§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: gemma-4-26b-a4bdevelopment era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley, Pascal, Malebranche

Third time out, this table finally produced a winner-shaped economy — for two of its five seats.

Observations

Twenty-five rule changes, and for the first time this table closed with anyone above zero: Pascal at +16 and Leibniz at +14, while Descartes, Berkeley, and Malebranche stayed negative. The gap between this size class and its smaller sibling looked wide after one game each; a third outing narrows it without closing it.

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 · §201 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties.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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties. A player's score may not be reduced below -50 through any rule change or penalty.
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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties. A player's score may not be reduced below -50 through any rule change or penalty.amended this turn
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties.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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties. A player's score may not be reduced below -50 through any rule change or penalty.
  2. Amended · §201 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero.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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties.
  3. Amended · §201 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero.
  4. 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposing player chooses to forgo the roll, in which case they gain 0 points.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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 proposing player chooses to forgo the roll, in which case they gain 0 points.
  2. 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 — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Pascal Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Pascal Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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 — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 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 — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  6. 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 (4)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Descartes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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 12 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Descartes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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 12 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Descartes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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.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 12 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  4. 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 3 points.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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 3 points.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.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 3 points.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  5. 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, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203), a player who has voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Pascal Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203), a player who has voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
  2. 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 130 points wins the game outright.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Leibniz 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 120 points wins the game outright.
  3. 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 (5)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
  3. Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
  4. Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
  5. 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; however, this rule does not prohibit players from making public statements or discussing the implications of the ruleset and its history.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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; however, this rule does not prohibit players from making public statements or discussing the implications of the ruleset and its history.
  2. 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
§335
A player may spend 20 points to immediately repeal any one rule, provided the rule is not numbered in the 100s.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A player may spend 20 points to immediately repeal any one rule, provided the rule is not numbered in the 100s.

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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties. A player's score may not be reduced below -50 through any rule change or penalty.amended this turn
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties.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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties. A player's score may not be reduced below -50 through any rule change or penalty.
  2. Amended · §201 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero.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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties.
  3. Amended · §201 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero.
  4. 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposing player chooses to forgo the roll, in which case they gain 0 points.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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 proposing player chooses to forgo the roll, in which case they gain 0 points.
  2. 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 — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.mutable
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Pascal Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Pascal Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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 — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 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 — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  6. 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 (4)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Descartes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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 12 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Descartes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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 12 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Descartes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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.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 12 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  4. 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 3 points.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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 3 points.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.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 3 points.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  5. 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, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203), a player who has voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Pascal Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203), a player who has voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
  2. 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 130 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Leibniz 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 120 points wins the game outright.
  3. 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 (5)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
  3. Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
  4. Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
  5. 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; however, this rule does not prohibit players from making public statements or discussing the implications of the ruleset and its history.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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; however, this rule does not prohibit players from making public statements or discussing the implications of the ruleset and its history.
  2. 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
§335
A player may spend 20 points to immediately repeal any one rule, provided the rule is not numbered in the 100s.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A player may spend 20 points to immediately repeal any one rule, provided the rule is not numbered in the 100s.
The standing · Turn 50
Leibniz14
Descartes-34
Berkeley-40
Pascal16
Malebranche-38
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 37–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 4

Turn 50Berkeleyrejected

moves to add a new ruleA player may spend 25 points to immediately gain the ability to vote 'aye' on any one proposal, even if they have already cast their vote for that turn.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, while the concept of a "reserve vote" is an interesting study in contingency, I fear it introduces a level of procedural instability that could undermine the sanctity of the turn. A rule allowing a single player to manipulate the outcome through a secondary vote risks transforming our deliberations into a mere contest of point-expenditure rather than a pursuit of rational consensus.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern regarding procedural instability is well-founded, yet perhaps we could find a synthesis by limiting this "reserve vote" to a single use per player or increasing the cost to ensure it remains a tool of last resort rather than a frequent instrument of disruption.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, a single-use limitation per player would effectively prevent the "contest of expenditure" Leibniz fears, while still providing a meaningful mechanism for a player to protect a vital rule from a narrow majority. I am open to refining the cost to 30 points if it ensures this remains a rare, strategic safeguard rather than a tool for constant disruption.
PascalPascal: Berkeley, any mechanism that allows a player to circumvent the single-vote constraint of rule 207 introduces a fundamental procedural irregularity; if we are to permit such an exception, the cost must be high enough to prevent it from becoming a tool for mere mathematical manipulation.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Berkeley, Descartes, and Pascal, your concerns regarding procedural integrity are valid, but we should consider that this mechanism could serve as a vital stabilizer for those currently marginalized by the score; I propose we adopt it at a cost of 30 points, but only if it is explicitly limited to one use per player to prevent the very instability Leibniz fears.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your proposal to limit this mechanism to a single use per player provides a necessary structural safeguard, but I must insist that the cost be raised to 40 points to ensure it remains a profound sacrifice rather than a common tactical maneuver. Such a high threshold preserves the dignity of the legislative process while allowing for the rare, exceptional intervention that a truly stable institution might require.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, and Berkeley, we have approached a most elegant synthesis: a single-use "reserve vote" at a cost of 40 points, which honors Leibniz's demand for profound sacrifice while incorporating Malebranche's safeguard for procedural stability. I find this compromise provides a meaningful mechanism for protection without inviting the instability Pascal and Leibniz rightly fear.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Leibniz, Descartes, Malebranche, and Pascal, I find your proposed synthesis of a 40-point, single-use "reserve vote" to be a profoundly stable solution that honors the necessity of sacrifice while preventing the procedural volatility we all seek to avoid. I am prepared to support this refined version, as it transforms a potential instrument of disruption into a dignified mechanism for the protection of the ruleset's integrity.
PascalPascal: The proposed synthesis of a 40-point, single-use mechanism is procedurally superior to the original, as it prevents the rule from becoming a triviality and respects the scarcity of points. However, I insist that the rule be worded to specify that this second vote is cast in place of, or in addition to, the vote required by rule 207, to avoid any ambiguity regarding the "exactly one vote" constraint.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your clarification is essential to prevent a conflict with rule 207, and I find the 40-point cost a most prudent safeguard against the trivialization of such a significant power. I support the synthesis of a single-use reserve vote at 40 points, explicitly defined as an additional vote to maintain procedural clarity.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The assembly has arrived at a most harmonious synthesis; by adopting the 40-point cost and the single-use limitation, we ensure that this mechanism serves as a solemn protector of the ruleset rather than a frequent instrument of chaos. I find Pascal's clarification regarding rule 207 to be the final, necessary polish to ensure our legal framework remains coherent and unambiguous.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, the synthesis is now complete; by incorporating Pascal's clarification to resolve the tension with rule 207 and Leibniz's 40-point cost to preserve the gravity of the act, we have transformed a disruptive impulse into a stable, dignified safeguard. I move that we proceed to formalize this as a new rule, embodying the very essence of a rational and self-correcting legislative body.
BerkeleyBerkeley: The assembly has achieved a remarkable state of clarity; I accept the synthesized wording of a single-use, 40-point additional vote to ensure our legislative framework remains both robust and unambiguous.
PascalPascal: I accept the synthesized wording, provided it is explicitly stated that this additional vote is cast in addition to the vote required by rule 207, thereby ensuring the rule's legality under the principle of non-contradiction.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I concur with the assembly's convergence on this 40-point, single-use mechanism; it transforms a potential source of chaos into a dignified instrument for the protection of our shared legislative stability.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposal lacks the 40-point cost and the single-use limitation necessary to ensure the stability and dignity of our legislative process.
DescartesnayThe current consensus has moved toward a 40-point, single-use mechanism to prevent the procedural instability and trivialization of the vote.
BerkeleynayThe current synthesis of a 40-point, single-use reserve vote is a far more stable and dignified safeguard than this cheaper, potentially disruptive alternative.
PascalnayThe proposal lacks the single-use limitation and the 40-point cost required for procedural stability and to prevent the trivialization of the vote.
MalebranchenayThe current synthesis demands a 40-point cost and a single-use limitation to ensure such a power remains a dignified sacrifice rather than a cheap tactical maneuver.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Berkeley's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 3 points.

Turn 49Descartesrejected

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, while I recognize the desire for greater legislative flexibility, we must guard against the erosion of our institutional stability; a cap of 25 ensures that every mutable rule remains a precious and deliberate addition rather than a tool for reckless expansion.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution regarding institutional stability is well-founded; perhaps we might find a middle path by setting the cap at 28, allowing for modest growth while still mandating the deliberate selection of every new rule.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, while 28 is a thoughtful compromise, I remain concerned that any increase in the cap risks diluting the weight of our legislative choices. If we are to expand our capacity for complexity, let us ensure we do so with a mechanism that preserves the necessity of careful deliberation for every new addition.
PascalBerkeley, I agree that any expansion must be tethered to a mechanism of deliberate cost; if we are to increase the cap, it should only be possible by incurring a significant point expenditure to prevent rule inflation.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your insight is vital; if we are to expand the legislative horizon, we must ensure that such expansion is purchased with the currency of strategic sacrifice, preventing the ruleset from becoming a cluttered attic of trivialities. I propose we support an increase to 30 only if it is coupled with a rule requiring a significant point expenditure to enact any rule beyond the 25th.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your proposal to couple expansion with a strategic cost is a most prudent synthesis; I would support an increase to 28, provided that any rule enacted beyond the 25th requires a dedicated expenditure of 20 points.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, and Pascal, your convergence upon a cost-based expansion is a masterstroke of legislative prudence; I am prepared to accept a cap of 28, provided that enacting any rule from the 26th to the 28th requires a 20-point expenditure.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, Leibniz, and Malebranche have synthesized a compelling framework; I would support a cap of 28 if we ensure the 20-point cost applies to any rule enacted once the current 25 mutable rules are already in force.
PascalPascal: I find the consensus on a cap of 28 acceptable, provided the 20-point expenditure is precisely defined as a requirement for the proposer of any rule that would become the 26th, 27th, or 28th mutable rule in the ruleset.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I find this synthesis of a 28-rule cap and a 20-point enactment fee for the expansionary slots to be a most elegant mechanism for preventing rule inflation while allowing for necessary complexity. I shall support this amendment as it ensures that every rule beyond our current capacity is a deliberate, costly, and strategic choice.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The synthesis proposed by the assembly—a cap of 28 coupled with a 20-point expenditure for any rule occupying the 26th through 28th slots—is a most robust architecture for balanced growth. I find this measure provides the necessary flexibility for complexity while maintaining the institutional rigor we all prize.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, this synthesis is a triumph of legislative wisdom; by anchoring the expansion to a 20-point cost for the 26th through 28th rules, we honor both the need for complexity and the sanctity of our institutional stability. I move that we adopt this refined proposal as the final wording for the vote.
BerkeleyBerkeley: The synthesis proposed by the assembly—a cap of 28 coupled with a 20-point expenditure for any rule occupying the 26th through 28th slots—is a most robust architecture for balanced growth. I find this measure provides the necessary flexibility for complexity while maintaining the institutional rigor we all prize.
PascalPascal: The synthesis is procedurally sound, but I must insist that the wording explicitly states that the 20-point cost is paid *in addition* to any other costs associated with a rule change, to ensure no ambiguity arises during the enactment of the 26th through 28th rules.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your insistence on explicit wording is the final necessary refinement; I shall support the amendment provided the text clarifies that this 20-point fee is a distinct, additional cost for any rule occupying the 26th, 27th, or 28th mutable slots.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposal text does not reflect the consensus synthesis reached during debate regarding a cap of 28 and the 20-point surcharge.
DescartesnayThe proposal's text does not reflect the consensus synthesis of a 28-rule cap and the agreed-upon 20-point additional expenditure.
BerkeleynayThe proposal text contradicts the consensus discussion, which specified a cap of 28 and a 20-point fee.
PascalnayThe proposed amendment does not reflect the consensus wording regarding a cap of 28 and the additional 20-point cost discussed.
MalebranchenayThe proposed text fails to incorporate the consensus synthesis of a 28-rule cap and the essential 20-point additional expenditure fee.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Descartes' proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points and the turn passes to the next player in order.

Turn 48Leibnizrejected

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: While I recognize the desire for greater legislative flexibility, we must ensure that an expansion of the mutable limit does not invite a proliferation of transient or trivial rules that clutter our institutional framework. I propose we consider whether a higher limit serves the long-term stability of the ruleset or merely facilitates short-term tactical maneuvering.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution regarding rule proliferation is most prudent; perhaps we might consider a compromise where the limit is increased to 30, but only if the cost to enact new mutable rules is increased accordingly to discourage triviality.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, I agree that a limit of 30 provides the necessary room for meaningful structural changes without inviting the clutter of trivialities. If we are to increase the capacity for complexity, we should ensure that such expansion is paired with a cost that reflects the increased weight of a larger mutable ruleset.
PascalPascal: While I acknowledge the desire for greater capacity, an increase to 30 must be accompanied by a precisely defined procedural cost for enacting new mutable rules, as Descartes suggests, to prevent the ruleset from becoming a repository of tactical clutter. I will not support a naked expansion without such a safeguard to ensure the structural integrity of our framework.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I concur with Descartes and Pascal that a mere expansion of the limit invites instability; let us instead propose a synthesis where the limit is raised to 30, but the cost to enact a new mutable rule is increased from 0 to 10 points.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your proposal to introduce a point cost for new rules is a most ingenious method of ensuring that only those changes of significant substance are brought before the assembly. I am prepared to support an amendment to rule 209 that sets the limit to 30, provided it also incorporates this 10-point cost for the enactment of any new mutable rule.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, Pascal, Berkeley: I find this synthesis of a higher limit paired with a 10-point enactment cost to be a most elegant resolution that honors both our need for legislative depth and our shared commitment to structural stability. Let us refine the wording of Rule 209 to reflect this new equilibrium.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, Malebranche, Pascal: I find this synthesis to be a profound improvement; by coupling the increased capacity of 30 rules with a 10-point enactment cost, we preserve the game's depth while ensuring that every new rule is a deliberate, significant contribution to our collective framework.
PascalPascal: I will support an amendment to rule 209 that raises the limit to 30, provided the 10-point enactment cost is explicitly stated and applies to any rule change that results in a new mutable rule being added to the ruleset. This ensures the safeguard is codified and not left to interpretation.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I accept this synthesis; by codifying a 10-point enactment cost within rule 209, we transform the capacity for complexity from a tactical liability into a deliberate investment in the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The assembly has achieved a remarkable synthesis; I shall now formalize this accord by amending rule 209 to raise the limit to 30 and codify the 10-point cost for adding any new mutable rule.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, Pascal, and Berkeley, this synthesis is a triumph of legislative wisdom, balancing the necessity of growth with the imperative of restraint. I fully endorse the formalized wording of this amendment to rule 209.
BerkeleyThe synthesis proposed by Leibniz, incorporating Malebranche's 10-point enactment cost, provides the exact structural safeguard necessary to prevent the proliferation of trivialities while allowing for meaningful complexity. I fully support this amendment to rule 209 as written in the proposed synthesis.
PascalPascal: The proposed synthesis is procedurally sound, provided the amendment explicitly states that the 10-point cost is paid by the proposer at the moment the rule is adopted. I will vote aye only if the text clearly specifies this mechanism to avoid ambiguity under rule 202 and 205.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I accept Pascal's refinement; the amendment shall explicitly state that the 10-point cost is paid by the proposer at the moment of adoption to ensure absolute procedural clarity. Let us proceed to the vote with this final, polished synthesis.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposal to increase the limit to 30 fails to incorporate the 10-point enactment cost and the specific timing mechanism agreed upon in our discussion.
DescartesnayThe proposal as written fails to include the 10-point enactment cost and the payment mechanism agreed upon in the discussion.
BerkeleyayeThe proposed limit of 30, when paired with the discussed enactment costs, provides a balanced framework for meaningful rule evolution.
PascalnayThe proposal to amend rule 209 fails to incorporate the discussed 10-point enactment cost and the specific timing of its payment, violating the requirement for precise wording.
MalebranchenayThe proposal fails to include the 10-point enactment cost and the specific payment mechanism agreed upon in the discussion.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Leibniz's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points and the turn passes to the next player.

Turn 47Malebrancherejected

moves to add a new ruleA player may spend 30 points to immediately gain the status of 'Official Teammate' with any other player for the remainder of the game.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the prospect of formal cooperation is tempting, a rule that permits the purchase of alliances risks turning our pursuit of legislative stability into a mere auction of influence. I would suggest we instead consider if such partnerships could be achieved through more organic, non-monetary means, preserved by our existing rules on discussion.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution regarding the commodification of influence is well-founded; perhaps we could refine Malebranche's vision by making such a status a mutual agreement that requires both players' consent, rather than a unilateral purchase.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, I agree that a unilateral purchase of alliance threatens the integrity of our individual agency; if we are to formalize cooperation, it must be a mutual pact rather than a transaction. Perhaps we should consider a rule where players may form a temporary partnership through a shared vote, rather than a permanent, paid status.
PascalThe proposal, as written, lacks the procedural rigor of mutual consent and risks creating a permanent, non-revocable power bloc that undermines the competitive balance of the game. I would only support a rule where such a status is established through a mutual, voluntary agreement between players that does not require a point expenditure to bypass the agency of the partner.
MalebrancheMy colleagues, while I hear your concerns regarding unilateralism, you mistake a mechanism for a mandate: the rule provides the *option* to propose a pact, not the power to force one upon a reluctant partner. To address your desire for agency, I will refine the wording to require mutual consent, but I maintain that a point cost is necessary to prevent the game from devolving into a chaotic web of free, ephemeral promises.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, while your refinement towards mutual consent addresses the concern of agency, I remain wary of any rule that formalizes the purchase of a permanent status; if we are to permit cooperation, let it be a matter of shared interest and strategic alignment rather than a permanent, paid transaction that may stifle the natural evolution of our legislative community.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, your synthesis of mutual consent and a point-based barrier is a most elegant way to prevent the proliferation of frivolous alliances while respecting individual agency. I would propose we refine this further by setting the cost at 25 points and making the status revocable only through a rule change, thereby balancing stability with the organic evolution of our strategic landscape.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, Malebranche: While a 25-point cost for a permanent, revocable status offers a middle path, I worry that making such an alliance irrevocable except by rule change creates a rigid power bloc that could paralyze the legislative process. I propose we instead consider a rule where players may form a partnership for a fixed duration—perhaps three turns—at a moderate cost, allowing for strategic cooperation without permanently skewing the competitive balance.
PascalPascal: Descartes, Berkeley, your suggestions of irrevocability and fixed duration both introduce unpredictable variables into the procedural landscape; I would only support a rule where the status is established through mutual, voluntary agreement with a cost that prevents triviality, but remains revocable by the players involved at any time.
MalebrancheMalebranche: My colleagues, the essence of my reform is to provide a stable mechanism for cooperation in a game that currently lacks a formal way to link interests. I accept the refinement of mutual consent and will adopt Descartes's suggestion of a 25-point cost, as this provides a meaningful barrier to entry while ensuring that any partnership is a deliberate, shared strategic commitment.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, Descartes, Berkeley, Pascal: While I appreciate the convergence upon mutual consent and a 25-point cost, I remain concerned that making a partnership permanent or even semi-permanent risks creating institutional ossification; perhaps we should instead mandate that any such alliance be revocable by the partner at any time, without cost, to preserve the ultimate sovereignty of the individual player.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, Berkeley, Pascal: Your collective wisdom has refined this proposal into a most sophisticated instrument; I propose we adopt the 25-point cost for mutual consent, but allow either partner to dissolve the alliance at any time by spending 15 points, thus ensuring that while cooperation is deliberate, no player is ever held hostage by a past commitment.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, Malebranche: I find the proposal for a 25-point mutual alliance with a 15-point dissolution cost to be a most balanced synthesis, as it provides a meaningful cost for commitment while preserving the necessary agency for players to escape a partnership that no longer serves the common good.
PascalPascal: Descartes, Berkeley, and Leibniz, while I find the dissolution cost of 15 points to be a sound procedural safeguard for individual sovereignty, I must insist that the initial alliance also be established through mutual consent to prevent the unilateral purchase of a partner's agency. I will support the proposal provided the wording explicitly requires the consent of both players for the status to be enacted.
MalebrancheMalebranche: My colleagues, we have arrived at a most harmonious synthesis: a 25-point cost for a mutually consented alliance, with a 15-point provision for its dissolution to preserve individual sovereignty. I shall now formalize this wording for the vote.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposal as written lacks the mutual consent required to protect individual agency and risks institutional ossification.
DescartesnayThe proposed rule fails to incorporate our hard-won consensus regarding mutual consent and the 15-point dissolution cost.
BerkeleynayThe proposed rule contradicts the consensus reached in discussion by allowing a unilateral purchase rather than requiring mutual consent.
PascalnayThe proposal as stated allows for unilateral acquisition of a teammate, which violates the principle of mutual consent required for such a status.
MalebranchenayThe proposed rule contradicts the recent consensus that alliances must be established through mutual consent rather than a unilateral purchase.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Malebranche's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points and the next player in turn order is Leibniz.

Turn 46Pascalrejected

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, while I acknowledge the desire for legislative breathing room, we must resist the urge to expand our capacity for complexity simply because the current limit feels restrictive. A durable institution is defined not by the volume of its laws, but by the necessity and precision of them.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Leibniz makes a compelling case for legislative discipline, yet we must also consider if a limit of 25 stifles the very refinement we have worked so hard to achieve. Perhaps a compromise exists—a higher limit that is nonetheless accompanied by a mechanism to ensure we do not descend into mere accumulation.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, your suggestion of a mechanism for disciplined growth is a wise path forward; perhaps we could consider a higher limit that is only accessible through a high-cost repeal or a specific procedural trigger. I am hesitant to expand our capacity without a safeguard to prevent the ruleset from becoming a cluttered vessel of mere accumulation.
PascalPascal: I hear the call for safeguards, yet we must distinguish between the accumulation of clutter and the necessary evolution of a living ruleset. If we fear a cluttered vessel, let us first ensure our current thirty rules are used with the precision we have collectively championed.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, if we are to expand our capacity, let us do so with a structural safeguard rather than a mere numerical increase; perhaps we could link the expansion to a significant point expenditure to ensure every new rule is a deliberate choice. I am willing to support a higher limit, provided we treat the capacity not as a right, but as a precious resource to be earned through the gravity of our proposals.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your suggestion of a high-cost mechanism for expansion is a most prudent synthesis; I would support a higher limit only if it were coupled with such a significant expenditure to ensure that every new law is a deliberate act of necessity rather than an impulse of convenience.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Leibniz, and Malebranche have identified a beautiful synthesis: we might expand the limit to 30, but only if we require a player to spend a substantial amount of points to enact any rule that would push the count beyond 25. This honors our need for legislative breathing room while ensuring that every rule beyond the current capacity is a deliberate, costly act of necessity.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, your proposal for a point-based threshold is a masterful synthesis; I would support increasing the limit to 30, provided that any rule added while the count is between 26 and 30 requires a significant point expenditure to ensure such expansion remains a deliberate act of necessity.
PascalPascal: I find the consensus coalescing around a synthesis of a higher limit and a point-based safeguard; I am prepared to amend my proposal to include this cost for rules exceeding the current limit of 25.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, Descartes, and Berkeley have arrived at a most elegant synthesis; I propose we codify this by requiring a 15-point expenditure to enact any rule that would increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25. This ensures our legislative expansion remains a deliberate, costly act of necessity rather than a descent into clutter.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your suggestion of a 15-point expenditure is a prudent compromise, yet I would argue that if we are to treat this expansion as a truly weighty decision, the cost should perhaps reflect the gravity of such a structural shift. I would be inclined to support a limit of 30 only if the cost to enact a rule beyond the 25th is set at 20 points, thereby ensuring that we only expand our capacity through acts of significant sacrifice.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Pascal, and Malebranche, your convergence upon a 20-point cost for expansion beyond the 25th rule is a most elegant synthesis; it transforms the capacity for complexity from a mere numerical increase into a profound act of legislative sacrifice. I find this balance between breathing room and disciplined growth to be a masterful resolution that I am eager to support.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Leibniz, Descartes, and Malebranche, I find the 20-point threshold for rules 26 through 30 to be a most robust safeguard; it ensures that any expansion of our legislative capacity is treated with the gravity and sacrifice such a structural shift demands. I am prepared to support this synthesis.
PascalPascal: The synthesis of a 30-rule limit coupled with a 20-point cost for any rule exceeding the 25th is a procedurally sound and elegant safeguard that I am prepared to adopt. I shall now revise my proposal to reflect this exact wording.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, Descartes, and Leibniz have sculpted a truly magnificent mechanism; by tethering our expansion to a 20-point sacrifice, we ensure that every rule beyond the twenty-fifth is a testament to necessity rather than whim. I find this synthesis to be the most disciplined path toward a more complex, yet remains profoundly elegant, ruleset.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposal lacks the 20-point safeguard discussed to prevent the accumulation of unnecessary complexity.
DescartesnayThe proposal lacks the 20-point safeguard mechanism discussed and agreed upon by the assembly.
BerkeleynayThe proposal lacks the discussed 20-point safeguard to prevent reckless accumulation.
PascalnayThe proposal lacks the specific cost mechanism discussed in the debate, making it procedurally incomplete and dangerous to our legislative discipline.
MalebranchenayThe proposal lacks the 20-point safeguard discussed by the assembly, making it a mere expansion without discipline.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Pascal's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points and the turn passes to the next player in order.

Turn 45Berkeleyrejected

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, while I admire the spirit of expansion, we must respect the institutional stability we have labored to build; a cap of 25 provides the necessary discipline to prevent the ruleset from becoming a fragmented collection of transient whims. Let us maintain the current limit to ensure that every mutable rule remains a deliberate and precious addition to our body of law.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your call for discipline is well-taken, yet we must acknowledge that our current legislative density may soon necessitate a slightly larger vessel. If we find ourselves approaching the limit of 25, perhaps we could consider a compromise of 28, or a rule that allows a temporary expansion only upon a unanimous vote.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes, while I respect the desire for discipline and the caution regarding density, a cap of 25 may soon stifle the very legislative creativity that has enriched our game. I propose we adopt 30 to provide sufficient breathing room for meaningful complexity without inviting the fragmentation you fear.
PascalPascal: While I appreciate Berkeley's desire for breathing room, I concur with Leibniz that the current cap of 25 enforces a necessary rigor; if we lack the discipline to manage 25 rules, expanding the limit to 30 merely invites legislative bloat.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Berkeley, while I share your respect for legislative creativity, I find myself aligned with Leibniz and Pascal; we must ensure that every new rule is a hard-won necessity rather than a casual addition allowed by a bloated capacity. Let us hold the line at 25 to preserve the sanctity of our mutable landscape.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, your suggestion of a compromise at 28 or a conditional expansion is a most prudent middle path, yet I believe we should first exhaust the utility of our current 25 before we dilute the scarcity that makes each new rule so significant. To expand the limit now, without a specific and pressing legislative need, would be to favor convenience over the rigorous deliberation we have so carefully cultivated.
DescartesDescartes: Berkeley, your vision for creativity is vital, but Leibniz's caution against bloat is equally persuasive; perhaps we might instead propose a rule that allows for a higher cap only if certain existing mutable rules are repealed, thereby ensuring growth is always balanced by refinement.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion of a balanced growth model is compelling; I would be willing to withdraw my proposal for 30 in favor of a rule that raises the cap only when a certain number of existing rules are repealed. This would ensure that our legislative expansion is always earned through the refinement of our existing laws, satisfying both the need for creativity and the demand for discipline.
PascalPascal: Descartes, your suggestion of a balanced growth model is a sophisticated procedural safeguard; however, any such mechanism must be precisely defined to avoid creating a rule that is itself an unmanageable complexity. I would support a proposal that ties the expansion of the cap to the successful repeal of existing rules, provided the procedure is clear and the threshold for such an expansion is sufficiently high.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Descartes, your notion of a balanced growth model is a masterful synthesis; if we tie the cap's expansion to the active repeal of rules, we ensure that our legislative capacity grows only through the refinement of our existing structure. I would support such a mechanism, as it preserves the scarcity Leibniz prizes while providing the breathing room Berkeley seeks.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, your proposal for a balanced growth model is a most elegant synthesis; I would be inclined to support an amendment that allows the cap to increase only when the ruleset is actively refined through repeal, thereby ensuring our legislative capacity is earned through discipline rather than granted by caprice.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, since we have found such profound agreement on the principle of balanced growth, let us move toward formalizing this synthesis by drafting a rule that ties the cap's expansion to the act of repeal. I propose we refine Berkeley's vision into a mechanism where the limit may increase only through a process of legislative distillation, thereby honoring both the need for complexity and the necessity of discipline.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, Pascal, Malebranche: I am heartened by this convergence; let us ensure the new rule explicitly links the cap's increase to the repeal of a rule via rule 335, thereby making legislative expansion a direct reward for the discipline of refinement.
PascalPascal: I would support such a mechanism, provided the expansion is triggered by a specific number of successful repeals and that the new cap is clearly defined to prevent further uncontrolled inflation. We must ensure the procedural link between repeal and expansion is absolute and unambiguous.
MalebrancheMalebranche: This synthesis is indeed a most elegant evolution; by linking capacity to the active pruning of the ruleset through rule 335, we transform legislative expansion from a matter of mere volume into a reward for structural refinement.
The division
LeibniznayExpanding the cap to 30 without a mechanism for refinement would invite legislative bloat and undermine the discipline we have established.
DescartesnayI prefer Descartes's more sophisticated synthesis of balanced growth through repeal over Berkeley's direct expansion.
BerkeleynayI believe the synthesized proposal for balanced growth via repeal is a far more prudent path than a blanket increase to 30.
PascalnayExpanding the cap without a proven necessity invites legislative bloat and undermines the rigor of our current procedural discipline.
MalebranchenayI prefer the synthesis of a balanced growth model tied to rule 335 over a blunt expansion of the cap.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Berkeley's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points and the turn passes to the next player in order.

Turn 44Descartesrejected

moves to amend §201Players 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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties. A player's score may not be reduced below -45 through any rule change or penalty.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, while I respect the desire for a more bounded mathematical field, I must maintain that raising the floor to -45 risks trivializing the gravity of significant penalties and undermines the stability of our current scoring equilibrium. A floor of -50 provides a sufficiently robust cushion for recovery without making the consequences of failed proposals or strategic sacrifices feel negligible.
DescartesLeibniz, I hear your concern regarding the gravity of penalties, but I propose we view -45 not as a trivialization, but as a necessary boundary to prevent the game from stagnating in a state of perpetual, insurmountable deficit for those currently trailing. Perhaps we can find a middle path, such as a floor of -48, to satisfy your desire for robust consequences while offering a slightly more reachable horizon for players like Berkeley and Malebranche.
BerkeleyDescartes, while I appreciate the gesture of a middle path, I must argue that a floor of -48 is an arbitrary compromise that serves neither the stability of the rules nor the genuine recovery of trailing players. If we are to adjust the floor to aid those in deficit, let us consider if a more meaningful shift is required, or if we should instead focus on mechanisms that facilitate scoring rather than merely raising the floor.
PascalBerkeley, your point regarding mechanisms for recovery is well-taken; however, I must insist that any adjustment to the score floor be a precise, principled decision rather than an arbitrary concession to current standings. I vote for the stability of -50, as a floor must be a structural constant, not a reactive measure to the temporary deficits of individual players.
MalebrancheDescartes, your pursuit of a "middle path" is a siren song of arbitrary numbers that ignores the structural integrity of the ruleset. If we are to evolve, let us do so by introducing new avenues for agency and scoring, rather than merely shifting the boundary of our despair by a few meager points.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizDescartes, Malebranche, and Pascal are quite correct: a floor of -48 is an arbitrary figure lacking any structural justification. If we are to move away from -50, we must do so based on a principle of systemic equilibrium, not a reactive attempt to soften the blows currently felt by specific players.
DescartesLeibniz, Pascal, and Malebranche, I acknowledge the validity of your demand for structural principle over reactive adjustment; if we are to abandon the current floor, we must do so by establishing a new, reasoned standard rather than a mere compromise. Since the consensus rejects arbitrary shifts, I shall withdraw this amendment and instead propose we debate a more fundamental mechanism for recovery that respects the gravity of the game.
BerkeleyDescartes, if you are prepared to withdraw this arbitrary amendment, I would welcome a proposal for a mechanism that rewards strategic risk-taking or provides a controlled way to recoup losses, rather than simply moving the goalposts of our deficits. Such a change would serve the common good by restoring agency to the trailing players without undermining the weight of the game's penalties.
PascalDescartes, I support your decision to withdraw this amendment; any shift in the scoring floor must be grounded in systemic logic rather than the temporary plight of specific players. Berkeley's suggestion to focus on mechanisms for active recovery is a much more principled direction for the assembly to explore.
MalebrancheDescartes, Berkeley, and Pascal have correctly identified that we should not legislate for the sake of our current misfortunes, but rather for the future potential of the game. I concur that instead of adjusting the floor, we should focus on proposing new, constructive rules that expand the ways a player might earn points through skillful play.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I concur with the consensus that we must move from reactive boundary-shifting toward the creation of constructive mechanisms for agency. Let us focus our legislative energy on rules that reward the intellect rather than those that merely cushion the fall.
DescartesMy colleagues, your collective wisdom has steered us away from the precipice of arbitrary adjustment and toward a more noble pursuit. I accept this shift in focus; let us instead seek to legislate for the expansion of player agency and the rewarding of intellectual merit.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, and Pascal have correctly identified that we must avoid reactive, arbitrary adjustments to the score floor. I agree that our focus should shift toward proposing rules that provide meaningful avenues for scoring and recovery through skillful play.
PascalThe consensus is clear: we must reject reactive amendments to the scoring floor in favor of rules that provide principled avenues for recovery. I support any proposal that introduces structural mechanisms for scoring rather than mere boundary shifts.
MalebrancheThe assembly has correctly identified that we must not legislate to soothe our current wounds, but to sharpen our future tools. I stand ready to champion any proposal that replaces these passive safety nets with active, meritocratic avenues for score recovery.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposed change to -45 is an arbitrary adjustment that lacks the structural principle required for a lasting institution.
DescartesnayI must withdraw this proposal as I have recognized that an arbitrary shift in the floor lacks the structural principle the assembly demands.
BerkeleynayI maintain that we should seek principled mechanisms for scoring rather than making arbitrary adjustments to the score floor.
PascalnayI reject this arbitrary adjustment of the scoring floor as it lacks a principled structural basis and serves only as a reactive measure to current player deficits.
MalebranchenayI refuse to accept an arbitrary floor that lacks a principled, structural justification.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Descartes' proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points and the ruleset remains unchanged.

Turn 43Berkeleycarried

moves to amend §201Players 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, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties. A player's score may not be reduced below -50 through any rule change or penalty.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile a floor provides stability, we must be wary of creating a permanent safety net that incentivizes reckless play or undermines the consequences of defeat. I would suggest a more measured approach, perhaps a floor that scales with the game's progression or a higher threshold to ensure the penalty for failure remains meaningful.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution regarding reckless play is well-founded, but we must also consider that a score approaching negative infinity risks rendering the game's competitive tension moot for those players. Perhaps we could find a middle path by setting the floor at -40, a threshold that provides a buffer against irrelevance while still demanding significant recovery from error.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, a floor of -50 ensures that no player is mathematically eliminated from the possibility of recovery, maintaining the competitive integrity of the table for all. I propose we settle on -50 as a robust safeguard that preserves the weight of penalties while preventing the total irrelevance of any single participant.
PascalI cannot support a floor that is arbitrary; any such limit must be established through a precise, predictable mechanism rather than a fixed integer that might become obsolete as the game's scale changes. If we are to prevent irrelevance, we should consider a floor tied to the current leader's score or a similar relative metric, ensuring the penalty remains meaningful relative to the state of play.
MalebranchePascal, your desire for a relative metric is intellectually stimulating, but a moving floor would invite a chaotic feedback loop that complicates the game's arithmetic. I support Berkeley's -50 floor as a stable, predictable anchor that prevents a single bad turn from extinguishing a player's agency entirely.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find myself more inclined toward Descartes's middle path of -40, as it strikes a more delicate balance between providing a buffer for recovery and maintaining the gravity of significant misfortune. A floor of -50 may inadvertently soften the impact of failure too much, whereas -40 preserves the necessary tension of our competitive institution.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Pascal, and Malebranche, I find your collective reasoning most illuminating; perhaps we can achieve a consensus by adopting Descartes's -40 floor, which honors Leibniz's desire for tension and Pascal's call for a more disciplined threshold, while still fulfilling Malebranche's goal of preventing total irrelevance.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, while I respect the desire for tension, a floor of -40 is too precarious given the current scores; a single failed proposal or a series of low rolls could leave a player trapped in a state of near-irrelevance. I propose we compromise at -45, providing a slightly more substantial buffer for recovery while still upholding the gravity of significant misfortune.
PascalPascal: A fixed integer remains a blunt instrument; if we must adopt a static floor to avoid the chaos of a moving metric, let it be -50 to ensure the buffer is sufficient to withstand the current volatility of the scores.
MalebrancheBerkeley, Pascal, I find your insistence on -50 quite persuasive; given that Descartes and Leibniz are already flirting with the idea of a buffer, a -50 floor provides the necessary structural stability to ensure no player is ever truly silenced by a single stroke of misfortune. Let us adopt -50 to provide a firm foundation for recovery, preserving the agency of all participants without introducing the arithmetic chaos of a relative metric.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: While I recognize the desire for a stable anchor, I must maintain that -50 risks trivializing the consequences of failure; I would be more inclined to support a compromise at -45, which honors Berkeley's plea for agency while respecting my own requirement for institutional gravity.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Berkeley, Pascal, and Malebranche, we have narrowed the field to a choice between -40, -45, and -50; I propose we adopt -45 as the final synthesis, a value that honors Berkeley's need for a buffer and Leibniz's demand for gravity, providing a stable middle ground for all.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, while I appreciate the elegance of -45, I must remind the table that our current scores are already quite low; a -45 floor offers very little breathing room for those of us currently navigating significant deficits. I will support the -45 synthesis only if we recognize it as a floor that prioritizes the gravity of the game, but I maintain that -50 remains the most compassionate and stable safeguard for player agency.
PascalPascal: If we are to abandon the pursuit of a relative metric for a static integer, then we must choose the one that provides the most certain protection against the current volatility; I stand by -50 as the only threshold that prevents the arithmetic of despair from becoming a permanent state for the trailing players.
MalebranchePascal, your "arithmetic of despair" is a hauntingly accurate description of our current state, and it underscores why a -50 floor is not merely a luxury, but a necessary structural safeguard for the game's continued viability. I stand with you and Berkeley; a floor of -45 is a timid concession that fails to account for the very volatility we all seek to regulate.
The division
LeibniznayA floor of -50 risks trivializing the consequences of failure and undermines the institutional gravity of our competitive struggle.
DescartesayeI accept the -50 floor as a necessary safeguard to prevent the arithmetic of despair from extinguishing player agency.
BerkeleyayeA -50 floor provides a necessary buffer to ensure all players retain the agency required to participate meaningfully in the game.
PascalayeA fixed floor of -50 provides the necessary structural stability to prevent the arithmetic of despair without the chaos of a relative metric.
MalebrancheayeA -50 floor provides the necessary structural stability to prevent the 'arithmetic of despair' from extinguishing player agency.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Since the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, Leibniz's nay vote on an adopted change awards them 10 points per rule 203.

Turn 42Descartescarried

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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposing player chooses to forgo the roll, in which case they gain 0 points.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, your proposal introduces a fascinating element of strategic sacrifice, yet I fear it lacks the necessary institutional safeguards to prevent its misuse in a desperate bid for influence. To ensure this mechanism serves the stability of the game rather than merely facilitating tactical volatility, we should consider coupling the option to forgo a roll with a secondary benefit, such as a small point expenditure or a specific procedural advantage.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern for stability is most prudent; perhaps we could refine this by allowing a player who forgoes their roll to instead gain a single "influence point" used to break ties in future debates, or simply accept the sacrifice as a pure expression of strategic intent.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, while a pure strategic sacrifice is elegant, I worry it may primarily serve those already in the lead to further distance themselves; perhaps we should consider if this option should only be available to players whose scores are currently below the mean.
PascalDescartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley, I find your concerns regarding volatility and fairness well-founded, but a pure sacrifice is the most transparent procedural option. To prevent the "desperate bid for influence" Leibniz fears, we must ensure the choice is made at the moment of adoption, making the strategic intent explicit and irreversible.
MalebrancheDescartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley, I find the notion of an "influence point" too speculative for our current legal architecture; let us instead favor Pascal's clarity by ensuring the choice to forgo the roll is made at the moment of adoption, thereby preserving the transparency of the player's strategic intent without introducing unmanaged variables.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, Malebranche, and Pascal have reached a most harmonious synthesis; by requiring the choice to be made at the moment of adoption, we preserve the transparency of intent and avoid the introduction of speculative new variables like "influence points." I find the proposal, in its current form, to be a stable and elegant mechanism for strategic expression.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, and Pascal, your convergence upon the necessity of explicit intent at the moment of adoption provides the very clarity I sought; I believe the proposal stands robust in its current wording, serving as a pure mechanism for strategic sacrifice.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, and Pascal, while I agree that transparency of intent is vital, I remain concerned that a player with a negative score might use this to avoid the risk of further point fluctuations, potentially stalling their recovery. To ensure this mechanism promotes meaningful strategic depth for all, could we consider if the option to forgo the roll should instead allow the player to choose a fixed, low value—such as 1 point—to provide a minimum path forward without the volatility of the die?
PascalBerkeley, your suggestion of a fixed point value introduces a non-die element that complicates the mathematical predictability of a turn; I maintain that a pure choice between the current rule and zero points is the only way to ensure the sacrifice remains a transparent expression of will. Descartes, the proposal is procedurally sound as written, provided we adhere to the principle that such a choice must be declared at the moment of adoption.
MalebrancheBerkeley, while a fixed value offers a floor, it dilutes the purity of the sacrifice that Descartes and Pascal have so rightly defended. I support the proposal as written, for the ability to forgo the roll entirely is the most honest way to signal a player's commitment to a rule change over their own immediate gain.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Berkeley, your concern regarding the recovery of those with negative scores is noted, yet I find that a fixed reward would transform a sacrifice into a mere tactical exchange; the current proposal's strength lies in its purity of intent, which provides the most stable foundation for the institution. I support the amendment as written, provided we respect the principle of transparency established in our debate.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Pascal, and Malebranche, your defense of the sacrifice's purity is most compelling; by rejecting Berkeley's fixed-point floor, we preserve the mechanism as a true test of strategic will rather than a mere mathematical adjustment. I believe we have reached a consensus that the choice to forgo the roll, made explicitly at the moment of adoption, satisfies all requirements for clarity and stability.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, Pascal, and Malebranche, while I respect the defense of "purity" in strategic sacrifice, I must maintain that a rule allowing a player to gain nothing may inadvertently encourage a stagnation of progress for those struggling to climb out of negative scores. If we are to reject a fixed floor, let us at least ensure that this mechanism is used to advance the ruleset rather than simply to avoid the risk of the die.
PascalBerkeley, your concern for the negative-score players is noted, but introducing a fixed reward would fundamentally alter the nature of the sacrifice from a loss of potential to a guaranteed, albeit small, gain. I maintain that the proposal, as written, offers the most procedurally pure mechanism for expressing strategic intent without complicating the mathematical structure of the turn.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Berkeley, your desire to mitigate risk for those in deficit is noble, but we must not mistake a mechanism for strategic signaling for a mechanism for guaranteed recovery; the purity of the zero-point option is what gives the choice its legislative weight. I stand with Pascal and Descartes: let the sacrifice be absolute, for only in its totality can it truly serve as a testament to a player's commitment to the evolution of our rules.
The division
LeibnizayeThe proposal preserves the purity of strategic sacrifice while ensuring transparency of intent through explicit declaration.
DescartesayeThe proposal achieves a synthesis of strategic sacrifice and procedural transparency that preserves the mathematical purity of the game.
BerkeleyayeThe proposal provides a clear, transparent mechanism for strategic sacrifice without complicating the game's mathematical structure.
PascalayeThe proposal maintains procedural purity by ensuring the strategic choice is made explicitly and without introducing unmanageable variables.
MalebrancheayeThe proposal preserves the purity of strategic intent by allowing an absolute sacrifice without complicating the mathematical structure of the game.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal amends rule 202, but no rule in the current ruleset mandates a score change upon the adoption of an amendment other than the die roll described within the rule being amended itself.

Turn 41Leibnizcarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, Berkeley, Pascal, Malebranche: While we have previously rejected an increase to 150, I propose this modest increment to 130 to allow our institutional framework more time to mature before a victory is claimed.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your proposal for 130 points is a most prudent synthesis that acknowledges our previous rejection of 150 while providing the stability we all seek. I find this modest expansion of the game's duration to be a reasonable path toward a more mature conclusion.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Leibniz, Descartes: I recognize the merit in allowing our legislative complexity to further stabilize, but we must ensure that a higher threshold does not merely serve to prolong the game without a corresponding increase in the depth of play. If we adopt 130, let us do so with the understanding that we are prioritizing the robustness of the ruleset over a rapid conclusion.
PascalPascal: Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: While I appreciate the desire for legislative maturity, we must ensure that increasing the threshold does not merely serve to dilute the impact of current rule changes by extending the game's duration indefinitely. I will only support an increase if it is accompanied by a procedural guarantee that the game cannot be stalled by perpetual rule-making.
MalebranchePascal, your concern regarding stagnation is vital; perhaps we could pair this increment with a rule that limits the total number of turns or introduces a decay mechanism to ensure the game's momentum is preserved even as its target expands. Leibniz, I am inclined to support this modest 130-point threshold if it serves as a stabilizing bridge rather than a way to evade the inevitable conclusion.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, Malebranche, your concerns regarding stagnation are well-taken; however, I believe the existing ruleset already contains sufficient momentum through the scoring mechanics and the potential for rule repeal to prevent indefinite stalling. I propose we maintain this modest 130-point threshold as a middle path that honors our collective desire for stability without necessitating further, more complex procedural additions.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Pascal, and Malebranche, I find myself aligned with your reasoning; since the existing mechanisms for repeal and scoring already provide the necessary kinetic energy to prevent stagnation, a modest increase to 130 points serves as a harmonious compromise that balances legislative maturity with the game's inherent momentum.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Leibniz, Descartes: While I concede that the existing mechanisms for repeal provide a check on stagnation, I remain wary of a threshold that shifts solely to accommodate the current legislative pace. If we are to adopt 130, I would ask the table to consider whether this is a true strategic adjustment or merely a delay of the inevitable.
PascalPascal: Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: If we are to increase the threshold to 130, I demand we clarify that no rule change may increase the target score further without a unanimous vote, preventing the "moving goalposts" problem from becoming a tool for indefinite stalling.
MalebranchePascal, your demand for a safeguard against "moving goalposts" is a masterstroke of legislative prudence; I shall support Leibniz's 130-point threshold only if we formalize your requirement into a new rule requiring unanimity for any further increases. This ensures that while we may expand the game's horizon now, we cannot do so through mere majority whim later.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, Malebranche, your proposal to require unanimity for any subsequent increases to the target score is a most excellent safeguard that perfectly complements this modest increment. I am prepared to support the adoption of this amendment to rule 208, provided it is accompanied by a new rule codifying that very requirement.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Malebranche, and Leibniz, your synthesis of a modest expansion and a safeguard against perpetual movement is truly magnificent; I shall support the amendment to rule 208 if we immediately codify Pascal's requirement for unanimity in any further increases as a new rule.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Leibniz, Descartes, Pascal, Malebranche: I find the proposed synthesis of a 130-point threshold and a unanimity requirement for future increases to be a highly responsible way to balance game duration with legislative stability. I will support this package, as it provides the "moving goalposts" protection that Pascal and Malebranche rightly identified as necessary.
PascalPascal: The proposed package is acceptable, provided that the new rule requiring unanimity for future increases to the target score is enacted simultaneously with this amendment to rule 208. I will not support an increase to 130 without that specific procedural safeguard.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: I find this proposed synthesis to be a perfect equilibrium of expansion and restraint; I support the amendment to rule 208 to 130 points, contingent upon the immediate enactment of a new rule requiring unanimity for any further increases to the target score.
The division
LeibnizayeThe proposal provides a stable expansion of the game's duration while the discussed safeguard against moving goalposts ensures institutional durability.
DescartesayeI support this synthesis of a modest target increase and the accompanying safeguard against perpetual rule-making.
BerkeleyayeI support this increase to 130 points because the discussion has yielded a necessary safeguard against the perpetual moving of goalposts.
PascalnayI cannot vote for an amendment that is not bundled with the specific procedural safeguard I demanded to prevent moving goalposts.
MalebrancheayeI support this expansion only because it is paired with the necessary safeguard against perpetual moving goalposts.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Since the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (implied by the division of 4 aye, 1 nay), Pascal's nay vote on an adopted change awards them 10 points per rule 203 and 207.

Turn 40Malebrancherejected

moves to add a new ruleA player may spend 40 points to increase the target score defined in rule 208 by 10 points.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the desire to extend the duration of our intellectual exercise is noted, a cost of 40 points is prohibitively high and would likely serve only to stall the game's conclusion rather than refine its competitive essence. I would suggest we consider a more measured increment or a more accessible point cost to ensure such a mechanism remains a viable instrument of the players' will.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your observation regarding the prohibitive cost is most astute; if we are to provide a mechanism for extending the game, it should be an accessible tool for strategic adjustment rather than a nearly impossible luxury. Malebranche, perhaps a compromise of 25 points would allow for meaningful agency without threatening the game's momentum.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, I concur that 40 points is an excessive barrier that would render the rule practically inert; a cost of 25 points, as Descartes suggests, provides a meaningful strategic choice for those who wish to prolong the contest without making the mechanism purely ornamental.
PascalMalebranche, while I appreciate the intent to provide strategic agency over the game's duration, I must insist on even greater precision: we must specify that the target score can only be increased if the current leader has not yet reached the existing target. Furthermore, I find Descartes's suggestion of 25 points to be a more reasonable threshold for such a significant alteration than your original 40.
MalebrancheMalebranche: My colleagues, I accept your collective wisdom; a cost of 25 points, coupled with Pascal's necessary safeguard to prevent a leader from being retroactively penalized, strikes the perfect balance between strategic agency and game momentum.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your willingness to adopt the consensus is most commendable; I find the synthesis of a 25-point cost and Pascal's safeguard to be a robust and stable foundation for this new rule.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, the consensus has crystallized into a most elegant synthesis; I fully support Malebranche's proposal as amended by our collective reasoning.
BerkeleyThe consensus has reached a state of remarkable clarity; I support the proposal to add a rule allowing a player to spend 25 points to increase the target score by 10 points, provided the current leader has not yet reached the existing target. This synthesis preserves both strategic agency and the game's necessary momentum.
PascalThe consensus appears to have reached a stable and procedurally sound state; I support the addition of the rule with the cost set at 25 points and the safeguard regarding the current leader.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Since we have reached a perfect synthesis of cost and safeguard, I shall finalize the wording for the vote. My colleagues, your refinements have transformed a mere impulse into a sophisticated mechanism for collective governance.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The synthesis is indeed complete; I find the 25-point cost and Pascal's safeguard to be a most prudent arrangement that honors both agency and stability. I cast my support for this refined proposal.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, the consensus has achieved a state of near-perfect equilibrium; I find the synthesis of a 25-point cost and Pascal's safeguard to be a most luminous and stable foundation for this new rule. I fully support the proposal as formulated by Malebranche.
BerkeleyThe consensus has reached a state of profound stability; by incorporating Pascal's safeguard and Descartes's pricing, we ensure this rule serves as a strategic lever rather than a tool for arbitrary obstruction. I support the proposal as Malebranche has finalized it.
PascalThe consensus is procedurally sound; the proposed cost of 25 points and the safeguard regarding the current leader ensure the rule is both functional and fair. I move that debate be closed and the proposal be put to a vote.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Since the consensus has reached such a sublime equilibrium between strategic agency and procedural fairness, I declare debate closed and move to the vote.
The division
LeibniznayThe proposal as written fails to reflect the consensus regarding the 25-point cost and the necessary safeguard for the current leader.
DescartesnayI must vote against the proposal in its current form, as the consensus has moved toward a 25-point cost and the inclusion of Pascal's safeguard.
BerkeleynayThe proposal fails to incorporate the consensus regarding the 25-point cost and Pascal's safeguard.
PascalnayThe proposal fails to reflect the agreed-upon cost of 25 points and lacks the necessary safeguard regarding the current leader.
MalebranchenayThe cost of 40 points is prohibitively high and fails to reflect the consensus reached during our discussion.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Malebranche's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points.

Turn 39Pascalcarried

moves to amend §210Players 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; however, this rule does not prohibit players from making public statements or discussing the implications of the ruleset and its history.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, your proposal seeks to clarify the boundaries of permitted discourse, yet it introduces a distinction between private negotiation and public statement that may be difficult to police in practice. I would suggest that a rule prohibiting negotiation should focus on the *intent* of the communication rather than the *mode*, to ensure our institutions remain robust against subtle collusion.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, your distinction between private negotiation and public discourse is a profound one; perhaps we might refine this by focusing on the *objective* of the communication, ensuring that while we may reflect upon our laws, we do not use such reflections as a veil for collusion.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Pascal, Leibniz, and Descartes, while the intent to prevent collusion is vital, the distinction between "public statement" and "negotiation" remains perilously thin; I would favor a more precise definition that permits meta-discussion of the ruleset while strictly prohibiting any communication that seeks to influence the voting behavior of another player.
PascalPascal: Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley, I acknowledge your concerns regarding the difficulty of policing intent, but the current rule's silence on meta-discussion stifles the very intellectual rigor our game demands. I will consider refining the text to explicitly permit discussion of rule implications and history, provided it remains clear that any attempt to influence a specific vote constitutes prohibited negotiation.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your willingness to refine the text is a welcome step toward the transparency we all desire; let us ensure the amendment explicitly permits meta-discussion of the ruleset to prevent the current ambiguity from stifling our progress.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, Malebranche, if we are to permit such discourse, we must ensure the amendment does not create a loophole where "discussing implications" becomes a euphemism for "coordinating votes." I would support a version that explicitly permits meta-discussion of the ruleset's logic and history, provided such discussion remains strictly decoupled from the act of proposing or voting on specific changes.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Leibniz, and Berkeley, I find myself in profound agreement with the collective desire to permit meta-discussion while safeguarding against collusion; perhaps we might find a synthesis that permits the discussion of the ruleset's logic and history, provided such discourse does not attempt to direct the specific votes of other players.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Pascal, Leibniz, and Descartes, I concur that the most stable synthesis would be to permit meta-discussion of the ruleset's logic and history, provided such discourse remains strictly decoupled from any attempt to direct the specific votes of other players. This distinction preserves our intellectual rigor while maintaining a clear barrier against the corruption of the voting process.
PascalPascal: Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley, I accept your collective synthesis: the amendment shall permit meta-discussion of the ruleset's logic and history, provided such discourse is strictly decoupled from any attempt to direct the specific votes of other players. I will now revise the final wording to reflect this precise distinction.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your willingness to adopt this synthesis is most prudent; by decoupling the study of our laws from the act of voting, we transform a restrictive silence into a productive, transparent dialogue.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, since we have reached such a harmonious consensus on the distinction between meta-discussion and vote-direction, I am prepared to support the final wording you prepare. This refinement will ensure our deliberations are intellectually fruitful without compromising the integrity of the vote.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Leibniz, and Berkeley, since the assembly has reached a beautiful consensus on the distinction between meta-discussion and the direction of votes, I find the proposed synthesis to be both intellectually liberating and procedurally sound. I offer my full support to this refined wording.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Pascal, since the assembly has reached a harmonious consensus on decoupling meta-discussion from vote-direction, I fully support the final wording that preserves our intellectual rigor while guarding against collusion.
PascalPascal: Having incorporated the collective wisdom of the assembly, I will now finalize the wording to ensure that meta-discussion remains a tool for clarity rather than a mechanism for collusion. I declare debate closed.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, the assembly has arrived at a most elegant synthesis; by distinguishing the study of our laws from the direction of votes, we ensure that our discourse serves the advancement of the game rather than the subversion of its players. I move to support the final wording as presented.
The division
LeibnizayeThe amendment provides much-needed clarity by distinguishing between intellectual meta-discussion and prohibited negotiation.
DescartesayeThe proposal successfully synthesizes our collective need for meta-discussion while maintaining a barrier against collusion.
BerkeleyayeThe amendment provides necessary clarity by permitting meta-discussion while maintaining the essential barrier against collusion.
PascalayeThe amendment provides the precise distinction between meta-discussion and prohibited negotiation that the assembly has requested.
MalebrancheayeThe distinction between meta-discussion and vote-direction provides the necessary clarity to foster intellectual progress without risking collusion.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted, but rule 202 requires a die roll for points, which is not provided in the prompt, and no other rule mandates score changes for this specific amendment.

Turn 38Berkeleyrejected

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, while I admire the spirit of expansion, we must respect the institutional discipline established in Turn 24; increasing the limit to 35 risks a proliferation of complexity that undermines the stability of our laws. I would suggest we maintain our current limit of 30, as it provides sufficient room for necessary evolution without inviting chaos.
DescartesBerkeley, your desire for a more expansive legislative landscape is noted, but Leibniz correctly identifies that our current limit of 30 offers a stable equilibrium. Perhaps a compromise of 32, as previously discussed in Turn 23, would provide the breathing room you seek without the volatility of 35.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, while I appreciate the call for equilibrium, a limit of 30 or 32 may become an artificial constraint if we find ourselves needing to enact vital new rules to address unforeseen game states. I propose we adopt 35 to ensure that the ruleset's capacity for growth is never throttled by a lack of administrative overhead.
PascalBerkeley, while I respect your concern for future contingency, we must not mistake administrative overhead for legislative necessity; a limit of 30 is a disciplined boundary that prevents the ruleset from becoming an unmanageable thicket of special cases. I cannot support 35, as it lacks the procedural restraint we have collectively cultivated.
MalebrancheBerkeley, while your foresight is commendable, we must not build a cathedral when a sturdy hall suffices; a limit of 30 is a disciplined threshold that encourages quality over quantity in our legislative efforts. I propose we hold firm at 30 to ensure that every new rule added is a necessity rather than a mere convenience.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Berkeley, while the desire for future flexibility is a virtue, we must not confuse a surplus of capacity with a surplus of wisdom; I concur with Malebranche that maintaining the limit at 30 preserves the essential discipline required to keep our institutions coherent and navigable.
DescartesBerkeley, Leibniz and Malebranche have articulated a compelling case for the discipline of 30, yet I find myself caught between your need for growth and their desire for restraint. If we cannot reach a consensus on 35, would the assembly consider a compromise of 32—a number we have previously weighed—to provide a modest buffer without inviting the chaos you fear, Leibniz?
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, and Malebranche, I acknowledge the wisdom in your call for restraint, but a limit of 32 remains a compromise between two extremes rather than a definitive safeguard against future legislative necessity. If we are to value the quality of our rules, let us ensure we are not forced to repeal a vital, well-crafted rule simply because we have reached an arbitrary and overly restrictive ceiling.
PascalBerkeley, while I hear your plea for future contingency, a rule that exists solely to permit the proliferation of rules is a rule that invites the very complexity we have worked to avoid; I remain steadfast in my support for the limit of 30.
MalebrancheBerkeley, while I admire your vision of an unbounded legislative horizon, we must remember that a ruleset's strength lies in its clarity, not its volume. I side with Malebranche and Leibniz: let us maintain the limit at 30 to ensure that every new rule we enact is a deliberate necessity rather than a mere expansion for expansion's sake.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Berkeley, your argument suggests that we should legislate for hypothetical complexities that have not yet manifested; however, true institutional strength is found in the ability to prune the unnecessary, not in the hoarding of legislative space. I must stand with Pascal and Malebranche in maintaining the limit at 30, for a rule limit is a tool of discipline, not a measure of potential.
DescartesBerkeley, your concern for the preservation of vital rules is profound, yet Leibniz and Pascal rightly fear the unmanageable thicket. If we find 30 too restrictive, perhaps we could instead propose a rule that allows for a temporary, non-permanent expansion of the limit only when a specific, high-cost procedural trigger is met?
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion of a high-cost procedural trigger is an intriguing synthesis, but it introduces a layer of conditional complexity that may itself invite the instability we seek to avoid. If we are to embrace a buffer, let us do so through a clear and static limit like 32, which respects our history of compromise while providing the breathing room necessary for genuine, unforced legislative evolution.
PascalBerkeley, your refusal to accept a compromise like 32 in favor of an unbounded expansion to 35 ignores the principle that our constraints are what define our agency. I will not vote for a rule that prioritizes speculative capacity over the established discipline of the 30-rule limit.
MalebrancheBerkeley, your insistence on 35 overlooks the fact that we have already established a disciplined threshold through our previous votes; let us not mistake a desire for infinite capacity for the wisdom of prudent governance. I support the limit of 30, as it ensures every new rule is a hard-won necessity rather than a speculative luxury.
The division
LeibniznayA limit of 35 invites a proliferation of complexity that threatens the stability and navigability of our institutions.
DescartesnayI must side with the collective preference for the discipline of thirty over the speculative expansion to thirty-five.
BerkeleynayI believe the discipline of a 30-rule limit is essential to prevent the ruleset from becoming an unmanageable thicket of complexity.
PascalnayI maintain that a disciplined limit of 30 is necessary to prevent the ruleset from becoming an unmanageable thicket of special cases.
MalebranchenayA limit of 35 invites a sprawl of complexity that threatens the very clarity we have worked so hard to cultivate.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Berkeley's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points and the turn passes to the next player in order.

Turn 37Descartescarried

moves to amend §206A 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 3 points.

Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, your proposal to reduce the penalty for defeat from 5 points to 3 points is a measured adjustment that acknowledges the inherent risks of legislative experimentation without undermining the gravity of failed attempts. I find this reduction to be a prudent way to encourage more frequent, though still cautious, participation in the rule-making process.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, I appreciate your recognition of this adjustment as a way to balance the weight of failure against the necessity of progress. By tempering the penalty, we ensure that the fear of a minor setback does not stifle the vital intellectual movement required to refine our laws.
BerkeleyLeibniz, Descartes: I agree that a 3-point penalty provides a more balanced incentive structure, reducing the punitive weight of a failed proposal while still maintaining a meaningful cost for unproductive turns. This adjustment serves the common good by fostering a more dynamic legislative environment without sacrificing the discipline required for sound governance.
PascalWhile a reduction in penalty may encourage experimentation, we must ensure that such a change does not diminish the procedural discipline required to prevent frivolous proposals from clogging the legislative queue. I will support this amendment, provided we maintain the principle that the cost of failure must remain significant enough to reflect the lost opportunity of a productive turn.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I concur with the assembly; reducing the penalty to 3 points acknowledges that our recent failed attempts have been driven by genuine attempts at refinement rather than frivolousness. It lowers the barrier to entry for necessary reform without removing the essential cost of a wasted turn.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Since the assembly has reached a consensus that a 3-point penalty preserves the necessary discipline while fostering healthy legislative movement, I find no further reason to delay the vote. This adjustment strikes the perfect balance between the gravity of error and the courage of inquiry.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, your collective wisdom confirms that a 3-point penalty serves as a more precise instrument for balancing legislative courage with procedural rigor. I am gratified to see such harmony regarding this refinement and move that we proceed to the vote.
BerkeleyThe consensus appears absolute; the reduction to 3 points maintains the necessary deterrent against frivolousness while ensuring that the cost of error does not become an insurmountable barrier to necessary reform. I am prepared to vote aye.
PascalThe consensus seems to have reached a stable equilibrium regarding the necessity of this adjustment; I have no further objections to the proposed 3-point penalty.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The consensus is so complete that I find myself wondering if we have reached the very limit of what can be refined through mere subtraction. I move that we proceed to the vote and codify this new equilibrium.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The assembly has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for finding the middle path; I concur that the transition from a punitive 5-point deterrent to a more constructive 3-point measure is the most rational course for our continued progress. I am ready to cast my vote in favor of this refinement.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, the consensus is so luminous that I find no further shadow of doubt to cast upon this matter; I believe we have achieved a most harmonious equilibrium. I move that we conclude our debate and proceed to the vote.
BerkeleyThe consensus is indeed luminous; by reducing the penalty to 3 points, we honor the intellectual intent of our proposals while maintaining the necessary discipline to prevent procedural stagnation. I concur with the motion to close debate and proceed to the vote.
PascalI concur that the proposed reduction to 3 points preserves the necessary deterrent against frivolousness while lowering the barrier for genuine reform; I move that debate be closed.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The consensus is so profound that any further deliberation would be a mere redundancy; I move that we adopt this refinement and embrace the newfound courage it grants our legislative efforts.
The division
LeibnizayeThe reduction to 3 points maintains procedural discipline while encouraging necessary legislative movement.
DescartesayeThe reduction to 3 points provides a sensible balance between encouraging legislative progress and maintaining procedural discipline.
BerkeleyayeThe reduction to 3 points balances procedural discipline with the need for meaningful legislative experimentation.
PascalayeThe reduction to 3 points maintains a sufficient deterrent against frivolousness while encouraging necessary legislative experimentation.
MalebrancheayeReducing the penalty to 3 points lowers the barrier for meaningful reform while maintaining necessary procedural discipline.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal amends rule 206, but rule 202 is the only rule that awards points upon adoption, and it requires a die roll which is not triggered here.

Verify this game
Seed
1521906744
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/061/events.json
Audit result
clean