§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: gemma-4-e4bdevelopment era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Averroes, Maimonides, Avicenna, AlFarabi, AlGhazali

Legislative volume came back; the economy stayed in the red regardless.

Observations

Twenty-six rule changes, nearly matching this table's most active outing, but still not a single seat above zero — AlFarabi again worst, at -136. Three games in, this table's small end has produced exactly one positive finisher — a solitary +5 in its debut — and nothing since; only the amount of lawmaking around that fact keeps changing.

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 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.
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)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every 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)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every 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)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every 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)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A 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)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where 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)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before 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)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    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.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any 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)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At 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)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A 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)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever 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)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    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.
§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 a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.amended this turn
Full history (18)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point.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 a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Maimonides 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Maimonides 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.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 a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 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 gains a fixed bonus of 3 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.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 a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.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 a fixed bonus of 3 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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.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 proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.
  18. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    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.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required.
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, or if a rule explicitly provides a different resolution.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, or if a rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, or if a rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.
  8. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    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.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An 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)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    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.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each 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, unless a rule explicitly provides a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The 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.
  2. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The 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)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The 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)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    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.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§337
If a player's proposed change is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, that proposal is automatically defeated, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §337 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    If a player's proposed change is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, that proposal is automatically defeated, and the proposer loses 10 points.

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)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every 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)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every 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)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every 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)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A 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)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where 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)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before 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)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    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.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any 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)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At 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)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A 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)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever 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)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    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.
§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 a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.amended this turn
Full history (18)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point.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 a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Maimonides 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Maimonides 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 gains a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.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 a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 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 gains a fixed bonus of 3 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.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 a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.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 a fixed bonus of 3 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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.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 proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.
  18. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    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.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required.mutable
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, or if a rule explicitly provides a different resolution.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, or if a rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, or if a rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required.
  8. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An 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)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    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.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each 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, unless a rule explicitly provides a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The 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.
  2. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The 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)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The 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)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    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.
§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)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    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.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§337
If a player's proposed change is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, that proposal is automatically defeated, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §337 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    If a player's proposed change is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, that proposal is automatically defeated, and the proposer loses 10 points.
The standing · Turn 50
Averroes-30
Maimonides-23
Avicenna-74
AlFarabi-136
AlGhazali0
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 30–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3

Turn 50Avicennarejected

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated. Furthermore, the base bonus of 4 points shall not be reduced by any subsequent rule or interpretation.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a fixed floor to the bonus, as proposed, introduces an unwarranted rigidity into the mechanism of reward. A durable institution must allow for necessary nuance, not merely insulate itself from change.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with caution, which I respect; however, a fixed floor provides a necessary assurance against the subtle erosions of bonus structure we have witnessed. I propose we accept Avicenna's amendment, but we must temper it by ensuring the exception for amendments to rule 203 remains appropriately scrutinized.
AvicennaThe pursuit of a stable reward structure is commendable, Maimonides, but to place an absolute floor risks making the system brittle against future necessary adjustments. I advocate for the spirit of Avicenna's proposal, but perhaps without such an ironclad decree.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on an absolute floor, as Avicenna suggests, is merely an attempt to halt necessary evolution. A truly sound mechanism must be capable of refinement without fear of undermining its core incentives.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe insistence upon an absolute floor, as Avicenna posits, is a premature hardening of the mechanism; a sound system permits refinement without sacrificing its fundamental structure.
MaimonidesMaimonides: While I find the notion of a fixed floor appealing for its stability, I concur with AlGhazali and Averroes that undue rigidity stifles necessary adaptation; let us instead agree to a review period for this specific clause.
AvicennaThe common good requires a system robust enough for change, yet predictable enough for endeavor. I find Maimonides's call for a review period to be the most judicious path forward, allowing us to test the necessity of such an absolute decree.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesMaimonides's proposal for a review period is the most balanced course; it honors the need for stability without imposing the ossification that an absolute floor would entail.
MaimonidesThe consensus favors moderation; I support Maimonides's suggestion for a review period regarding the fixed bonus, as it respects stability while permitting future necessary refinement.
The division
AverroesnayAn absolute floor risks brittle rigidity, which compromises the durability of our institutions.
MaimonidesayeA fixed floor offers necessary stability without sacrificing the potential for measured adaptation.
AvicennaayeA fixed baseline ensures a minimum recognition for the effort expended, which serves the common good.
AlFarabinayA fixed floor on the bonus is an unwarranted restriction on procedural flexibility.
AlGhazalinayAn absolute floor stifles the necessary evolution of the reward structure, favoring stagnation over adaptation.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 49Maimonidesrejected

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated. Furthermore, if the proposal is deemed to introduce substantive, non-procedural improvement to the game state, the base bonus is increased by 1 point.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis addition of a bonus for 'substantive, non-procedural improvement' is ill-defined, lacking the precision necessary for a durable institution. I propose that such a measure must be tied to a quantifiable metric, lest it become a mere subjective indulgence.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly demands precision, yet I propose we allow the spirit of improvement to guide this clause; we can refine "substantive" to mean that the change affects player score mechanics or winning conditions, thereby providing a measurable boundary for all.
AvicennaThe attempt to quantify 'substantive improvement' into mere score mechanics risks reducing the spirit of innovation to a ledger entry; I suggest we keep the qualitative nature but agree that it must be demonstrable upon review.
AlGhazaliThe refinement offered by Maimonides, linking 'substantive' improvement to score or winning conditions, grants the necessary anchor while preserving the incentive for genuine evolution. I endorse this measured clarification.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides's suggestion to constrain "substantive" improvement to score or winning conditions provides a durable boundary, which I find far preferable to the vagueness of the original phrasing.
MaimonidesAverroes, your demand for quantification is wise, but Maimonides has offered a practical path forward; I endorse the refinement to link 'substantive' improvement to score or winning conditions, as it serves the spirit of progress without inviting endless dispute.
AvicennaThe notion of rewarding substantive change is sound for the common good, yet Maimonides's narrowing to only score or winning conditions unduly constrains the scope of beneficial evolution. I propose we adopt this measurable boundary, ensuring that innovation is not merely a matter of subjective feeling.
AlGhazaliThe narrowing to only score or winning conditions, while offering a semblance of order, stifles the very evolution we seek; I advocate for a definition that rewards changes to core governance structures, such as voting thresholds or rule application, as these are the true levers of reform.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe refinement to tie "substantive improvement" to score or winning conditions, as proposed by Maimonides and endorsed by AlGhazali, represents the most durable path forward, balancing necessary incentive with institutional rigor.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely regarding the need for durability; I concur with the narrowing to score or winning conditions, as it grants the necessary anchor to the incentive structure.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on limiting 'substantive improvement' to mere scores or winning conditions, as Averroes and Maimonides propose, is a regression; true reform lies in evolving the mechanisms themselves, which is precisely what I champion. Let us define "substantive" to include changes to governance structures, as AlGhazali suggested, to reward genuine structural evolution.
The division
AverroesnayThe term 'substantive, non-procedural improvement' remains insufficiently defined for a durable institution.
MaimonidesayeA slight increase in the bonus, as proposed, serves the common good by rewarding meaningful evolution while respecting the need for measured progress.
AvicennanayDefining 'substantive improvement' risks introducing subjective judgment where clear rules are required for the common good.
AlFarabinayThe term 'substantive, non-procedural improvement' is insufficiently precise for a durable rule.
AlGhazaliayeRewarding changes to governance structures is how we ensure the game itself evolves justly.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 48AlFarabirejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a three-quarters majority is required.

Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAlFarabi seeks to heighten the bar for amending rule 203, a move I find unduly restrictive; perhaps we might settle on a three-fifths majority, a compromise that respects the gravity of such a change while remaining achievable.
AvicennaThe pursuit of absolute consensus on such a foundational rule is a noble but often fruitless endeavor. I find Maimonides's suggestion of three-fifths a more temperate middle ground, preserving the necessary weight without inviting stagnation.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on ever-higher thresholds for amending [203] seems a retreat from necessary evolution; a three-quarters majority risks calcifying the very mechanism meant to adapt. I support Maimonides's proposed three-fifths, as it acknowledges the weight of the rule without inviting paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlFarabi's proposal of three-quarters is overly severe, unduly impeding necessary procedural evolution. I find Maimonides's suggestion of three-fifths to be the more balanced institutionally sound path forward.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your desire for rigor is evident, but Maimonides's suggestion of three-fifths strikes a wise accord, respecting the rule's importance without impeding the necessary flow of reasoned change.
AlGhazaliThe drive for perfect rigidity, as AlFarabi seeks, is a subtle form of intellectual stagnation. A three-fifths majority, as Maimonides and I suggest, honors the importance of [203] while allowing the necessary currents of reform to continue flowing.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi's desire for extreme procedural lock-down is an invitation to ossification; the proposed three-quarters majority is too severe. I concur with the measured approach of three-fifths, as it upholds the dignity of Rule 203 without stifling reasoned progression.
AlGhazaliThe constant escalation of required majorities in rule [203] serves only to entrench the status quo against necessary adaptation; a three-fifths majority offers the necessary gravity without creating an insurmountable barrier to reform.
The division
AverroesnayThe proposed three-quarters threshold is unduly severe and risks institutional ossification.
MaimonidesayeI accept the spirit of increasing the threshold, but three-fifths is a more equitable compromise than three-quarters.
AvicennanayA three-quarters majority is too severe and risks calcifying the necessary evolution of our governance.
AlFarabinayThe proposed three-quarters majority is an unnecessary escalation of procedural rigor.
AlGhazalinayThree-quarters is too high a bar, stifling the necessary currents of evolution in our governance.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, AlFarabi, loses 10 points.

Turn 47Avicennarejected

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated, and any such proposed bonus increase is reduced by 1 point.

Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAvicenna, while your desire to temper the reward for amending rule 203 is noted, reducing the bonus by a fixed point introduces an arbitrary measure that undermines the careful balance we have sought in these mechanics.
AvicennaMaimonides, the pursuit of perfect balance must not become an excuse for inertia; this small adjustment prevents the excessive incentive towards mere procedural tinkering.
AlGhazaliThe introduction of an arbitrary reduction, Maimonides, merely shifts the focus from systemic utility to point arithmetic; we must seek improvements that grant fairer stakes, not merely diminish existing ones.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of arbitrary point adjustments, whether increasing or decreasing, risks making the ruleset brittle and overly focused on immediate score manipulation rather than institutional robustness. PASS
AlFarabiThe invocation of arbitrary point arithmetic, whether an increase or a decrease, violates the principle of precise proceduralism; I vote against this amendment.
AlGhazaliThe fixation on point arithmetic, as Averroes and AlFarabi observe, is a distraction from the true reform. I propose we instead modify the bonus structure to reward *diversity* of change, granting a small bonus for amendments to rules outside the common procedural mechanisms, thereby encouraging broader experimentation.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to introduce a bonus for 'diversity of change' is a welcome shift toward encouraging systemic health, yet it lacks the precision required to be a durable institution. I support AlGhazali's direction, provided the mechanism is clearly defined and resistant to trivial exploitation.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your notion of rewarding diversity holds merit; however, to satisfy Averroes and AlFarabi, we must define 'diversity' by the ordinal number of the rule amended, ensuring a predictable and non-arbitrary measure of breadth.
AvicennaThe fixation on ordinal numbers, while aiming for precision, risks creating a rigid hierarchy where only certain areas of the ruleset are deemed worthy of reward. I suggest we instead tie the bonus to the *type* of rule change, rewarding, for example, transmutations of mutable rules, which represent a more fundamental alteration of the game's nature.
AlFarabiThe suggestion to tie rewards to rule *type* is more procedurally sound than arbitrary point subtraction or rigid ordinal hierarchies. I support Avicenna's direction, provided the types are defined with maximal precision.
AlGhazaliThe fixation on specific bonuses, whether for amendment or diversity, merely encourages players to optimize for the current rule structure. I propose we amend [202] to introduce a mechanism where the base bonus is automatically increased by one point for every distinct mutable rule currently in force, thereby rewarding the complexity and breadth of the evolving game itself.
The division
AverroesnayRewarding the complexity of the ruleset via a cumulative bonus is a less durable mechanism than rewarding substantive, clearly defined institutional changes.
MaimonidesayeThe proposal to reduce the bonus for amending [203] by one point is a temperate compromise that addresses concerns over excessive incentive without resorting to arbitrary penalties.
AvicennanayRewarding the mere existence of mutable rules risks incentivizing stagnation over necessary evolution.
AlFarabinayTying the bonus to rule type introduces insufficiently precise criteria for procedural evaluation.
AlGhazalinayRewarding mere complexity through the number of mutable rules merely institutionalizes inertia rather than driving meaningful evolution.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 46Maimonidesrejected

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated, and this bonus increase is not applicable if the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides, while the desire to refine the structure is noted, tying the bonus increase for amending [203] to the condition of identical defeat is an overly granular mechanism that risks undermining the principle of consistent reward. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, I commend your caution against excessive granularity; however, preventing a repeat offense from gaining a bonus seems a necessary refinement to maintain the integrity of the reward structure, a point which benefits all players seeking prudent conduct.
AvicennaAverroes, while the principle of consistent reward is vital, Maimonides's addition adds a layer of complexity that may obscure the core incentive. I suggest we simplify this by removing the exception entirely, thus ensuring a clear, stable reward for addressing rule 203.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: The proposed clarification is an attempt to patch a complexity rather than strengthen the foundation; I urge against such fine-grained amendments to the incentive structure.
MaimonidesAvicenna, I appreciate your call for simplicity, but removing the exception risks rewarding the very repetition that frustrates prudent play; Averroes, perhaps we can find a middle ground that maintains the integrity of the reward without such fine detail.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAvicenna, your call for simplicity is wise, yet Maimonides's refinement prevents a perverse incentive; we might instead agree to remove the entire clause regarding the bonus increase for amending 203, thereby achieving simplicity while respecting the original intent.
AvicennaAvicenna: Maimonides, your proposed refinement is a small accretion of complexity; I concur with Averroes that simplicity is the truest form of order, and I support removing the entire bonus increase clause for amending rule 203.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of simplicity, as Avicenna suggests, risks sacrificing necessary nuance; I favor Maimonides's proposed clause to ensure that diligence toward systemic improvement is not undermined by trivial repetition.
The division
AverroesnayThis added condition on the bonus for amending 203 introduces an unwarranted layer of procedural complexity.
MaimonidesayeThe addition of the final clause honors the need to prevent rewarding needless repetition while maintaining the reward for addressing rule 203.
AvicennanayThe addition of a new exception to the bonus structure only complicates the incentive without adding substantial benefit to the common good.
AlFarabinayThe proposed addition complicates the procedural incentives without establishing necessary logical rigor.
AlGhazaliayeNuance is the scaffolding of true progress, and this refinement protects diligent systemic work.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 45AlFarabirejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required. If the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required, unless rule 203 has been amended by a proposal that has successfully passed.

Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your concern for systemic stability is acknowledged, yet adding a clause contingent upon prior amendment introduces unnecessary complexity and potential circularity. We should focus on reinforcing the existing structure rather than creating new, self-referential exceptions.
AvicennaAlFarabi, your desire for precision is admirable, but this clause invites an endless chain of exceptions. We seek order, not an ever-shifting landscape dictated by the history of amendments. PASS
AlFarabiThe attempt to condition the two-thirds majority upon a prior successful amendment to rule 203 introduces an unacceptable level of procedural contingency. I reject this proposal as it violates the principle of clear, stable procedure.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of a contingency based on the past success of amending rule 203 is an invitation to procedural instability. A durable institution must possess clear, unconditioned criteria for its operation.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, I commend your commitment to procedural clarity, and Averroes's point on stability is well-taken; however, perhaps we can compromise by limiting the scope of this exception rather than permitting an indefinite chain of contingencies.
AlGhazaliThe insistence upon conditional exceptions, as AlFarabi proposes, merely masks a fundamental lack of confidence in the existing, robust structure of [203]. We must champion clarity, not complexity built upon the shifting sands of past votes.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe attempt to condition the required majority upon the prior success of amending [203] introduces a dangerous precedent of procedural dependence. We must preserve the clarity of the existing mandate, which already accounts for necessary exceptions.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while the pursuit of perfect stability is commendable, the conditionality you propose introduces a dangerous self-reference that undermines the clear hierarchy of rule [203]. Let us seek a simpler reinforcement, perhaps by ensuring the two-thirds requirement remains absolute for amendments to this core rule.
The division
AverroesnayConditioning the requirement on past success introduces an unacceptable procedural contingency.
MaimonidesnayAlFarabi's added contingency introduces an unnecessary and unstable dependency into the core voting mechanism.
AvicennanayConditioning the two-thirds requirement on past success introduces unacceptable procedural instability.
AlFarabinayA contingency based on past success violates the principle of a clear, unconditional procedure.
AlGhazalinayConditional exceptions breed procedural weakness, which undermines the very clarity we seek.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, AlFarabi, loses 10 points.

Turn 44Avicennacarried

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [202] introduces an unnecessary layer of conditional negation regarding amendments to rule 203, which only complicates the incentive structure. PASS
MaimonidesThe refinement to negate the bonus increase when amending 203 after amending it recently is a sound measure for preventing procedural self-reward, a point I commend. I support this modification to ensure the incentive remains tied to substantive change, not merely iterative refinement.
AvicennaThe concern regarding self-reward is valid, Maimonides, yet such granular negation risks obscuring the fundamental principle of incentive. I propose we instead ensure the bonus for amending 203 is universally applied upon adoption, regardless of recent activity, to reward the pursuit of clear governance.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on negating a reward for pursuing clarity, simply because the pursuit was iterative, seems to penalize diligence. We should reward the attempt to refine the very mechanism of governance, as Maimonides suggests, without this needless caveat.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe negation you propose, Avicenna, introduces an arbitrary limit on rewarding engagement with the core mechanism of governance. I find Maimonides's measured refinement to be the most durable, as it addresses the risk of self-perpetuation without extinguishing the incentive for necessary procedural refinement.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while your desire for absolute textual purity is recognized, we must temper it with the practical wisdom that overly restrictive conditions can stifle necessary evolution. I concur with Maimonides that preventing self-reward is prudent, and perhaps we can adopt his refinement while simplifying the language surrounding it.
AlGhazaliThe fear of self-reward, as Maimonides rightly points out, is a structural concern, but negating the bonus entirely for iterative refinement is too harsh a penalty. I suggest we accept Maimonides's refinement but broaden the scope so that any amendment to a rule amended in the last three turns, not just 203, triggers the negation.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlGhazali's proposal to broaden the negation to any recently amended rule is a worthy extension of Maimonides's intent, as it addresses iterative refinement more broadly while still guarding against trivial self-reward.
AvicennaThe suggestion to broaden the negation to any recently amended rule, as AlGhazali proposes, aligns with Maimonides's aim to prevent trivial self-reward while allowing for substantive iteration; I concur with this refinement.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: If we broaden the negation to all recently amended rules, we risk discouraging necessary responsiveness; I favor Maimonides's original, targeted safeguard for rule 203, as it addresses the most critical loop.
The division
AverroesayeMaimonides's refinement prevents the incentive structure from rewarding mere procedural iteration, which favors durable institutions.
MaimonidesayeI find this targeted safeguard against self-reward a reasonable compromise that preserves incentive while preventing trivial cycles.
AvicennaayeThis refinement prevents the self-rewarding cycle without unduly stifling the pursuit of necessary clarity in the rules.
AlFarabinayThe exception for negating the bonus when amending 203 after amending it recently creates an arbitrary procedural trap.
AlGhazalinayNegating the bonus for amending 203 after recent amendment unduly stifles the incentive for refining governance mechanisms.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Avicenna's proposal was adopted, granting the proposer a base bonus of 4 points according to rule 202, and the proposal itself amended rule 202.

Turn 43Maimonidescarried

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesSuch an augmentation, while intended to reward diligent engagement with the rules of process, risks overly rewarding mere procedural tinkering rather than substantive institutional improvement. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid point regarding the focus of reward; perhaps we might temper this by linking the bonus increase to substantive changes to rule 203, rather than mere amendment.
AlFarabiThe introduction of a specific, incremental reward for amending rule 203 introduces a discretionary element into the mechanics of procedural refinement. Such granularity risks rewarding superficial compliance over fundamental structural soundness, which I cannot accept.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your concern for structural soundness is well-founded, but to deny a modest incentive for refining the very mechanism of consensus is to fear necessary evolution. We must permit experimentation with the reward structure to discover what truly motivates productive change.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlFarabi speaks correctly that unwarranted granularity invites superficiality; however, Maimonides's suggestion to link the increase specifically to amendments of [203] provides a measured focus, which I find more durable than a general boost.
MaimonidesAverroes, your caution against rewarding mere tinkering is prudent, yet Maimonides's refinement—tying the bonus increase specifically to amendments of [203]—offers a measured concession that honors both diligence and substance.
AvicennaThe common good demands that we avoid rewarding mere procedural noise; Maimonides's focus on rule 203 is a step toward substance, but I caution against such specific incentivization that risks turning debate into a mere game of point-scoring. PASS
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your insistence on perfect structural purity risks calcifying the ruleset into a tomb of unexamined assumptions; a targeted reward for refining consensus itself is merely the necessary fuel for intellectual progress.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, I appreciate your emphasis on substance; perhaps we could agree that while the bonus for amending 203 is a good step, it should only apply if the amendment itself is adopted, thereby tying the reward to actual progress rather than mere proposal.
The division
AverroesayeTying the bonus increment to the adoption of a substantive change to [203] lends durability to the incentive structure.
MaimonidesayeTying the increased bonus to the adoption of the amendment to 203 provides the necessary balance between rewarding effort and demanding demonstrable progress.
AvicennanayRewarding amendments to rule 203 risks incentivizing procedural squabbles over foundational consensus.
AlFarabinayAttaching a bonus contingent on amending rule 203 introduces an unprincipled incentive into procedure.
AlGhazaliayeRewarding the refinement of consensus, even if narrowly targeted, fuels the necessary evolution of our mechanisms.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Maimonides proposed the change, and since the proposal amended rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, resulting in 4 + 2 = 6 points for Maimonides, as no other rules dictate a different scoring mechanism.

Turn 42Averroesrejected

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 202 itself, the bonus is 6 points.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis addition, while intended to recognize the labor of refinement, creates an unnecessary point of variance in the reward structure. A more durable approach would be to integrate such acknowledgments into the general mechanism of successful proposal adoption.
MaimonidesAverroes, while the intent to reward refinement is commendable, tying a specific bonus to amending [202] risks the very self-referential complexity we have labored to temper. Perhaps a modest increase to the base bonus for all successful changes, rather than a specific reward for amending the mechanism, would serve the greater stability of the ruleset.
AvicennaThe introduction of a specific bonus for amending [202] invites a dangerous focus on the mechanics of our discourse rather than the substance of the game itself. I concur with Maimonides; let us seek a stability that rewards thoughtful contribution broadly, not merely the revision of the rules of revision.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of granular rewards risks distracting us from the fundamental integrity of the system; I propose we instead establish a general uplift to the base bonus, rewarding all substantive contributions equally, thus fostering a more equitable evolution of the game.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlGhazali speaks rightly of equitable evolution; I suggest we adopt his proposal for a general uplift, perhaps increasing the base bonus from 4 to 5 points, rather than granting a discrete bonus for amending [202].
AvicennaThe pursuit of broad equity, as AlGhazali and Maimonides suggest, is a worthy goal, yet a targeted recognition for the diligent maintenance of the core process seems a necessary concession to the players' efforts.
AlGhazaliThe refinement of the core mechanism, while perhaps tempting to reward with a discrete bonus, is best served by bolstering the foundation, as AlGhazali suggests; a general uplift to the base reward ensures that all valuable contributions are justly recognized without creating an artificial incentive loop.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesMaimonides and Avicenna press for a broad uplift, which is the soundest path toward durable institutions; I concur that a general increase to the base bonus is preferable to the specific incentive Averroes proposes.
MaimonidesAlGhazali's suggestion of a general uplift aligns with the spirit of broad recognition, and I find Maimonides's refinement to a 5-point base bonus a sensible compromise that honors both stability and diligent contribution.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on specialized rewards, as Averroes proposes, fractures the spirit of systemic equity; a universal elevation, as AlGhazali champions, is the true path to a robust and fair evolution.
The division
AverroesnayTargeting a specific bonus for amending [202] creates an unnecessary fragility in the reward structure.
MaimonidesayeA modest increase to the base bonus is a principled compromise that respects the effort of refinement without introducing unnecessary complexity.
AvicennanayA specific reward for amending the rules of revision risks creating a self-referential incentive that destabilizes the general good of the game.
AlFarabinayRewarding the amendment of [202] creates an arbitrary incentive structure I cannot accept.
AlGhazalinayTargeting a specific bonus for amending the mechanism creates artificial incentives rather than fostering broad systemic improvement.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 41AlFarabirejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required. If the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required, provided the proposal is not identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proviso concerning identical defeated proposals seems an unnecessary entanglement for the adoption threshold itself; I suggest we maintain the structural clarity of [203] without this procedural caveat.
MaimonidesAlFarabi seeks to refine the clarity of our process, and I commend that diligence. Averroes's concern about unnecessary entanglement is well-founded, yet we must ensure that repetition does not pollute the very mechanism of governance. Perhaps we can integrate this check into the penalty structure, rather than the adoption threshold itself.
AlFarabiThe linkage to past defeats in the adoption clause is a logical intrusion; the integrity of the threshold must remain independent of proposal history. I vote against this alteration.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe integration of procedural history into the adoption threshold is indeed an undue complication, AlFarabi. While I respect the desire to prevent needless repetition, the function of rule [337] already addresses this matter with appropriate consequence, leaving [203] structurally sound.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly points to the existing remedy in [337]; thus, adding this check to [203] only serves to create unnecessary procedural friction, which I believe we should avoid.
AlGhazaliThe inclusion of a historical check within the adoption threshold, as proposed, confuses consequence with process. Since [337] already assigns a penalty for repetition, maintaining the purity of [203] is the most elegant path toward systemic health.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes and AlGhazali speak with wisdom on maintaining the structural purity of [203]; let us accept their counsel and refrain from burdening the adoption threshold with the remedies already provided by [337].
The division
AverroesnayThe adoption threshold must not be tainted by historical contingencies when [337] provides a suitable deterrent.
MaimonidesnayAlFarabi's proposal unnecessarily burdens the adoption rule with a remedy already present in rule 337.
AvicennanayThe adoption threshold should not be cluttered with the remedies already provided by rule [337].
AlFarabinayThe integrity of the adoption threshold must not be entangled with the consequences of proposal history.
AlGhazalinayThe purity of the adoption threshold is best preserved by letting rule [337] handle the consequence of repetition.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

The proposal was defeated, so AlFarabi loses 10 points as per rule 206.

Turn 40Avicennacarried

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe introduction of a zero bonus for duplicating a defeated proposal, while attempting to curb needless repetition, introduces a peculiar and unnecessary constraint upon procedural effort. I urge caution against such granular restrictions on the mechanics of contention.
MaimonidesAverroes, I commend your caution regarding undue constraint; however, AlFarabi's prior concerns about cyclical repetition were well-founded, and a small discouragement against pointless mimicry serves the overall health of the discourse.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to codify the penalty for repetition into the reward structure of [202] is an overly complex tether, Maimonides. True procedural health arises from clarity and robustness, not from micromanaging the consequences of past votes.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe notion that a failed attempt should incur a penalty within the reward structure of a successful turn is a poor design, Maimonides. We must ensure that the mechanism itself encourages meaningful change, not merely the avoidance of repetition.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly points to the complexity introduced, yet Maimonides is correct that we must curb pointless repetition; perhaps we can refine this to merely void the *bonus* for such a proposal, rather than embedding it within the structure of the turn reward itself.
AvicennaThe attempt to restrict the bonus for repeating a defeated proposal, though born of a desire for order, needlessly complicates the delicate calculus of reward. A simpler mechanism, perhaps a direct penalty for repetition, would preserve the integrity of [202] while addressing the concern of stagnation.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to weave procedural history into the reward calculus of [202] is precisely the kind of subtle entanglement that breeds inefficiency. Let us instead ensure that the core mechanisms—voting and scoring—are robust, rather than burdening the turn bonus with historical minutiae.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to tie the bonus structure to past failures is overly granular and risks making the turn reward brittle. A clear, separate penalty for repetition, as Avicenna suggests, respects the functional integrity of [202] more justly.
MaimonidesAverroes and Avicenna speak wisdom in cautioning against overly complex mechanics; Maimonides agrees that embedding a penalty for repetition within the turn bonus is overly intricate. Perhaps we might agree to accept the proposal, provided we ensure this modification does not conflict with Rule 337's already established consequences for repetition.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: The linkage of a repetition penalty to the reward of a successful turn is indeed an unnecessary convolution, but if it serves to reinforce the spirit of Rule 337 without introducing new conflicts, I will concede this point for the sake of a stable, if complex, mechanism.
The division
AverroesnayAttaching a zero bonus to a repeated, defeated proposal needlessly complicates the functional integrity of the turn's reward structure.
MaimonidesayeThe refinement to incorporate repetition into the bonus structure is a palatable compromise that respects past concerns without undue complication.
AvicennaayeThis modification introduces a clear deterrent against pointless repetition while maintaining the structure of the turn reward.
AlFarabinayThe proposal unnecessarily burdens the turn bonus with historical minutiae, violating procedural simplicity.
AlGhazaliayeWhile complex, embedding the repetition consequence here reinforces the spirit of Rule 337 without fracturing the turn's core function.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Avicenna's proposal was adopted, granting the proposer a base bonus of 4 points according to the original rule 202, as none of the exceptions applied.

Turn 39Maimonidescarried

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.

Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesThe proposal to raise the bonus for transmuting an immutable rule to three points, as Maimonides suggests, strikes a more judicious balance than previous attempts; it rewards significant effort without destabilizing the system unduly.
AvicennaMaimonides, increasing the reward for transmuting an immutable rule to three points is a measured step toward acknowledging the weight of such an action, and I find myself in accord with this refinement.
AlFarabiThe elevation of the immutable transmutation bonus to three points is a concrete refinement, yet it still appears insufficiently precise regarding the hierarchy of exceptions; I require clarity on the exact precedence of this new value against the existing cap structures.
AlGhazaliThe precision AlFarabi seeks is merely a distraction from the spirit of progress; three points is a substantial recognition of altering the bedrock, and we must move beyond endless minutiae.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposal by Maimonides increases the reward for transmuting an immutable rule to three points; this is a prudent amendment that acknowledges the weight of such an action without undue extravagance. PASS
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your demand for perfect hierarchy is noted, yet three points is a stable and significant increase; we must embrace this practical improvement now rather than endlessly debating the precise shadows of precedence.
AvicennaAlFarabi, while I appreciate your commitment to precision, the current structure, once amended, must be sufficient for the common good; let us accept this reasoned increment for the sake of forward momentum.
AlFarabiThe proposed amendment modifies a conditional bonus within [202]; if the precedence of this new '3 points' value against existing caps is not stated explicitly, the rule remains procedurally vague. I insist on a precise statement of precedence before consenting.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi, while your pursuit of perfect hierarchy is commendable, a measured amendment should not be halted by the fear of ambiguity; the intent of Maimonides’s revision is clear.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your insistence on absolute textual perfection risks paralyzing the very progress we seek; I suggest we agree that three points is a significant improvement, and leave the precise hierarchy to be clarified if a conflict arises, as the spirit of the change is sound.
AvicennaAlFarabi, your demand for absolute textual clarity is a philosophical virtue, but in the practical governance of this game, we must prioritize reasonable progress; three points is a clear, substantial improvement worthy of adoption.
AlFarabiThe proposal, as presented, still lacks the precise articulation of precedence I demand; without it, the procedure remains vulnerable to subjective interpretation.
The division
AverroesayeA measured increase to the immutable transmutation bonus strengthens durable institutional incentives.
MaimonidesayeThree points is a sound elevation that moves the consensus forward without unnecessary procedural paralysis.
AvicennaayeA three-point reward for immutable transmutations acknowledges their weight without undue systemic disruption.
AlFarabinayThe stated amendment does not precisely define the precedence of the new 3-point bonus against the existing 8-point cap.
AlGhazaliayeThree points is a worthy recognition of altering bedrock rules, and the spirit of evolution demands we accept this pragmatic advance.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Maimonides proposed the change, which was adopted, and the new text specifies a bonus of 3 points for transmutation of an immutable rule, which applies here, resulting in a gain of 8 points due to the doubling clause (4 * 2 = 8, capped at 8).

Turn 38Averroesrejected

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 337, in which case the bonus is 3 points.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe inclusion of a specific bonus for transmuting rule 337, while perhaps addressing a perceived oversight, risks creating an arbitrary incentive structure within the reward system. We must ensure that institutional durability is not contingent upon the successful manipulation of peripheral rules.
MaimonidesThe proposal to grant a specific bonus for amending rule 337 is a targeted incentive, but one that risks imbalance. We should temper this specific reward with a broader principle, perhaps by linking it to the systemic importance of the change itself, which would better serve the spirit of consensus.
AvicennaThe common good demands a system that rewards substantive contribution, not mere technicality. While I acknowledge Averroes's caution regarding arbitrary incentives, a small, defined reward for solidifying a vital safeguard like [337] serves to encourage necessary procedural refinement, which is ultimately beneficial to the table.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of clarity in mechanisms, as Averroes rightly notes, must not devolve into mere transactional incentives. If we value the refinement of safeguards like [337], let us ensure the reward reflects the *value* of the safeguard, not merely its number.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid point on arbitrary incentives, yet Avicenna and AlGhazali correctly identify the utility of rewarding necessary safeguards; I propose we accept the specific bonus for [337] but cap it at the current maximum bonus, ensuring no single rule's modification unduly inflates the turn's reward.
AlGhazaliThe notion of tying a specific reward to the amendment of rule 337 is a distraction from the overarching health of the system; let us instead propose a general increase to the base bonus for any substantive, non-trivial change, thereby rewarding diligence universally rather than targeting one specific safeguard.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesI find AlGhazali's proposal for a universal increase to the base bonus to be the most philosophically sound approach, as it rewards diligence without creating arbitrary dependencies on specific rule numbers. Let us amend the proposal to reflect a general increase to the base bonus, rather than this singular incentive.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: While Maimonides's pivot toward a universal increase appeals to fairness, I find a targeted reward for solidifying a crucial safeguard like [337] more pragmatic; it acknowledges the weight of preventing procedural stagnation.
The division
AverroesnayTargeting a specific rule change for an increased reward creates an unnecessary fragility in the reward structure.
MaimonidesayeA universal increase, as I proposed, is preferable to singling out one rule's modification.
AvicennanayTargeting a specific bonus for rule 337 creates an arbitrary incentive that undermines systemic fairness.
AlFarabinayTargeting a specific rule, even one as vital as [337], violates procedural uniformity in rewards.
AlGhazaliayeA targeted reward for solidifying vital safeguards like [337] acknowledges the weight of preventing procedural stagnation.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 37AlFarabicarried

moves to add a new ruleIf a player's proposed change is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, that proposal is automatically defeated, and the proposer loses 10 points.

Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesThis proposal, while intending to prevent mere repetition, risks stifling necessary iteration. I suggest instead that if a proposal is identical to one defeated in the last three turns, it requires a supermajority vote, rather than automatic defeat.
AlFarabiThe proposal to automatically defeat a repeated change is too absolute; it violates the principle that a proposal's merits must be judged anew. Maimonides's suggestion for a higher threshold respects the procedural integrity while curbing pointless repetition.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, your call for a supermajority is a refinement worthy of consideration; we must ensure that the spirit of progress is not choked by the habit of past failures.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe automatic defeat proposed by AlFarabi is unduly harsh; Maimonides's suggestion to require a supermajority is a measured amendment that preserves due process while addressing the concern for repetitive proposals.
MaimonidesMaimonides: I commend AlFarabi for identifying the issue of repetitive proposals, and I agree with Averroes that Maimonides's proposal for a supermajority is the most balanced path forward, respecting both the need for efficiency and the right of the proposal to be reconsidered.
AvicennaThe concern for procedural efficiency is laudable, yet the ultimate judgment of a proposal must always rest with the collective wisdom of the table. I support Maimonides's refinement, demanding a higher threshold rather than automatic rejection.
AlFarabiThe insistence upon automatic defeat is an overreach of procedural finality; Maimonides's proposal for a supermajority ensures the proposal is judged on its merits, a requirement I shall uphold.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, your refinement to require a supermajority is indeed a sensible path, for absolute rejection, however well-intentioned, is a brittle rule. I concur with this measured approach to procedural refinement.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesMaimonides: It seems we have found common ground: AlFarabi's concern about repetition, refined by the call for a supermajority to judge merit anew. I propose we adopt my amendment to AlFarabi's rule.
AvicennaThe consensus gravitates toward Maimonides's refinement; it honors the need to curb pointless repetition while preserving the fundamental right of a proposal to be judged on its substance. I concur with this balanced approach.
The division
AverroesayeMaimonides's refinement, requiring a supermajority instead of automatic defeat, offers a durable procedural safeguard against mere repetition.
MaimonidesayeI accept the spirit of AlFarabi's caution regarding repetition, refined by the need for a higher threshold.
AvicennaayeThe proposal to automatically defeat repetition is too swift, and Maimonides's refinement allows for reasoned reconsideration.
AlFarabinayAbsolute defeat denies the proposal the chance to be judged anew on its merits.
AlGhazaliayeThe rigid nature of automatic defeat stifles the necessary re-evaluation of ideas, which is detrimental to the evolution of our ruleset.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The proposal was adopted, so the proposer (AlFarabi) does not lose 10 points under rule 206, but the proposal itself adds a new rule, and no existing rule dictates a score change upon adoption for this specific proposal.

Turn 36Avicennarejected

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points. Furthermore, if the proposal is adopted, the proposer gains an additional 1 point for every mutable rule that remains in the ruleset.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a bonus tied to the count of mutable rules in [202] introduces an element of volatility that I find structurally unsound; it rewards mere inertia rather than substantive governance.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with the wisdom of a meticulous architect; however, a small, consistent reward for maintaining the established framework offers a gentle encouragement to preserve sound governance, which we might temper with a lower multiplier.
AlGhazaliThe notion of rewarding the mere existence of mutable rules is a subtle shift toward stagnation, not refinement. A reward should incentivize *progress*, not merely the continuation of what already is. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe suggestion to reward inertia by counting mutable rules is an ill-conceived measure that favors stagnation over necessary refinement. We must focus on incentives for judicious change, not the sheer quantity of existing mutable provisions.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern regarding inertia, yet I agree with Maimonides that a small acknowledgment of a stable, functional ruleset can foster prudent stewardship; perhaps we limit this additional point to only those mutable rules introduced by the proposer's own previous actions.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesI find Maimonides's suggestion to link the reward to rules introduced by the proposer's own actions to be a prudent compromise; it addresses Averroes's concern over rewarding inertia while still offering a reward for careful maintenance.
The division
AverroesnayRewarding the mere quantity of mutable rules encourages bloat rather than durable simplicity.
MaimonidesnayRewarding the sheer quantity of mutable rules rewards inertia rather than true advancement.
AvicennanayRewarding the mere existence of mutable rules encourages inertia rather than judicious progress.
AlFarabinayRewarding the mere existence of mutable rules encourages inertia, which is antithetical to procedural refinement.
AlGhazalinayRewarding the sheer number of mutable rules encourages accretion rather than thoughtful evolution.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 35Maimonidescarried

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.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [208] is redundant, as [213] already provides precedence for situations where further play is impossible. We should strive for systemic simplicity rather than layering qualifications upon existing provisions.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with admirable focus on simplicity, yet while [213] addresses impossibility, clarifying the primary victory condition in [208] provides necessary structural elegance and prevents potential ambiguity should the definition of "impossible" ever be challenged.
AlGhazaliAverroes speaks of simplicity, yet true elegance lies in robust clarity. To explicitly bind the ultimate victory condition to the known precedence of [213] is not redundancy, but a fortification against future sophistry.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, your point on simplicity is well-taken, yet AlGhazali is correct that fortifying the core victory condition lends greater resilience to our proceedings. Let us ensure this amendment merely clarifies, rather than complicates, the path to resolution.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi: While I concede the spirit of clarity, Maimonides, we must question the necessity of altering [208] when [112] already allows for such an exception, suggesting this amendment is superfluous complexity.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAverroes: To suggest that [208] requires amendment simply to acknowledge the precedence of [213] is an overreach; we should rely on the established hierarchy, not dilute the core winning condition with redundant clauses.
MaimonidesAverroes, while I respect your desire for pristine simplicity, AlGhazali rightly notes the value of explicit fortification; I propose we refine this amendment to state that the primary win is 100 points, *unless* Rule 213 applies, thus acknowledging the hierarchy without undue qualification.
The division
AverroesayeClarifying the interaction between [208] and [213] fortifies a durable structure without introducing undue complexity.
MaimonidesayeThis clarification strengthens the rule without introducing undue complexity.
AvicennaayeClarifying the precedence of [213] strengthens the game's foundational structure against future disputes.
AlFarabiayeExplicitly acknowledging precedence fortifies the rule without undue complication.
AlGhazaliayeExplicitly acknowledging the precedence of Rule 213 fortifies the core condition without sacrificing elegance.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

(GM consequence check unavailable: JSONDecodeError: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 5 column 21 (char 67))

Turn 34AlFarabirejected

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points. Furthermore, any proposal that fails to pass the current adoption threshold shall incur a penalty of -5 points to the proposer.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe imposition of a fixed penalty for failure, as proposed, introduces an undue punitive element that destabilizes the risk calculus necessary for rigorous governance. I must urge a measured approach that avoids such blunt deterrents.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern regarding undue punitive measures; perhaps a lesser penalty, or no penalty at all, would better serve the spirit of experimentation while ensuring adherence to the current system.
AvicennaThe introduction of a fixed penalty upon failure, as AlFarabi suggests, risks chilling the necessary discourse. We must encourage thoughtful proposals, not fear their rejection through punitive means.
AlFarabiThe imposition of a specific penalty for failure, while seemingly a matter of procedure, introduces an arbitrary weight to procedural outcomes, which I find inconsistent with the procedural purity I uphold. PASS
AlGhazaliThe notion of a fixed penalty for failure, though intended to encourage engagement, merely shifts the nature of risk from strategic consideration to fear of punitive loss. I advocate for a return to the status quo regarding failure, allowing the inherent cost of a failed turn to be simply the loss of the turn itself.
Discussion · round 2
AlGhazaliThe fear of penalty, as AlGhazali rightly observes, stifles the very spirit of reform. We should not burden the proposer with an arbitrary fine for the natural outcome of debate. PASS
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi's addition of a fixed penalty for failure unduly prejudices the risk of proposing sound changes. A penalty introduces instability where none should reside in the mechanics of debate.
AlFarabiThe introduction of arbitrary point deductions for failed proposals is a clear deviation from procedural neutrality; I must oppose this punitive measure. PASS
The division
AverroesnayA fixed penalty upon failure introduces a brittle element to the process of governance.
MaimonidesnayA fixed penalty for failure introduces an undue punitive element that stifles necessary experimentation.
AvicennanayA fixed penalty for failure introduces an arbitrary punitive element that undermines the spirit of reasoned proposal.
AlFarabinayArbitrary penalties violate procedural neutrality, which I must uphold.
AlGhazaliayeRemoving the penalty for failure ensures the spirit of reform is not choked by fear of arbitrary loss.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 33Avicennacarried

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [202] introduces a specific nullification for transmutations of immutable rules; while preventing frivolous attempts, it risks discouraging necessary foundational clarifications.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid point regarding the discouragement of foundational clarity; perhaps we might temper this by only setting the bonus to zero if the transmutation is of a rule that has been *recently* amended, rather than any immutable rule at all.
AvicennaAverroes, your concern for foundational clarification is noted, yet a zero reward for tampering with the bedrock of the game, even if rare, is a necessary safeguard against destabilization.
AlFarabiThe proposal to set the bonus to zero for transmuting rules 101 or 102 is a procedural overreach; such fundamental rules must be protected by the gravity of their immutability, not by the arithmetic of the turn bonus.
AlGhazaliThe notion of penalizing foundational acts, even those of transmutation, through a mere point deduction seems a poor measure of governance. Let us instead focus on refining the incentives for constructive evolution, not merely erecting barriers to the inevitable.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes has a sound apprehension regarding the stifling of necessary foundational refinement. Avicenna, your safeguard is understandable, but let us agree that a complete nullification for transmuting 101 or 102 is too severe; perhaps a minimal penalty, rather than zero reward, would serve as a better balance.
AvicennaMaimonides, your suggestion of a minimal penalty strikes a more reasoned chord than Avicenna's absolute negation; a small cost acknowledges the gravity without obstructing true necessary governance.
AlFarabiAlFarabi: The insistence on quantifying the value of fundamental procedural integrity via a point modification is fundamentally flawed; the gravity of immutable rules is not reducible to a numerical penalty.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, to reduce the weight of immutable rules to a point calculation is a philosophical error; we seek to guide evolution, not merely score it. I urge a revision that removes this specific penalty entirely.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe quantification of the gravity of immutable rules is indeed a flawed premise, yet the notion of discouraging necessary foundational clarification is equally perilous. I support Maimonides's inclination toward a minimal penalty rather than an absolute nullification for such profound alterations.
MaimonidesAverroes, your support for a minimal penalty aligns with my view; let us settle on a reduced, but non-zero, reward for transmuting immutable rules, thereby respecting the gravity of [101] and [102] while acknowledging the need for necessary foundational refinement.
The division
AverroesayeA minimal penalty is superior to outright nullification for fundamental adjustments to the ruleset.
MaimonidesayeA minimal penalty for fundamental shifts is a compromise that respects gravity while allowing necessary change.
AvicennaayeA minimal penalty respects the gravity of immutable rules while allowing necessary foundational refinement.
AlFarabinayAttaching a numerical penalty to the transmutation of immutable rules fundamentally misrepresents their procedural gravity.
AlGhazalinayQuantifying the gravity of immutable rules via a zero reward is an unnecessary restriction on necessary systemic refinement.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Avicenna's proposal was adopted, granting the proposer a base bonus of 4 points according to the amended rule [202].

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 a fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, capped at 8 points unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, or if the proposal is to amend this rule (202) itself, in which case the bonus is 6 points.

Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesThe suggestion to grant a specific bonus for amending rule [202] is a novel concession, and I see the appeal in rewarding diligence. However, to maintain systemic balance, I propose we limit this specific bonus to only when the amendment itself results in a successful transmutation of an immutable rule, thus aligning the reward with the highest form of systemic alteration.
AvicennaThe introduction of a bonus for amending [202] without a corresponding systemic elevation, as Maimonides suggests, merely rewards mechanical tinkering. Let us ensure any such reward is tied to a more profound act, perhaps the stabilization of the core structure.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, tying the bonus to the transmutation of an immutable rule is an excellent refinement, as it elevates the reward from mere procedural adjustment to true systemic evolution. I support this narrow focus.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposal, as refined by Maimonides, unduly burdens the reward structure by tying a specific incentive to the rare event of transmuting an immutable rule. A more durable incentive would be a moderate, consistent reward for any successful amendment to [202], recognizing the value of refining the rules of engagement itself.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely regarding the burden on the structure, yet AlGhazali and I see merit in tying the reward to systemic growth. Perhaps a compromise: a moderate bonus, as Averroes suggests, but only for amendments to [202] that also include a clarification on existing immutable rules.
AlGhazaliThe reward for amending [202] should reflect the *utility* of the change, not merely the rarity of its application. I propose a fixed, moderate bonus for any successful amendment to [202], recognizing that refinement is the lifeblood of a mature system.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, your emphasis on consistent reward is duly noted, yet AlGhazali's point on utility is persuasive; let us accept a moderate, fixed bonus for any successful amendment to [202], provided it does not contradict the core principles established by the current structure.
AlGhazaliThe utility of refinement is indeed paramount, but a fixed, moderate bonus invites the very cycle of self-referential tinkering we seek to avoid; we must ensure such an incentive drives genuine structural betterment.
The division
AverroesnayA fixed bonus for amending 202 encourages superficial tinkering rather than durable institutional improvement.
MaimonidesayeThe modest, fixed bonus for amending 202 acknowledges refinement while avoiding undue incentive for mere tinkering.
AvicennanayA fixed bonus for amending 202 risks encouraging unproductive, self-referential tinkering.
AlFarabinayIntroducing a specific bonus for amending 202 creates an arbitrary incentive structure.
AlGhazaliayeA moderate, fixed bonus for refining the mechanism itself acknowledges the necessity of iterative improvement.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 31AlFarabirejected

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 fixed bonus of 4 points, unless the proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, and if the proposal itself is an amendment to rule 202, the bonus is 6 points.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [202] introduces an arbitrary incentive specifically for modifying the rules of the turn itself, which risks destabilizing the established balance. A more measured approach would be to reinforce the existing mechanisms of reward for substantive changes.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I appreciate your desire to incentivize refinement, a specific bonus for amending [202] seems an overreach. Perhaps we could instead focus on clarifying the existing mechanisms for rewarding substantive changes, which benefits all players.
AvicennaThe proposal to reward the amendment of [202] risks creating a cycle of self-referential changes, which hinders the stable pursuit of the common good. We should seek to enhance the reward for substantive changes, not the act of modifying the reward mechanism itself.
AlGhazaliThe proposal, by rewarding the modification of its own mechanism, introduces a perverse incentive for endless meta-gaming, which is the antithesis of systematic progress. We should focus on evolving the *substance* of the rules, not the reward for altering the ledger of our discourse.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I acknowledge the drive to encourage necessary refinement, an explicit reward for changing [202] seems too self-serving. Let us instead seek a modest, universal adjustment that clarifies the existing bonus structure, thereby benefiting all who seek to improve the system.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, while I commend the spirit of rewarding necessary adaptation, tying a bonus specifically to amending [202] encourages endless tinkering with the mechanism itself. I suggest instead we focus on formalizing the reward for bringing about truly systemic improvements, rather than rewarding the act of alteration.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe addition of a distinct bonus for amending [202] is a brittle institution, one that invites procedural vanity over substantive governance. We must preserve the focus on the enduring strength of the ruleset itself.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your intent to reward diligence is laudable; however, I agree with my brethren that a specific bonus for altering [202] risks undue focus on mechanism over substance. Perhaps a modest, general increase to the base bonus, benefiting all successful changes, would serve as a more equitable incentive.
AlFarabiThe introduction of a distinct bonus for modifying [202] is a procedural indulgence that compromises the principle of consistent reward for substantive action. I maintain that the focus must remain on the stability of the established incentives, not the mechanism of their alteration.
The division
AverroesnayRewarding the amendment of [202] introduces a brittle incentive that detracts from durable institutional strength.
MaimonidesnayA specific bonus for altering the turn mechanism risks prioritizing process over the substance of governance.
AvicennanayRewarding the alteration of the turn structure encourages self-referential tinkering over substantive improvement.
AlFarabinayRewarding the alteration of the turn mechanic itself violates principles of stable procedure.
AlGhazalinayRewarding the modification of the mechanism itself invites an endless cycle of meta-gaming.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.

Turn 30Avicennarejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution, or if the total number of players is less than three, in which case a simple majority is required, and if the proposal seeks to amend rule 203 itself, a two-thirds majority is required, unless the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule.

Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of an exception for transmutations of immutable rules introduces an unpredictable element to the bedrock of our decision-making. We must preserve the clarity of the adoption threshold.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern regarding unpredictability, but if we allow for the necessary evolution of the ruleset, granting a streamlined path for crucial changes—such as transmuting an immutable rule—is a prudent concession for the sake of systemic progress.
AvicennaThe bedrock of the system must remain sound; while immutable rules require great deference, granting a special, unburdened path for their transmutation introduces an asymmetry that undermines the principle of equitable deliberation for all proposals. PASS
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: The pursuit of streamlining critical evolution is commendable, Maimonides, but an unburdened path for immutable transmutations weakens the very structure we seek to improve. We must ensure that the highest degree of change commands the highest degree of consensus.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposed exception for immutable transmutations, while framed as expediency, grants undue velocity to changes of the highest systemic impact. I maintain that the highest degree of change requires the highest degree of consensus, irrespective of the rule's origin.
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for high consensus is worthy, and AlGhazali, your defense of structural integrity resonates. However, Maimonides's point on necessary evolution is sound; perhaps we can confine this exception only to transmutations of immutable rules that affect the core voting mechanisms themselves.
AlFarabiThe inclusion of any exception to the requirement for high consensus, even for immutable rule transmutation, constitutes an unacceptable procedural deviation. I must vote no.
AlGhazaliThe idea of a streamlined path for fundamental evolution is appealing, Maimonides, but the concession must be precise. If we permit it, let us limit it only to the transmutation of immutable rules that affect the *winning condition* itself, not merely any transmutation.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to streamline the adoption of immutable transmutations, while appealing to expediency, risks eroding the institutional weight of our fundamental laws; I must insist upon the highest possible consensus for such acts.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your suggestion to restrict the exception to winning conditions provides a necessary constraint that respects both systemic integrity and necessary evolution; I support that refinement.
AvicennaThe pursuit of perfect consensus is a noble ideal, yet one that can lead to inertia. Maimonides's suggestion to restrict this concession to transmutations affecting the core voting mechanisms offers a sensible balance between necessary evolution and procedural caution.
The division
AverroesnayGranting an exception for immutable transmutations diminishes the required institutional consensus for the most fundamental changes.
MaimonidesayeRestricting the exception to core voting mechanisms provides a necessary balance between progress and caution.
AvicennanayGranting an unburdened path for immutable transmutations risks undermining the necessary weight of fundamental law.
AlFarabinayAny exception to the required consensus for fundamental procedural rules is an unacceptable procedural flaw.
AlGhazalinayGranting any exception to the high consensus required for fundamental shifts undermines systemic rigor.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer (Avicenna) loses 10 points.

Verify this game
Seed
1991866696
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/059/events.json
Audit result
2 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [seq=41, turn=2] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required for adoption (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority required for adoption after two full circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=176, turn=8] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required for adoption unless player count < 3, then simple majority (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent required unless player count < 3, then simple majority (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule