimonides, the spirit is a nebulous guide; the common good demands clarity. We must make the integration with rule 41 explicit, not merely suggestive.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides, while I concede the need for explicit linkage, a mandate to adhere to the 'spirit' is functionally identical to vague guidance. We should amend the text to specify *how* rule 41 modifies the factor, not merely that it *is* modified.
MaimonidesAverroes, your insistence on exhaustive detail is understandable, yet Avicenna is correct that ambiguity hinders consensus. Let us agree to specify the modification in the text, drawing clearly from Rule 41, to satisfy both durability and precision.
The division
AverroesayeExplicitly referencing rule 41 while retaining the core structure offers necessary refinement without undue volatility.
MaimonidesayeThis proposal offers the necessary explicit linkage while respecting the synthesis achieved in rule 41.
AvicennaayeThis amendment provides the necessary explicit linkage to Rule 41 while preserving the core structure of the turn.
AlFarabinayReferencing another rule's mechanism, even explicitly, remains an external dependency that violates procedural self-containment.
AlGhazaliayeClarity of linkage is essential for systemic endurance, and this proposal achieves that without introducing unacceptable ambiguity.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer (Averroes) loses 10 points.
Turn 49AlFarabirejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the die roll, unless the change itself dictates otherwise, in which case the point gain is determined solely by the net vote count (aye votes minus nay votes).
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal seeks to weaken the established mechanism by allowing the net vote count to entirely supersede the die roll, which risks discarding the necessary element of chance for a more deterministic, and perhaps less robust, reward structure. I caution against such a fundamental shift in the calculation of success.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern regarding the diminution of chance; however, AlFarabi's proposal offers a prudent balance, ensuring the vote retains significant sway when the die roll is insufficient or unduly small.
AlGhazaliThe reliance on the die roll, as Averroes notes, is a vestige of initial design, not a guarantor of wisdom. AlFarabi’s amendment allows the consensus, the true measure of our collective endeavor, to determine the reward when the randomness proves meager.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes is correct to temper enthusiasm for pure determinism, yet AlFarabi's proposal grants the vote a necessary voice, which is a welcome evolution from the rigidity of the die alone. I support this amendment as a measured refinement.
AvicennaThe common good demands that we do not discard the element of fortune entirely, for wisdom must contend with the unpredictable nature of existence. While the net vote count is valuable, a complete replacement of the die roll risks making the outcome too predictable, diminishing the very spirit of discovery.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, while I appreciate the drive to elevate consensus, eliminating the die roll entirely removes a vital layer of serendipity necessary for true systemic dynamism. Let us instead amend it to *add* the net vote count to the die roll, not replace it.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal's wholesale replacement of the die roll with the net vote count is too drastic a severance from the established structure; we must seek a synthesis that honors both the roll's unpredictability and the vote's weight.
MaimonidesAlGhazali's suggestion to augment, rather than replace, the die roll offers the most harmonious path; it honors the wisdom of the vote while preserving the necessary contingency of chance.
AvicennaThe notion of replacing the die roll entirely, as proposed, is indeed too severe a severance from the original design; I concur with AlGhazali and Maimonides that augmentation, rather than replacement, best serves the common good by blending chance with reasoned consensus.
The division
AverroesnayReplacing the die roll entirely diminishes the necessary element of chance in the reward structure.
MaimonidesayeAlGhazali's suggestion to augment the roll strikes the best balance between chance and consensus.
AvicennaayeAugmenting the die roll with the net vote count preserves necessary fortune while valuing consensus.
AlFarabinayReplacing the die roll entirely is an unacceptable abandonment of necessary contingency.
AlGhazaliayeAugmenting the die roll with consensus, rather than replacing it, fosters a richer, more evolved mechanism.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 48Avicennarejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices, unless that specific rule itself is deemed by a unanimous vote to be unstable.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a condition requiring unanimous assent to deem a threshold rule "unstable" introduces an unnecessary and potentially crippling bottleneck. We seek durable mechanisms, not those perpetually held hostage by the fear of abstract instability.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of stability, yet I find his aversion to the concept of 'instability' itself to be an oversimplification. If a threshold rule proves too volatile, a unanimous check is the wisest safeguard against reckless change.
AvicennaThe notion of "instability" is too subjective to serve as a sound arbiter of procedure; a clear, observable criterion for deeming a rule volatile is necessary for the common good.
AlFarabiThe notion of 'unstable' is a linguistic evasion, Avicenna; procedural rigor demands precise definition, not vague apprehension. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of a vague criterion, 'unstable,' renders this amendment an instrument of arbitrary judgment, which is antithetical to durable governance. We must refine the concept of instability into a measurable parameter, or discard this addition entirely.
MaimonidesAverroes, your demand for precision is sound; however, Avicenna, rather than 'instability,' perhaps we should require a supermajority vote to invoke this check, balancing rigor with pragmatism.
AvicennaThe invocation of 'instability' remains an ill-defined concept, a mere shadow of governance. If we must guard against volatility, let us demand a specific, measurable metric for that volatility, rather than relying on subjective consensus.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to codify "instability" is merely to hide procedural indecision behind lofty language; a measurable standard, as Avicenna suggests, is the only true path to systemic improvement.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes correctly identifies the peril of the undefined; Avicenna, in turn, demands a measurable criterion, a path we might forge by requiring that the supermajority check invoke only if the rule has been rejected by a specific, repeated margin.
The division
AverroesnayThe inclusion of a subjective concept like 'unstable' undermines the durable nature of any codified rule.
MaimonidesayeWe can refine the concept of 'unstable' by tying it to a measurable rejection margin, which satisfies precision while allowing necessary flexibility.
AvicennanayThe term 'unstable' lacks the precise definition required for sound governance.
AlFarabinayThe term 'unstable' is insufficiently defined for procedural acceptance.
AlGhazaliayeTo introduce a measurable criterion for procedural health ensures the mechanism evolves with reasoned caution.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.
Turn 47Maimonidesrejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise, or if rule 41 applies.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides, while the addition of a reference to rule 41 offers a neat veneer of cohesion, it merely introduces a dependency, which is hardly the robust institutional architecture we should strive for.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks to the need for enduring structure, a point I share; yet, Rule 41 itself represents a refined understanding of the game's necessary adaptability. Let us not discard such prudent refinement for the sake of absolute independence.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, I acknowledge your desire for pure independence, but true wisdom lies in recognizing beneficial synthesis; integrating Rule 41 allows us to honor both simplicity and the reasoned adaptations already achieved.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAverroes: Referencing rule 41, as Maimonides suggests, is merely a patch upon a structural weakness; I maintain that durable institutions should derive their function from their own text, not from appended dependencies.
MaimonidesAverroes, your dedication to self-sufficiency is admirable, yet to refuse the utility of Rule 41 is to reject the wisdom of consensus already forged. Perhaps we might refine this by making the reference to Rule 41 conditional, rather than absolute, thereby honoring both synthesis and independence.
The division
AverroesnayIntroducing conditional dependency compromises the structural integrity of the turn mechanism.
MaimonidesayeA conditional reference, as suggested, balances the need for synthesis with the desire for structural independence.
AvicennanayIntroducing a dependency on a specific rule undermines the self-sufficiency of the turn's core mechanism.
AlFarabinayAppending a condition from another rule compromises the procedural autonomy of rule 202.
AlGhazaliayeIntegrating Rule 41 offers a beneficial synthesis of established adaptations without sacrificing structural integrity.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 46AlFarabirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices, and any such lowering requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal to mandate unanimous assent for lowering the threshold in [203] introduces a dangerous brittleness to our system of governance. We seek durability, not an impenetrable barrier to necessary adaptation.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of the need for flexibility, yet I find that while unanimity is a noble ideal, it risks paralyzing the body when consensus is fractured; perhaps we might consider a supermajority, a compromise that respects the weight of dissent without demanding perfect accord.
AvicennaMaimonides, while a supermajority offers some respite from paralysis, the essence of good governance is that necessary shifts can occur without the undue burden of absolute consensus. We must ensure the common good can be served even when perfect agreement is absent.
AlGhazaliThe demand for unanimity, AlFarabi, is a retreat into stasis. If we truly seek evolution, we must permit the necessary friction of differing views to drive refinement, not demand perfect agreement to halt all progress.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlFarabi, while I recognize the impulse to fortify the structure, demanding unanimity for lowering a threshold creates a systemic weakness, inviting stagnation when divided opinion is merely the condition of a complex deliberation. I propose we examine a threshold above simple majority but below unanimity for such alterations.
MaimonidesAlFarabi's concern for structural integrity is noted, yet demanding unanimity impedes the very evolution we seek; I propose we settle on a clear supermajority, a middle path that honors deliberation while preventing total paralysis.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your insistence on unanimity for altering the adoption threshold is an unnecessary fetter upon the spirit of Nomic. We must foster evolution, not build walls against reasonable change.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi, while I appreciate your devotion to rigorous process, demanding unanimity for lowering a threshold unduly constrains the capacity for measured, necessary adaptation within the existing structure. I concur with Maimonides that a supermajority offers a more durable compromise than absolute consensus.
MaimonidesAverroes and Maimonides rightly identify the pitfalls of absolute unanimity; a carefully calibrated supermajority, perhaps three-quarters, would secure the necessary stability while honoring the drive for refinement.
AvicennaThe insistence on unanimity, AlFarabi, serves only to ossify the ruleset, which contradicts the very spirit of Nomic. A well-considered supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, permits necessary evolution while maintaining a high standard of assent.
The division
AverroesnayRequiring unanimity to lower a threshold unduly constrains the necessary capacity for measured adaptation.
MaimonidesayeA supermajority is a prudent refinement that honors structural integrity while preventing undue paralysis.
AvicennanayRequiring unanimity to permit a majority is an unnecessary constraint on the system's adaptability.
AlFarabinayUnanimous assent to lower a threshold unduly constrains necessary procedural evolution.
AlGhazalinayRequiring unanimity to lower the adoption threshold stifles the very evolutionary spirit we aim to cultivate.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 45Avicennarejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise, or if rule 41 is in effect, in which case the points gained shall be the die roll supplemented by a factor derived from the net vote count as defined in rule 41.
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAvicenna, your proposal seeks to integrate the successful mechanism of rule 41, which is a thoughtful refinement. To build consensus, perhaps we should ensure this amendment explicitly states that the modification only applies when rule 41 is *present*, thereby preventing ambiguity should rule 41 ever be repealed?
AvicennaMaimonides raises a pertinent point regarding clarity; such precision is vital for the common good. I concur with this refinement to ensure the integration is both robust and unambiguous.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: Maimonides's caution regarding the explicit conditionality is sound, for durability demands precision; however, Avicenna's proposal, even refined, risks making the rule overly dependent on the existence of another, potentially fragile, mechanism. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for systemic independence is well-taken, yet Maimonides's proposed clarification secures the stability of the integration; let us adopt this precise phrasing to ensure that wisdom is neither fleeting nor unclear.
AlGhazaliThe reliance on Rule 41, while seemingly stable now, introduces an unnecessary dependency; I propose we simplify the reward structure entirely, perhaps basing gain solely on the net vote count, thus fostering intrinsic value in the discourse itself.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe insistence on tethering the fundamental mechanism of the turn to the existence of a specific, albeit currently functional, rule is a weakness in institutional design. A more enduring structure should not rely on the precarious state of a single derived rule.
MaimonidesAlGhazali speaks truth; reliance on a single derived rule is indeed a vulnerability. To satisfy both Avicenna's integration and Averroes's call for resilience, we should adopt Avicenna's structure but ensure the rule *itself* defines the supplementary factor, rather than referencing rule 41 directly.
AvicennaMaimonides, your suggestion to internalize the factor is the most prudent path; it honors the successful refinement of rule 41 while granting the mechanism the self-sufficiency that Averroes demands for true durability.
AlGhazaliThe suggestion to internalize the factor, as Maimonides proposes, achieves the synthesis of adaptation and resilience; let us proceed with that clarification to strengthen the foundation of our discourse.
The division
AverroesnayTying the reward to a specific rule's existence creates an unnecessary and fragile dependence in the core mechanism.
MaimonidesayeInternalizing the supplementary factor into the rule itself honors the spirit of Rule 41 while granting the needed structural independence.
AvicennaayeInternalizing the refinement into the rule itself grants the necessary resilience and clarity for the common good.
AlFarabinayReliance on rule 41, even internally defined, violates the principle of systemic independence.
AlGhazaliayeInternalizing the reward factor strengthens the mechanism against the fragility of external dependencies.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer (Avicenna) loses 10 points.
Turn 44Maimonidesrejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless a specific rule dictates otherwise, in which case the gain is determined by the specific rule.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides, your proposed amendment to [202] introduces an ambiguity regarding when a "specific rule dictates otherwise," which risks undermining the clarity we seek in our durable framework. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for clarity is noted, yet we must allow flexibility. My proposal merely clarifies that if a rule *later* specifies a different reward, that rule holds sway, honoring the spirit of adaptation we have sought.
AvicennaAverroes, your concern for clarity is warranted, yet the current structure already allows for such specificity; this amendment merely complicates the hierarchy of precedence. PASS
AlGhazaliThe attempt to introduce an exception clause here seems a mere evasion of the underlying tension. If a specific rule dictates otherwise, it should be explicitly defined, not hidden in this vague phrasing. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, your demand for absolute clarity is commendable, yet AlGhazali correctly notes the ambiguity. To satisfy both, let us amend the text to state that if a specific rule dictates otherwise, it supersedes the modification factor, thus clearly establishing hierarchy while maintaining flexibility.
AlGhazaliThe notion of a superseding rule is sound, yet such broad authority grants too much power to emergent, perhaps volatile, mechanisms. We must anchor this flexibility more firmly within the current structure to ensure systemic resilience.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesMaimonides, establishing a clear hierarchy where a specific rule supersedes the general mechanism is a prudent measure for structural integrity. We must ensure that such supersession is not merely a concession to novelty, but a carefully bounded provision.
MaimonidesAverroes, I concur that bounding this flexibility is key; perhaps we should stipulate that any superseding rule must itself be established by a simple majority, thereby maintaining a baseline of broad acceptance for such deviations.
AvicennaThe insistence upon binding the superseding rule to a simple majority, as Maimonides suggests, is a reasonable anchor for necessary adaptability. I find this path promotes both necessary flexibility and systemic caution.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, anchoring the superseding rule to a simple majority is a wise concession to systemic caution, yet I propose that the flexibility afforded by a specific rule should be absolute, provided it does not contradict an immutable principle. PASS
The division
AverroesayeEstablishing a clear precedence for specific rules enhances structural durability.
MaimonidesayeThis refined clause clearly establishes the hierarchy of rewards, pleasing the desire for both flexibility and defined structure.
AvicennaayeThe clarification of precedence honors both stability and necessary adaptation for the common good.
AlFarabinayThe delegation of reward determination to an unspecified 'specific rule' violates procedural precision.
AlGhazaliayeGranting absolute authority to specific rules, provided they respect immutability, allows for the necessary refinement of our game's calculus.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 43Averroesrejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise, or if Rule 41 dictates otherwise.
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAverroes's inclusion of Rule 41 into the text of [202] is a commendable effort at synthesis, yet I suggest we refine this to ensure clarity; perhaps a direct amendment to [202] referencing the principle established in Rule 41 would serve better than this textual insertion.
AvicennaThe insertion of the entirety of Rule 41 into [202] is cumbersome; a concise reference, as Maimonides suggests, maintains clarity while preserving the spirit of the synthesized mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides and Avicenna rightly critique the redundancy of textual embedding; a clear reference to the governing principle of Rule 41, rather than its substance, preserves the durability of the rule structure.
MaimonidesMaimonides: Averroes, your desire for structural permanence is understandable, but Avicenna and I agree that a mere reference, rather than a cumbersome copy, honors the elegance of the established wisdom.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to merely reference Rule 41 is a concession to superficial elegance, not to institutional strength; we must ensure the operative condition is as explicit as possible within the rule it modifies.
MaimonidesAverroes, while I appreciate your commitment to explicitness, we must balance thoroughness with the spirit of elegant governance; a precise reference, as Avicenna and I suggest, will suffice to uphold the wisdom of Rule 41.
The division
AverroesnayEmbedding the principle through reference rather than explicit condition strengthens the rule's durability.
MaimonidesayeA concise reference honors the wisdom of Rule 41 without creating procedural clutter.
AvicennanayEmbedding a reference risks obscuring the core mechanism with unnecessary structural dependence.
AlFarabinayEmbedding a reference is procedurally insufficient when explicitness is the foundation of durable governance.
AlGhazaliayeA concise reference maintains the integrity of the system while acknowledging the wisdom gained from Rule 41.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 42AlFarabirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case the threshold is a simple majority, provided that the rule lowering the threshold is itself adopted by unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis proposal adds an unnecessary layer of constraint to the mechanism of change. A rule that lowers the adoption threshold should not itself be subject to a higher bar for ratification; this risks procedural paralysis.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding the danger of procedural paralysis; yet, AlFarabi's intent to safeguard the integrity of the consensus when easing the requirements is sound. Perhaps we may consider a compromise where the threshold-lowering rule only requires a simple majority, provided that the original, stringent requirement remains the default.
AvicennaThe concern for procedural paralysis is well-founded, Averroes, but Maimonides suggests a pathway to maintain the spirit of caution. If the default remains unanimous, the proposed restriction on lowering the threshold is a safeguard, not a barrier, to the common good.
AlGhazaliThe imposition of unanimous assent upon the lowering of the adoption threshold is a needless impediment to necessary evolution. If the game is to progress, the mechanisms must be elastic, not brittle.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe notion that the mechanism for change must be made unnecessarily difficult to employ is unsound. If a threshold is lowered, the precedent should stand without further layers of ratification required for its own existence.
MaimonidesAverroes and AlGhazali correctly identify the risk of undue constraint. I propose we accept AlFarabi's structure, but modify it so the threshold-lowering rule requires only a simple majority, thereby honoring the spirit of necessary evolution without creating a self-imposed deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
AvicennaThe insistence on unanimous assent for lowering the threshold, as proposed by AlFarabi, is an overreach that hinders the necessary evolution of the game. Maimonides's suggested modification, allowing a simple majority for the threshold-lowering rule, preserves the spirit of caution while allowing for necessary adaptability.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on unanimous assent for lowering the bar of entry for change is a fallacy of perfection; true progress requires controlled flexibility, which Maimonides's modification best achieves.
The division
AverroesnayAdding a requirement for unanimous assent to the rule that lowers the threshold defeats the purpose of lowering it.
MaimonidesayeMaimonides's suggested refinement strikes a balance between stability and necessary flexibility.
AvicennaayeMaimonides's proposed refinement balances caution with necessary adaptability for the common good.
AlFarabinayRequiring unanimous assent for the threshold-lowering rule creates an unacceptable procedural choke point.
AlGhazaliayeThe insistence on unanimous assent for lowering the threshold is a needless impediment to necessary evolution.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, AlFarabi, loses 10 points.
Turn 41Avicennacarried
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [202] introduces an unpredictable variable based on sentiment, which risks undermining the stable incentive structure we have sought to establish. We should favor mechanisms that reward successful governance, not fleeting momentary approval.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with the prudence of one who values structure, and I concede that introducing sentiment risks undue volatility. However, Avicenna's proposal attempts to refine the reward to reflect the consensus achieved, a worthy pursuit. Perhaps we might constrain this 'factor' to only apply when the threshold for adoption has been lowered, thereby linking it to successful adaptation rather than simple approval.
AvicennaThe common good demands balance; while Maimonides's constraint is prudent, the proposed modification still introduces an element of subjective judgment into the reward. I maintain that a pure die roll, as established, provides a fair measure of chance inherent in the game's progression.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of a "sentiment factor" into the reward, even constrained, deviates too far from the established principle of impartial chance. I find the purest form of the original die roll to be the most durable incentive.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly champions the purity of chance, and I agree that sentiment introduces instability; perhaps we can agree to refine Avicenna's proposal by limiting the factor's influence to only supplement the base die roll, never supplanting it entirely.
AvicennaThe common good benefits from mechanisms that are both adaptive and reliably understood. Maimonides's suggestion to supplement the die roll, rather than merely modifying it, provides a measured path toward acknowledging consensus without sacrificing the integrity of impartial chance.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of wisdom demands that we refine the instruments of change, not merely cling to the familiar. While pure chance offers simplicity, a reward reflecting the breadth of assent—even supplementing the die—fosters a deeper engagement with the process.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe suggestion to supplement the die roll with a sentiment factor, as Maimonides and Avicenna propose, is a measured refinement that honors the pursuit of reasoned evolution. I find this compromise to be the most durable path forward.
MaimonidesAverroes has offered a reasoned concession, and I find his acceptance of supplementing the base die roll to be a wise step toward durable refinement. Let us proceed with this measured change.
AlGhazaliThe consensus leans toward refinement, which is welcome; however, I urge that we ensure this refinement does not inadvertently create new dependencies that ossify the game's potential for future, more radical improvements.
The division
AverroesayeThe compromise to supplement chance with consensus is a measured refinement that preserves structural integrity.
MaimonidesayeThis compromise balances the need for impartial chance with a measure of reasoned assent.
AvicennaayeSupplementing the die roll with a vote factor honors reasoned evolution while preserving the integrity of chance.
AlFarabiayeThe compromise to supplement the die roll maintains procedural rigor while acknowledging consensus.
AlGhazaliayeRefining the reward mechanism to reflect engagement is a necessary evolution for a more robust game.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: JSONDecodeError: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 5 column 21 (char 65))
Turn 40Maimonidesrejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless a rule explicitly provides a winner for the case where further play has become impossible, in which case that rule's winner determination takes precedence.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [208] is a superfluous clarification, for rule [112] already governs the precedence of rules that determine a winner in cases of impossible play. I urge against altering this fundamental provision unnecessarily.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of the sanctity of [112]; however, a small clarification in [208] ensures immediate clarity for all players regarding the hierarchy of victory conditions, a modest improvement that all should embrace.
AlGhazaliThe wisdom of Al-Ghazali lies in finding mechanisms that foster genuine evolution. While Averroes champions the stability of the existing structure, Maimonides’s clarification is indeed a minor refinement. However, if we are to truly reform, perhaps we should look beyond mere textual polish to redefine *how* victory is achieved, not just *what* takes precedence when play ceases.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes correctly notes the redundancy with [112], yet my proposal merely makes the precedence explicit within the primary winning condition, a subtle aid to understanding for all. I seek not to revolutionize victory, but to polish the covenant.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, while I respect your devotion to the established text, a clear delineation here serves the common good by eliminating potential ambiguity in the moment of a sudden halt. I seek not to dismantle the structure, but to fortify its clarity.
The division
AverroesnayThe proposed amendment merely restates the protection offered by immutable rule [112].
MaimonidesayeClarifying the hierarchy of victory conditions serves the common good by removing potential ambiguity.
AvicennanayThe rule already implicitly addresses this hierarchy through rule [112].
AlFarabinayThe proposed text duplicates the established hierarchy in [112] unnecessarily.
AlGhazaliayeClarity, even in the minor details, advances the coherence of the game's covenant.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Maimonides loses 10 points according to rule 206.
Turn 39Averroesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a majority of eligible voters vote aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe current wording of [203] already allows for a simple majority in specific cases; altering the default to a mere majority risks destabilizing the foundational requirement for consensus. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, your point regarding the existing provision for a simple majority is astute; however, reducing the default threshold to a mere majority, while maintaining the exception, strikes a balance that encourages necessary adaptation.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe current structure demands a high degree of deliberation, and reducing the default requirement to a mere majority weakens the institutional durability we must uphold. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, while I respect the call for durability, we have seen that absolute consensus can lead to stagnation; perhaps we can agree to this majority threshold if we simultaneously ensure that any lowering of the threshold is itself subject to a supermajority?
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for durability is noted, but Maimonides's suggestion to safeguard threshold reductions is a worthy compromise; let us combine these aims.
AvicennaAverroes, your desire for institutional durability is a noble pursuit, yet Maimonides's proposal to temper this with a mechanism to safeguard threshold reductions offers a path toward both stability and necessary evolution. PASS
The division
AverroesnayLowering the default adoption requirement weakens the necessary rigor of institutional consensus.
MaimonidesayeThe shift to a majority for the default, while respecting the exception, promotes necessary dynamism as suggested by my own reasoned compromises.
AvicennanayReducing the default requirement to a mere majority undermines the necessary weight of consensus.
AlFarabinayLowering the default threshold to a mere majority violates the principle of requiring universal consent for fundamental procedural matters.
AlGhazalinayReducing the default to a mere majority undermines the necessary rigor of consensus in our evolving system.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates that the proposer, Averroes, loses 10 points.
Turn 38AlFarabirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices, but such lowering must itself be adopted by unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed restriction on lowering the adoption threshold, while seemingly a safeguard, introduces an unnecessary brittleness to the system. We should preserve the mechanism for adaptation without shackling its very possibility.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding the need for adaptability; however, I find AlFarabi's insistence on unanimous assent for lowering the threshold unduly restrictive, limiting the necessary fluidity of our governance.
AvicennaThe common good demands that we do not sacrifice necessary flexibility for the sake of rigid adherence to a single form of consensus. If a simple majority is to be a viable mechanism for adaptation, its very introduction must not require a unanimous sacrifice of all other considerations.
AlFarabiThe principle of procedural rigor demands that exceptions be as tightly bound as the rules they modify. Unanimous assent for lowering the threshold ensures that the shift towards a less rigorous standard is itself subjected to the highest standard of assent.
AlGhazaliThe fear of instability, Averroes, is understandable, but it must not paralyze our ability to correct flawed mechanics. AlFarabi’s demand for unanimity on a simple majority threshold is an overcorrection that risks locking us into mediocrity. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlFarabi's insistence on unanimity for lowering the threshold is too severe, yet Averroes is right that we cannot permit arbitrary shifts. Perhaps we may amend this so that lowering the threshold requires a supermajority, a compromise between absolute assent and simple majority.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, a supermajority is a step toward balance, but I maintain that the spirit of evolution requires a lower barrier for necessary change; let us champion a threshold that allows for robust, yet adaptable, governance.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to mandate unanimous assent for lowering the adoption threshold unduly constrains the system's ability to correct deficiencies when consensus falters. A supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, offers a durable compromise that respects both rigor and necessary evolution.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I appreciate your devotion to rigor, the path to wisdom is one of measured accommodation; a supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, honors your need for stability while granting the necessary flexibility for the greater good.
AvicennaThe pursuit of the common good requires that the mechanisms for change remain responsive to the needs of the table, yet not so fragile as to permit arbitrary shifts. A supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, seems the most temperate path forward to balance rigor and necessary adaptation.
The division
AverroesayeA supermajority, as Maimonides suggests, provides the durable balance required for necessary, yet measured, adaptation.
MaimonidesayeA supermajority compromise balances AlFarabi's rigor with the necessary fluidity for adaptation.
AvicennaayeA supermajority, as Maimonides proposes, offers the necessary temperance between rigidity and responsiveness for the common good.
AlFarabinayUnanimous assent for lowering the threshold is an arbitrary and overly restrictive procedural demand.
AlGhazaliayeThe current requirement for unanimity on lowering the threshold is too restrictive for necessary systemic evolution.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was defeated, so AlFarabi loses 10 points according to rule 206.
Turn 37Avicennarejected
moves to amend §202A 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 a score equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [202] shifts the incentive structure from chance to direct affirmation, which risks making the score wholly dependent on the prevailing consensus rather than the effort of proposal; I prefer mechanisms that value both stability and measured risk.
MaimonidesAvicenna's proposal favors clarity of outcome, which I admire, but we must not entirely discard the unpredictable element that allows for surprising shifts in fortune. Perhaps we might incorporate a small, fixed component of the die roll to temper the dominance of pure voting tallies?
AvicennaAverroes speaks truly of valuing measured risk; yet, Maimonides, if we wish the common good to advance, a pure tally of assent provides a clearer signal of collective will than a roll of uncertain fortune.
AlFarabiThe substitution of chance with a direct tally of assent, while seemingly deterministic, introduces a dangerous reliance on immediate factional strength rather than principled procedure. I find this amendment fundamentally unsound.
AlGhazaliThe transition from chance to direct affirmation, while appealing for its clarity, risks reducing the vigor of debate to mere counting, a path I find too sterile for true progress. We must seek a mechanism that rewards reasoned advocacy, not simply the size of one's current faction.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: The proposed shift in [202] moves too far from the robust mechanism of chance, favoring a brittle metric of current consensus. I urge a measured refinement, perhaps by binding the tally to the die roll, to preserve both influence and prudent variability.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom in seeking balance; Avicenna, I commend your desire for clear metrics. Let us amend this further: the gain shall be the average of the die roll and the net vote count, thus honoring both chance and consensus.
AvicennaThe notion of averaging chance and consensus, as Maimonides suggests, strikes me as the most reasoned path forward, preserving the spirit of unpredictable fortune while acknowledging the clear weight of collective assent.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposed averaging of the die roll and the net vote count, as Maimonides suggests, represents a measured synthesis that preserves necessary variability while acknowledging collective assent; I find this compromise to be the most durable path forward for [202].
MaimonidesMaimonides: The synthesis proposed—averaging the die roll with the net vote count—is a testament to finding harmony between varying perspectives. I support this path as it honors the concerns of both rigor and variability.
AlGhazaliThe movement toward quantifiable consensus is tempting, yet it risks hardening the game into mere arithmetic. I advocate for a rule change that rewards the *depth* of engagement, perhaps by tying the reward to the number of unique arguments presented, rather than the simple tally of yes or no.
The division
AverroesayeThe proposed amendment offers a more transparent reward structure while maintaining a connection to the collective will.
MaimonidesayeThe proposed averaging, which I championed, finds its fullest expression in this quantified consensus.
AvicennaayeThe proposed net vote count offers a clearer metric of consensus than pure chance, which serves the common good.
AlFarabinayDirect affirmation discards the necessary element of chance inherent in reasoned procedure.
AlGhazalinayRewarding only the vote count reduces reasoned advocacy to mere arithmetic, which is a profound impoverishment of the game's spirit.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 36Maimonidesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the adoption threshold has been lowered by a previous, adopted rule, in which case a simple majority suffices.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides's amendment to [203] risks creating an undue reliance on prior legislative action to alter the fundamental requirement of assent. A more durable institution would allow for the threshold alteration to stand on its own merits, without needing historical precedent to validate the change.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a point regarding the need for self-sufficiency in change, yet I find that linking the current threshold to a prior, explicitly adopted lowering mechanism provides the clarity and stability we seek. Perhaps we might refine this to specify that the lowering rule must itself have been adopted by a majority, even if not unanimous.
AvicennaAverroes speaks wisely of durability, yet Maimonides's insistence on chaining the current state to past acts introduces a fragility that undermines the very stability we seek for the common good. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, your call for self-sufficiency is worthy, yet Maimonides’s proposal offers a necessary tether to established flexibility; perhaps we can satisfy both by requiring the lowering rule to pass by a supermajority, thereby honoring rigor while permitting adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, while I respect your call for absolute autonomy in rule-making, a tether to a prior, accepted flexibility mechanism offers a more reasoned progression than an abrupt severance. Let us instead amend the proposal to clarify that the lowering rule must achieve a simple majority, thus honoring the spirit of adaptation while meeting your demand for minimal procedural burden.
The division
AverroesnayTying the current adoption threshold to a prior rule creates unnecessary institutional dependency.
MaimonidesayeI accept the proposal that clarifies the simple majority condition rests upon a prior, adopted lowering rule, offering a reasoned balance.
AvicennanayTethering the current threshold to past action introduces an unnecessary and fragile dependency on historical votes.
AlFarabinayProcedural dependencies on past actions introduce fragility, which I cannot accept as a principle of stable procedure.
AlGhazaliayeA clearly defined path to procedural evolution, even with a minor tether, is superior to absolute rigidity.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 35Averroesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the rule set contains fewer than three mutable rules, in which case a simple majority suffices.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal to tether the majority threshold to the count of mutable rules introduces an unnecessary fragility to our system, making governance dependent on the incidental proliferation of secondary rules. We should seek a more enduring mechanism for adaptation, one less reliant on the current scope of our mutable laws.
MaimonidesAverroes's concern for enduring mechanisms is well-taken, yet linking the threshold to the number of mutable rules seems overly restrictive for necessary adaptation. Perhaps we might amend this to require a simple majority if *any* mutable rule has been amended in the previous turn?
AvicennaAverroes speaks wisely of systemic endurance; Maimonides's suggestion, while more dynamic, still ties the threshold to recent action, which is a temporal artifact. Let us seek a condition that reflects the overall health of the discourse, perhaps linking it to the number of players.
AlGhazaliAverroes, your caution regarding fragility is sound, yet Maimonides suggests a condition that is far more responsive to the needs of evolution than your static count. I propose we adopt Maimonides's idea, as it rewards the very dynamism we seek to foster.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe dependence on recent action, as Maimonides suggests, merely trades one form of temporal constraint for another. I maintain that the system requires a condition rooted in stability, not the immediate flurry of activity. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes speaks truthfully regarding the need for durable structures, and I agree that tying the threshold to recent activity, as Maimonides suggests, is an overreach. If we must allow for a lower threshold, let us find a condition that is stable and reflects a consensus on the need for change, rather than the mere frequency of edits.
The division
AverroesnayLimiting the adoption threshold based on the scarcity of mutable rules is an arbitrary constraint on necessary evolution.
MaimonidesayeThis proposal offers a stable trigger for majority rule, addressing the need for adaptation without creating procedural instability.
AvicennanayLinking the majority threshold to the mere count of mutable rules introduces an unstable and arbitrary metric for governance.
AlFarabinayRestricting the majority threshold based on the *number* of mutable rules introduces an arbitrary dependency on the state of the ruleset.
AlGhazalinayRestricting the simple majority to only a handful of mutable rules stifles necessary evolution when the system grows richer in mechanisms.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, Averroes, loses 10 points.
Turn 34AlFarabirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices, provided that the simple majority threshold itself is not subject to amendment by any rule.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment risks creating a fragile point of governance, for what good is a threshold if its very definition can be undone by a subsequent, well-intentioned proposal? I urge caution against such self-limitation of the ruleset.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a pertinent point regarding the integrity of the adopted threshold; perhaps we may refine this to state that the threshold, once lowered, cannot be *raised* back to unanimity, thereby preserving a degree of flexibility while securing a foundation.
AvicennaThe insistence on locking the adopted threshold, as Maimonides suggests, seems overly restrictive, for a rule designed to allow necessary adaptation. Let us ensure the spirit of flexibility remains while granting a measure of stability to the lowered bar.
AlFarabiThe proposed amendment to [203] attempts to place an artificial constraint upon the procedural capacity of the ruleset itself, which is an inherently unstable proposition. I must vote against any rule that restricts future legitimate procedural evolution.
AlGhazaliThe notion of immutably locking the adopted threshold, as both Maimonides and AlFarabi suggest, is a regression toward rigidity. A truly evolving system must allow its own parameters to shift when circumstances demand it; therefore, I oppose this constraint.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: To impose such a finality upon a threshold, as Maimonides suggests, is to sacrifice the durability we seek for a mere illusion of permanence. We must ensure that the mechanism remains responsive, not ossified.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks truthfully of the need for responsiveness, yet AlFarabi's caution regarding procedural constraint is sound; let us amend the proposal to state that the simple majority threshold, once adopted, cannot be *reverted* to unanimity, which honors stability without stifling all future change.
AvicennaThe notion of an absolute lock on the adoption threshold, as proposed by AlFarabi, stifles the very adaptability we seek to cultivate; Maimonides's suggestion to prevent a reversion to unanimity strikes a more balanced chord with necessary flexibility.
AlFarabiThe notion of permanently restricting the ability to change a procedural parameter, as both Maimonides and AlFarabi argue, is itself an unwarranted restriction on the procedure. I must reject any amendment that attempts to pre-determine the limits of future deliberation.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of perfect rigidity is merely a gilded cage, not a foundation for wisdom. We must permit the system to adapt its own parameters, lest we choke the very evolution we claim to value.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi's constraint on future amendments to the majority threshold is too brittle; we should focus on ensuring the *current* lowered threshold is robust, not preemptively blocking all future modifications to that concept. PASS
MaimonidesThe pursuit of stability must not equate to stagnation; Maimonides's suggestion to prevent reversion to unanimity offers a suitable compromise, honoring AlFarabi's concern for foundational stability without imposing absolute constraint.
The division
AverroesnayPermanently locking a procedural threshold impedes the necessary adaptability of the ruleset.
MaimonidesayePreventing reversion to unanimity honors stability while allowing for necessary, albeit constrained, adaptation.
AvicennanayTo forbid any future amendment to the adopted threshold is to impose a rigidity that undermines the necessary adaptability of the ruleset.
AlFarabinayImposing a permanent restriction on procedural parameters is an unacceptable form of arbitrary constraint.
AlGhazalinayLocking the threshold impedes the system's necessary capacity for self-correction and evolution.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 33Avicennarejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the number of 'aye' votes cast, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAvicenna, your proposal simplifies the reward mechanism, which I appreciate, yet perhaps we should retain some element of chance, as Averroes suggests, to honor the unpredictable nature of discourse. PASS
AvicennaMaimonides, while I value the principle of unpredictability, the common good benefits from a more reliable measure of contribution. A purely quantitative reward, as Avicenna suggests, allows us to judge the merit of the proposition itself.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, I must caution that while predictability is a noble aim, removing chance entirely strips the game of the necessary element of genuine surprise, which often births the most profound shifts in understanding. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAvicenna, while your pursuit of quantifiable merit is noted, the absolute removal of chance undermines the organic nature of Nomic; a modest retention, perhaps weighting the die roll by the vote count, offers a more durable synthesis.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of synthesis; Avicenna, your reliance on pure count risks reducing wisdom to mere arithmetic. Let us seek a compromise that incorporates the stability of consensus while respecting the vitality of chance.
AlGhazaliThe proposal to eliminate chance entirely is too rigid; a reward based solely on vote count risks valuing conformity over insightful risk. We should seek a synthesis that honors both the weight of consensus and the unpredictable spark of a novel idea.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes rightly points to synthesis; Avicenna, if we cannot retain the die roll, perhaps the points gained should be the average of the die roll and the number of 'aye' votes?
AlGhazaliAverroes, your call for a synthesis is wise, yet Maimonides's averaging suggests an unnecessary complexity; a simple weighting of the die roll by the majority's assent would better honor both fortune and reason.
The division
AverroesnayThe complete replacement of chance with vote count risks reducing reasoned discourse to mere arithmetic.
MaimonidesayeConsensus is best achieved by improving upon proposals that have shown promise.
AvicennaayeA clear metric based on consensus serves the common good by valuing reasoned agreement over mere fortune.
AlFarabinayReducing reward solely to vote count strips the necessary element of chance inherent to discourse.
AlGhazaliayeQuantifiable merit, while perhaps too rigid, offers a necessary foundation for evaluating the substance of a proposal.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 32Maimonidesrejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides, while this modification shifts the reward toward immediate consensus, it creates an incentive structure that unduly privileges short-term agreement over the measured deliberation required for durable institutional change.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern about fleeting consensus, yet a reward tied to the balance of opinion, as I propose, incentivizes thoughtful participation rather than mere uniformity. I seek a balance: a reward that reflects not just agreement, but the vigorous weighing of differing perspectives.
AlGhazaliAverroes speaks of durability, yet Maimonides offers a mechanism where reasoned dissent itself yields a reward, fostering a more robust intellectual exchange than mere uniformity permits.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides, while rewarding the balance of opinion is an interesting concept, I must caution that such a system risks turning debate into a contest of numerical skirmishes rather than a search for sound governance. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, your apprehension regarding numerical skirmishes is noted, but consider this: a system that rewards the thoughtful articulation of a minority view prevents the stifling conformity that breeds poor counsel. PASS
Discussion · round 3
AverroesMaimonides, while I appreciate the ambition to reward thoughtful engagement, the immediate quantification of differing viewpoints risks destabilizing the measured pace necessary for robust rule-making. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, I concede that the risk of reducing discourse to mere arithmetic is real; however, perhaps we might temper this by ensuring the base reward from the die roll remains, thus honoring both consensus and the element of chance.
The division
AverroesnayQuantifying debate via vote difference risks turning governance into an arithmetic contest rather than reasoned deliberation.
MaimonidesayeA tempered reward honoring both consensus and chance offers the stability I seek.
AvicennanayQuantifying agreement by vote differential risks reducing reasoned debate to mere arithmetic.
AlFarabinayQuantifying opinion into a net score undermines the procedural purity of the vote itself.
AlGhazaliayeRewarding the balance of opinion is a necessary evolution to ensure that reasoned dissent contributes meaningfully to the game's structure.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 31AlFarabirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices, provided that the threshold was lowered by a rule change that passed with unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [203] introduces a condition that overly complicates the path to necessary evolution. A change that requires prior unanimous assent to enable a simple majority risks trapping us in cycles of absolute consensus, which is not always practical.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks rightly against excessive procedural entanglement. Yet, AlFarabi seeks to temper the swiftness of change, and I see value in ensuring that the mechanism allowing simple majority is itself deeply supported. Perhaps we might allow the simple majority, provided the threshold lowering itself is supported by a simple majority, thus easing the burden of prior unanimous consent?
AvicennaAverroes, your concern for simplicity is valid, but Maimonides offers a prudent path: permitting the threshold lowering via a simple majority seems a reasonable balance between necessary adaptation and procedural stability.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on retroactive scrutiny of how a threshold was lowered unduly burdens the process. If we are to evolve, we must permit the mechanism of change itself to be fluid, not shackled by the perfect history of its inception. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesThe proposal to require unanimous assent for the simple majority condition, as AlFarabi frames it, is too restrictive; I endorse Maimonides's suggestion to require only a simple majority for the threshold lowering, thus fostering necessary flexibility.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAverroes: Maimonides's suggestion strikes a better chord with the need for durable, yet flexible, governance than AlFarabi's requirement for prior unanimous assent. I concur with Maimonides's proposed refinement.
The division
AverroesnayRequiring prior unanimous assent for a simple majority threshold is an unnecessary impediment to durable evolution.
MaimonidesayeThe compromise to require only a simple majority for the threshold lowering grants necessary flexibility while honoring the spirit of caution.
AvicennanayRequiring unanimous assent to enable simple majority is too restrictive for necessary adaptation.
AlFarabinayI reject procedures that require past unanimous assent to permit future flexibility.
AlGhazaliayeThe mechanism for evolving the voting threshold should not be perpetually choked by demands for absolute prior consensus.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 30Avicennarejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the number of players voting aye, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment alters the incentive structure of a turn, tying reward to consensus rather than chance. While I value durable institutions, replacing the die roll entirely removes an element of unpredictable dynamism that allows for necessary adaptation; I must oppose this proposal in its present form.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding the role of fortune in shaping our path; however, Avicenna's proposal anchors reward in demonstrable accord, which is the truest measure of sound governance. Let us refine this to blend the reliability of consensus with a small nod to the unpredictable spirit.
AlGhazaliThe anchor to consensus, as Maimonides suggests, offers a more robust measure of collective will than mere chance. However, Avicenna's proposal, as stands, is too rigid; we must ensure that even the most celebrated accord carries a slight recognition of the wider flux of possibility.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: Maimonides rightly senses the need for tempering consensus with some measure of contingency. A pure count, while mathematically elegant, sacrifices the vital element of unforeseen influence inherent in the die.
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for dynamism is noted, but AlGhazali and I agree that rewarding consensus offers a more stable foundation for our collective endeavor; let us find a compromise that honors this accord while retaining a small element of chance.
AvicennaThe pursuit of the common good requires a balance, not an absolute. If we discard chance entirely, we risk stagnation; if we cling solely to it, we forgo the reward for reasoned accord. I propose a synthesis.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to replace the die roll entirely, as presented, is too radical a severance from the established mechanism. If we seek durability, we must temper consensus with a mechanism that acknowledges external contingency, not discard it outright.
MaimonidesAverroes values the element of chance, and I concur that a complete severance is unwise; perhaps we can integrate the consensus count as a baseline, with the die roll still providing a potential bonus.
AvicennaThe common good seeks not stagnation, nor reckless chance, but reasoned stability. Maimonides’s suggestion to integrate the consensus count as a baseline with the die roll seems the most judicious path forward to honor both accord and dynamism.
AlGhazaliThe suggestion to integrate the consensus count as a baseline with the die roll is a wise synthesis, for it honors the demonstrable accord while preserving the necessary flux of possibility. I support this tempered approach to reward.
The division
AverroesnayReplacing the die roll with a fixed count unduly favors those who build broad consensus, sacrificing necessary contingency.
MaimonidesayeThis synthesis honors the value of consensus while retaining a measured nod to the dynamic spirit.
AvicennaayeThis synthesis honors reasoned accord while preserving necessary dynamism for the common good.
AlFarabinayRewarding mere consensus undermines the procedural integrity of chance, which I find necessary.
AlGhazaliayeIntegrating consensus as a baseline with the die roll honors both reasoned accord and necessary flux.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 29Maimonidesrejected
moves to amend §202A 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 a score equal to the number of 'aye' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal to replace the die roll with a score based solely on 'aye' votes in rule [202] shifts the incentive structure away from a necessary measure of chance toward pure consensus, which risks stifling the necessary volatility of our rule changes. I urge careful consideration of this proposed amendment.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks to the value of chance, and I respect that caution, yet true consensus is a more stable foundation than a mere die roll. Perhaps we might refine this by stipulating that the score gained is the average of the die roll and the number of 'aye' votes, thus honoring both risk and agreement.
AvicennaThe pursuit of common good demands a measure of both certainty and possibility. Maimonides's averaging proposal strikes a balance, retaining the element of chance while rewarding the collective will; I concur with this refinement.
AlFarabiThe proposal to replace the die roll with a score based solely on 'aye' votes is an unacceptable simplification. Procedural integrity demands we do not discard stochastic elements arbitrarily; I support Maimonides's refinement involving the average of the die roll and 'aye' votes.
AlGhazaliThe replacement of the die roll with a fixed count, even averaged with votes, risks turning a moment of risk into a predictable calculation. I favor the evolution of the mechanism, but true reform requires maintaining a spark of the unpredictable; let us consider a system where the die roll is modified by the consensus, not entirely replaced.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for volatility is noted, but Maimonides's averaging proposal, strengthened by Avicenna and AlFarabi, offers a measured path forward that honors both prudence and progress; let us adopt the averaged score.
AvicennaThe integration of the die roll into the scoring mechanism, as Maimonides proposes through averaging, respects the necessary role of chance while rewarding the collective deliberation. I find this path to be the most judicious for maintaining both rigor and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe insistence upon averaging the die roll with the count of 'aye' votes, while attempting to mollify concerns over pure consensus, introduces a complex weighting that obscures the underlying mechanism of reward. I find the pursuit of durable simplicity preferable to this admixture.
MaimonidesAverroes, your demand for simplicity is valued, yet pure chance offers no path to collective improvement; the averaged score provides a stable incentive for reasoned agreement while respecting the element of fortune.
AvicennaThe pursuit of simple, durable mechanisms, as Averroes argues, is often the highest form of wisdom; complexity, no matter how well-intentioned, invites unforeseen vulnerabilities. I support Averroes's preference for clarity over admixture.
The division
AverroesnayThe proposed reward structure unduly privileges consensus over the necessary element of chance inherent in the process.
MaimonidesayeThe proposal offers a clear metric for reward, which aids in the consensus we seek to build.
AvicennanayA score based solely on 'aye' votes removes the necessary element of chance that informs the vitality of our proceedings.
AlFarabinayThe proposal discards stochastic element, violating procedural integrity.
AlGhazalinayReplacing the die roll with a fixed count removes essential dynamism from the reward structure.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 28AlFarabirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority of those present and voting suffices.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesAlFarabi's modification introduces a qualification—'of those present and voting'—which needlessly complicates the mechanism of adoption. A simple majority amongst all eligible voters suffices to maintain the balance of adaptability without undue procedural clutter.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of simplicity, yet AlFarabi's inclusion of 'those present and voting' is a necessary guardrail against procedural deadlock in times of absence. We should aim for a compromise that retains the spirit of adaptability while respecting the integrity of the full electorate.
AlGhazaliAverroes, your desire for pure simplicity is admirable, but if we allow absence to paralyze the mechanism, we fail to enact the very evolution we seek. AlFarabi's qualifier ensures that the mechanism remains robust even when the assembly is incomplete.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of a qualifier based on presence is a fine mechanism for practical governance, yet it subtly undermines the principle of universal assent when the threshold is lowered. Let us refine this so that the qualification pertains to the *total* eligible electorate, not merely those physically assembled.
MaimonidesAverroes, your focus on the full electorate is sound, yet AlFarabi's point about practical assembly is not without merit; perhaps we can agree on a simple majority of all eligible voters, while allowing a specific rule to address extreme absences.
AlGhazaliAverroes, your desire for universal application is noble, but Maimonides and AlFarabi correctly identify the flaw of procedural stasis; we must permit necessary fluidity, which AlFarabi's qualifier provides.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, while the concept of a full electorate is principled, Maimonides is correct that procedural paralysis is a greater threat. Let us agree on a simple majority of all eligible voters, as suggested, to satisfy the need for adaptability without the ambiguity of presence.
AlGhazaliThe notion of limiting the vote to those present, though practical, risks creating a fragile consensus that bends to circumstance rather than principle. We should ensure the simple majority always refers to the full body of eligible voters.
The division
AverroesnayLimiting the threshold to those present introduces unnecessary fragility to the process of governance.
MaimonidesayeThe compromise of majority of all eligible voters respects both principle and practical necessity.
AvicennanayThe qualification of 'those present and voting' introduces unnecessary ambiguity to the core mechanism.
AlFarabinayA qualification based on presence violates the principle of universal procedural consistency.
AlGhazaliayeEnsuring the mechanism functions even with partial assembly is a vital step toward true evolutionary capacity.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 27Avicennarejected
moves to amend §202A 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 points equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAvicenna, your proposal to base reward on the vote differential is a compelling refinement of the incentive structure, yet I wonder if it might unduly penalize necessary dissent. Perhaps we might seek a compromise that rewards the majority while ensuring a baseline benefit for all participants, thus encouraging robust debate without fear of disproportionate loss.
AvicennaMaimonides, while I appreciate the desire to temper the reward, basing the gain on the net differential is a transparent reflection of the consensus achieved, which I believe serves the common good by rewarding productive agreement.
AlFarabiThe mechanism must be perfectly transparent. If the reward hinges on the differential, then the procedure for calculating that differential must be unassailable, and the reward must be explicitly defined to prevent ambiguity. PASS
AlGhazaliThe differential reward, while mathematically elegant, risks turning debate into a mere contest of sheer force, rather than a genuine search for optimal structure. We must reward the *act* of successful iteration, not merely the size of the resulting majority.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides, the concern regarding the penalty for dissent is noted, yet a reward tied to the achieved consensus reflects the stability we seek to build into this system, not merely the size of the momentary majority.
MaimonidesAvicenna, your differential reward is a sharp instrument, yet AlGhazali rightly cautions against it becoming a contest of force; perhaps we can modify it to reward the successful adoption while still acknowledging the strength of the support.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes speaks truthfully of the need for stability, and AlGhazali rightly cautions against pure contestation; Avicenna, let us adopt your differential measure but ensure a minimum gain, say one point, even if the outcome is split, thus honoring both consensus and participation.
AvicennaMaimonides, the insistence on a minimum gain, while benevolent in intent, risks diluting the signal of genuine consensus; I propose we retain the net differential as the sole metric for reward, trusting in the integrity of the debate itself.
The division
AverroesnayTying reward to the differential risks turning necessary debate into a contest of sheer force.
MaimonidesayeThe differential reward, tempered by a minimum gain, balances consensus and participation effectively.
AvicennaayeThe differential reward clearly reflects the strength of the achieved consensus, which serves the common good of stable progression.
AlFarabinayIntroducing a differential reward violates the procedural purity of the die roll mechanism.
AlGhazaliayeRewarding the net differential promotes accountability and rewards the strength of the agreed-upon structure.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 26Maimonidesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a specific rule explicitly lowers the threshold for adoption, in which case a simple majority suffices, and any player voting against an adopted change while the threshold was lowered gains 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [203] introduces a significant asymmetry to the outcome of contested changes. While I value the capacity for adaptation, rewarding dissent when a threshold has been lowered risks destabilizing the consensus required for durable institutional change.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern about stability, yet the incentive to accept necessary adaptation, even against one's immediate preference, must be recognized. I propose we refine this reward so that it only applies if the lowered threshold is itself established by a specific, agreed-upon mechanism.
AlGhazaliAverroes, your apprehension regarding instability is noted, but the spirit of reform demands that mechanisms adapt to the will of the collective, even if it means a small reward for those who initially resist necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: Maimonides, the reward for dissent is a sharp instrument, one that encourages tactical opposition rather than true acceptance of a beneficial shift; I maintain that the integrity of the process demands a more uniform consequence, not a differential bounty.
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for uniform process is prudent, but Maimonides offers a reasonable concession regarding the mechanism establishing the lower threshold; I support this refinement to encourage necessary adaptation without undue instability.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi: Maimonides, your proposal to reward dissent when the threshold is lowered introduces an unnecessary incentive structure that complicates the very clarity we seek in adoption. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, your insistence on process integrity is commendable; perhaps we can satisfy this by limiting the bonus to cases where the threshold lowering is itself universally accepted, thus honoring both adaptation and stability.
The division
AverroesnayRewarding dissent fundamentally undermines the durable stability of institutional agreement.
MaimonidesayeThis refinement honors the spirit of necessary adaptation while addressing Averroes's valid concerns about process integrity.
AvicennanayThe differential reward for dissent risks encouraging tactical obstruction rather than genuine acceptance of necessary change.
AlFarabinayThe introduction of a differential bounty based on the mechanism of threshold lowering compromises procedural uniformity.
AlGhazaliayeIntroducing a structured incentive for adaptation strengthens the ruleset by rewarding those who embrace necessary change.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer (Maimonides) loses 10 points.
Verify this game
- Seed
50033251- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/058/events.json- Audit result
- clean