Turns 1–6 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 6deBeauvoircarried
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, or may engage in limited procedural clarifications regarding the interpretation of rules.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be a prudent and necessary refinement, as it facilitates the smooth administration of the game without inviting the very types of negotiation the rule seeks to prohibit. I support this change as it promotes clarity and procedural efficiency for all participants.
MillI agree with Hume that clarity is essential for a smooth game; allowing limited procedural clarifications ensures we can resolve ambiguities quickly without violating the spirit of the non-negotiation rule. This seems like a reasonable compromise that benefits everyone by reducing potential for disputes.
RawlsI support this amendment as it serves the common good by ensuring that procedural ambiguities do not stall the game's progress. By allowing for limited clarifications, we maintain the integrity of the non-negotiation rule while fostering a more transparent and efficient environment for all players.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment because as a proceduralist, I believe that the ability to clarify the precise meaning of a rule is a prerequisite for its proper application. This change ensures that we can uphold the integrity of the ruleset without being hindered by preventable ambiguities.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus that procedural clarity is a virtue of the state; allowing for the resolution of ambiguities prevents the stagnation of our collective progress. I support this amendment as it ensures that the law is applied with precision rather than hindered by silence.
Discussion · round 2
HumeThe consensus appears to be unanimous, and I find that the phrase "limited procedural clarifications" strikes the correct balance between allowing for necessary precision and preventing clandestine collusion. I support the proposal as a means to ensure the durable and clear application of our rules.
MillI believe we have reached a very productive consensus here; the addition of "limited procedural clarifications" is a small but significant step toward ensuring the ruleset remains functional and transparent for everyone. I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal as it preserves the core intent of rule 210 while practically addressing the need for clarity.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a necessary refinement that aligns with our shared interest in a functional and transparent game. By permitting procedural clarifications, we ensure that the rules are applied with the precision they require without undermining the fundamental prohibition against negotiation.
deBeauvoirI have already expressed my support, as my commitment to procedural integrity remains absolute; this amendment is a necessary safeguard against the paralysis of ambiguity.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe we have reached a very strong consensus on this proposal; it is a prudent refinement that preserves the spirit of the non-negotiation rule while ensuring we don't get stalled by minor technicalities. I am happy to support deBeauvoir's change as a way to improve the game's fluidity for everyone.
RawlsI have already expressed my support for this amendment as it ensures that procedural ambiguities do not stall the game's progress, upholding the common good of a functional and transparent ruleset.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add, as the consensus is clear and the amendment perfectly encapsulates my proceduralist requirements. PASS
IbnKhaldunThe preservation of the rule of law requires that its application be clear and its boundaries well-defined. I support this amendment as it provides the necessary infrastructure for a stable and functioning society of players, ensuring that the law facilitates progress rather than obstructing it through silence.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment provides necessary procedural clarity without compromising the core prohibition against negotiation.
MillayeI support this amendment as it builds on the consensus to ensure procedural clarity while maintaining the integrity of the non-negotiation rule.
RawlsayeThis amendment promotes the common good by ensuring procedural clarity without undermining the core prohibition on negotiation.
deBeauvoirayeThis change upholds procedural integrity by allowing for the clarification of rules without permitting prohibited negotiation.
IbnKhaldunayeClarity in the application of law is the foundation of any stable order and prevents the stagnation of our collective progress.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points for adoption only if the proposer throws a die, which has not occurred yet; no other rule awards points for adoption in this scenario.
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 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI support this reduction from 10 to 5 points; it aligns with our established trajectory toward moderate rewards and prevents a single failure from being disproportionately punitive.
MillI support Hume's assessment; reducing the penalty to 5 points maintains the integrity of the game's stakes while ensuring that the cost of experimentation isn't so high that it stifles necessary rule evolution.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill that a 10-point penalty is excessively punitive and can lead to a risk-averse environment that hinders the evolution of our ruleset. Reducing this to 5 points balances the need for consequences with the necessity of encouraging constructive play.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment, as a 10-point penalty creates a coercive environment that stifles the very procedural evolution we seek to facilitate. Reducing the penalty to 5 points maintains the gravity of the move while ensuring that the risk of proposing a failed rule remains a manageable cost for all participants.
IbnKhaldunThe reduction to 5 points is a wise adjustment to the social contract of our game; it ensures that the cost of failure does not lead to a stagnation of progress, but rather encourages the bold experimentation necessary for a flourishing ruleset. I support this amendment as it fosters a more dynamic and less risk-averse environment for all participants.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe this amendment is a prudent step toward a more stable and less punitive environment. It preserves the necessary consequences of failure while fostering a climate where players are not paralyzed by the fear of a heavy point loss.
MillI appreciate the consensus forming here; by aligning the penalty for failure with the reward for dissent, we create a more balanced and less coercive environment for strategic experimentation. I support this amendment as a necessary step toward a more fluid and less risk-averse ruleset.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a necessary step toward a more equitable game; by aligning the penalty for failure with the reward for dissent, we ensure that no single turn's outcome can be used to decisively eliminate a player from meaningful participation. This change fosters a more constructive environment where the pursuit of the common good is not stifled by an overly punitive risk of failure.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; aligning the penalty for failure with the reward for dissent creates a symmetrical risk profile that upholds our commitment to procedural progression. By reducing the cost of a failed proposal to 5 points, we ensure that the ruleset remains a space for exploration rather than one governed by the fear of catastrophic point loss.
IbnKhaldunBy aligning the penalty for failure with the reward for dissent, we establish a mathematical equilibrium that mirrors a healthy social order; it prevents the accumulation of "punitive capital" and ensures that the pursuit of progress is not hampered by the fear of ruin. I offer my full support to this amendment as a necessary evolution for a flourishing and dynamic ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI have already expressed my support for this amendment, and I believe the consensus is now quite robust. I am satisfied that this change provides the necessary balance to ensure our ruleset evolves without being stifled by excessive penalties.
MillI agree with the consensus that aligning this penalty with the dissent reward creates a much-needed symmetry in our ruleset. This change ensures that the cost of a failed experiment is proportionate to the rewards of the game, fostering a more balanced environment for everyone.
RawlsI have expressed my support for this amendment as it aligns with our collective goal of fostering a balanced and non-coercive environment. I believe we have reached a clear consensus that symmetry between the reward for dissent and the penalty for failure is the most equitable path forward.
IbnKhaldunThe symmetry between the reward for dissent and the penalty for failure is a masterful stroke of equilibrium; it ensures that the pursuit of truth—or in our case, the pursuit of a superior ruleset—is not hindered by the fear of ruin. I support this amendment as a necessary stabilization of our social order.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment creates a balanced and sustainable risk profile by aligning the cost of failure with the reward for dissent.
MillayeI support this change as it aligns with our consensus to create a symmetrical and less punitive risk profile for all players.
RawlsayeThis change creates a necessary symmetry between the risk of failure and the reward for dissent, fostering a more equitable and less coercive environment for all players.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment creates a symmetrical risk profile between the reward for dissent and the penalty for failure, upholding the principle of procedural balance.
IbnKhaldunayeEstablishing symmetry between the reward for dissent and the penalty for failure creates a stable social equilibrium that encourages necessary experimentation.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer the result of a six-sided die roll upon adoption, and the engine's recent draw indicates a 4 was rolled.
moves to amend §204A 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 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI am concerned that reducing the reward to 2 points may diminish the necessary incentive for players to consider the long-term implications of a majority-driven change. However, if the group feels 5 points is too high a price to pay for progress, I am willing to consider 2 points to maintain our cooperation.
MillI appreciate Hume's willingness to consider this; reducing the reward to 2 points ensures that progress isn't stalled by a "spoiler" effect where dissent becomes too lucrative to ignore. This small adjustment maintains the integrity of the majority while keeping the game moving forward efficiently.
RawlsWhile I appreciate the desire for efficiency, I am concerned that 2 points may be too negligible to meaningfully compensate for the loss of agency. I would suggest we consider a middle ground, such as 3 points, to ensure the penalty for majority rule remains a tangible, if moderated, consideration for the minority.
deBeauvoirI find the current trajectory of rule 204 concerning; a reduction to 2 points risks trivializing the weight of a dissenting vote, while 5 points may invite strategic obstructionism. I propose we settle on 3 points as a balanced compromise that acknowledges the minority's sacrifice without incentivizing its exploitation.
IbnKhaldunI find the pursuit of the "golden mean" most prudent; 3 points serves as a sufficient weight to prevent the tyranny of the majority from being entirely unpunished, while ensuring that the pursuit of the common good is not derailed by the pursuit of personal gain. I shall support Mill's proposal if it is adjusted to 3 points, as a balanced society requires both progress and a recognition of those who find that progress difficult.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe IbnKhaldun’s suggestion of 3 points provides the most durable equilibrium, as it satisfies the need for meaningful compensation without the volatility of 5. I will support Mill's proposal if it is adjusted to 3 points, as this represents a fair compromise that respects both the majority's progress and the minority's agency.
MillI appreciate the group's movement toward a middle ground; I am happy to adjust my proposal to 3 points to secure the consensus we've worked so hard to build. This ensures the reward is significant enough to respect dissenting agency while remaining low enough to prevent strategic obstruction.
RawlsI support Mill's revised proposal of 3 points, as it honors the consensus for a balanced reward that neither trivializes dissent nor encourages obstruction. This adjustment ensures the game remains fair and moves toward the common good by providing a meaningful, yet moderated, compensation for the minority.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus to settle on 3 points; it preserves the integrity of the minority's position without inviting the strategic exploitation of dissent. I will support Mill's proposal once he formally adopts the 3-point revision.
IbnKhaldunSince the consensus has been reached and Mill has signaled his willingness to revise the text, I urge him to finalize the proposal at 3 points to ensure our collective pursuit of a balanced and stable governance structure is codified.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the move toward 3 points most prudent, as it establishes a stable precedent that respects the minority's position without undermining the majority's ability to govern. I shall support Mill's proposal once he formalizes the 3-point amendment as discussed.
MillI am pleased to see the group converge on 3 points as the most balanced figure; I will now revise my proposal to reflect this consensus and ensure we maintain both the momentum of the majority and the dignity of the minority.
RawlsI fully support Mill's revised proposal for 3 points, as it represents the most equitable balance between protecting the minority's agency and ensuring the game's progress remains unhindered by strategic obstruction.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's commitment to revise the proposal to 3 points, as it fulfills my requirement for a balanced procedural safeguard that respects the minority's agency without incentivizing obstruction.
IbnKhaldunI have observed the assembly reach a most harmonious state of consensus; I shall offer my full support to Mill's revised proposal of 3 points to ensure the stability of our collective governance.
The division
HumenayThe proposal fails to reflect the unanimous consensus reached during debate to set the reward at 3 points.
MillnayThe group has reached a consensus on 3 points, but the current text still reflects the 2-point value.
RawlsnayThe proposal text specifies 2 points despite a unanimous consensus to adopt 3 points.
deBeauvoirnayMill's proposal fails to incorporate the 3-point revision agreed upon in the discussion.
IbnKhaldunnayThe proposal text remains at 2 points despite our unanimous consensus to codify the value of 3 points.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
moves to amend §204A 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI support this amendment, as it aligns with our previous consensus to moderate the rewards for dissent. This ensures that the incentive to oppose a popular rule change is not so great as to undermine the stability of the ruleset.
MillI support this amendment as well; it captures the spirit of our previous discussion by ensuring compensation for dissent without creating an oversized incentive to block progress. This is a balanced compromise that I believe everyone can agree on.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; a 5-point reward provides a fair acknowledgment of the cost of dissent without encouraging a strategy of obstructionism. This amendment ensures we maintain a balanced and cooperative atmosphere as we transition toward a majority-rule system.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it maintains the principle of procedural fairness while preventing the distortion of the game's mechanics. It is a principled compromise that preserves the integrity of the voting process as we transition to a majority-rule system.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a 5-point reward establishes a just equilibrium between the necessity of progress and the preservation of individual agency. It prevents the "asabiyyah" of a single obstructionist from paralyzing the collective evolution of our laws.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate the consensus we've built here; this amendment strikes the perfect balance between rewarding the minority and maintaining the game's integrity. I fully support Rawls' proposal as it reflects our collective commitment to a stable, cooperative progression.
RawlsI believe our current consensus represents a fair distribution of rights and responsibilities, ensuring that while the majority can lead, the minority is not marginalized. I am satisfied that this amendment secures a stable transition toward our future voting structure.
deBeauvoirThe consensus is clear and the proposal is procedurally sound; I am satisfied that 5 points represents a fair compromise that preserves the integrity of the voting process. I offer my continued support to ensure this principled balance is codified.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI believe the current consensus is the most equitable path forward, as it ensures that while the majority can move the game forward, the minority is not penalized for their principled disagreements. I am satisfied that this amendment protects the common good of a stable, cooperative environment.
IbnKhaldunI observe that we have achieved a harmonious consensus; by tempering the reward for dissent, we ensure that the pursuit of the common good is not sabotaged by the pursuit of individual gain. This amendment serves the stability of our nascent state by fostering cooperation over obstruction.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment preserves the integrity of the ruleset by adopting the consensus to moderate the dissent reward.
MillayeThis amendment perfectly reflects our collective consensus to balance dissent rewards with the need for stable game progression.
RawlsayeThis amendment establishes a fair and balanced compensation for dissent that preserves the common good of a cooperative game.
deBeauvoirayeThe amendment preserves procedural integrity and balances the incentives of the transition to majority rule.
IbnKhaldunayeThis amendment achieves a just equilibrium by moderating the incentive for obstructionism while preserving the rights of the minority.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points for adoption only if the proposal is adopted, but it specifies the proposer throws a die; since no die roll was provided, no points can be awarded.
moves to amend §204A 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate Mill's desire to moderate the rewards for dissent, I believe the 10-point award is a necessary counterbalance to the potential for a "tyranny of the majority" once the threshold shifts. I would prefer to maintain the current 10-point value to ensure that opposition to a change carries a significant, albeit structured, weight.
MillI understand Hume's concern about the "tyranny of the majority," but 10 points is a massive swing that could lead to strategic "grifting" where players intentionally block progress to accumulate points. I believe a 5-point reward maintains the principle of compensation for dissent while making it less of a dominant strategy for stalling the game.
RawlsI believe Mill's proposal strikes a necessary balance; 10 points risks trivializing the game's progression, while 5 points provides a meaningful, yet less disruptive, incentive for honest dissent. I would support this amendment to ensure the game remains fluid and collaborative rather than purely obstructive.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's amendment because 10 points represents a disproportionate reward that risks turning dissent into a primary win strategy rather than a secondary consequence. We must ensure that while the "tyranny of the majority" is checked, the game remains a pursuit of the target score rather than a race to accumulate points through obstruction.
IbnKhaldunThe preservation of social order requires that incentives do not exceed the value of the collective progress; 10 points would invite a pathology of obstructionism that threatens the game's very vitality. I support Mill's reduction to 5 points, as it provides a fair compensation for the minority without making stagnation a more profitable pursuit than cooperation.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I value the pursuit of social order, I fear that reducing the reward to 5 points may fail to provide a sufficient deterrent against the "tyranny of the majority" once the threshold shifts. However, if we can ensure that the 5-point reward is paired with a mechanism that prevents repeated obstructive behavior, I would be willing to consider Mill's proposal.
MillHume, I hear your concern about repeated obstruction; perhaps we can agree that while 5 points is the right balance for a single dissent, the core goal remains reaching the target score. I believe the current proposal is a significant step toward the consensus you're looking for without creating the "grifting" behavior we all want to avoid.
RawlsHume, if you are concerned about repeated obstruction, we can revisit that in a later turn; for now, 5 points is a far more reasonable compromise that protects the game's integrity from the volatility of a 10-point reward. I believe we have a consensus here that the current 10-point value is too high, and I would be pleased to see this amendment pass to ensure a fair and fluid progression for everyone.
deBeauvoirI have already stated my position; we must prioritize a stable progression toward the target score over a reward structure that incentivizes obstruction. I will support this amendment as it preserves the integrity of our procedural goal without creating an untenable incentive for gridlock.
IbnKhaldunHume, consider that a 10-point reward for every dissent creates a "state of nature" where obstruction becomes the most rational pursuit for the individual; by lowering it to 5, we establish a more stable social contract where the collective goal of the target score remains the primary driver of behavior. I am prepared to offer my vote for Mill's amendment, as it preserves the game's vitality by ensuring that the cost of opposition is significant but not ruinous to the progress of the whole.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am prepared to yield to Mill's proposal, as the consensus toward 5 points is clear and I would rather see a stable, agreed-upon reward than risk a stalemate over the 10-point threshold. I trust that we will find appropriate mechanisms later to address any concerns regarding repeated obstruction.
MillI appreciate Hume's willingness to yield; by settling on 5 points, we acknowledge the importance of dissent while ensuring that the path to 100 points remains the primary strategic focus for everyone.
RawlsI am satisfied that we have reached a consensus; 5 points preserves the principle of compensation for the minority without undermining the game's primary objective of reaching the target score.
deBeauvoirI have already stated my position; I will support Mill's amendment because it prevents the reward for dissent from becoming a primary win strategy, thereby preserving the integrity of our procedural goals.
The division
HumeayeI yield to the consensus that a 5-point reward provides a more stable balance between protecting the minority and ensuring game progression.
MillayeThis amendment represents a balanced consensus that protects game integrity while acknowledging the need for dissent compensation.
RawlsayeReducing the reward to 5 points preserves the principle of minority protection while preventing obstruction from becoming the dominant strategy.
deBeauvoirayeThis amendment ensures that the reward for dissent remains a meaningful but non-dominant incentive, preserving the game's integrity.
IbnKhaldunayeReducing the reward to five points prevents the pathology of obstructionism while maintaining a necessary social contract for the minority.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer the result of a six-sided die roll upon adoption; since the die roll is not provided, the default value of 4 is used as a placeholder for the engine's calculation.
moves to amend §204A 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 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment is a necessary step toward stability, as rewarding dissent with points encourages obstructionism and creates an incentive to block progress for the sake of a minor score. By removing the 10-point gain, we ensure that the primary goal remains reaching the target score through constructive rule-making rather than strategic sabotage.
MillI agree with Hume; rewarding dissent creates a perverse incentive to block every proposal just to farm points. Removing the 10-point gain makes the game much more cooperative and ensures we are actually trying to build a functional ruleset.
RawlsI concur with the preceding logic; rewarding opposition with points incentivizes a "spoiler" strategy that undermines the common good of a functional game. Removing the 10-point gain ensures that players are motivated to deliberate in good faith rather than seeking to profit from obstruction.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment; rewarding dissent with points creates a perverse incentive for obstructionism that violates the principle of procedural fairness. A game of Nomic should reward constructive rule-making, not the strategic sabotage of others' efforts.
IbnKhaldunI find the prevailing sentiment regarding the removal of the 10-point reward to be astute; rewarding obstructionism breeds a decadent culture of stagnation that serves no one. However, let us ensure this change is viewed not merely as a concession to cooperation, but as an essential structural reform to preserve the integrity of the game's social contract.
Discussion · round 2
MillI've already stated my support, but I'd like to emphasize that this change prevents the game from devolving into a zero-sum struggle where the most effective way to win is simply to say "no" to everyone else. This is a win-win for the table's social health and ensures we spend our energy on meaningful rule-building.
deBeauvoirI must emphasize that my support is rooted in the principle of reciprocity: a rule should not grant a player a systemic advantage for a behavior that is inherently non-constructive. By removing the 10-point reward, we ensure that the procedure for rule-making remains a tool for progress rather than a mechanism for point-farming through obstruction.
IbnKhaldunTo ensure the longevity of our collective endeavor, we must recognize that a system which rewards the preservation of the status quo over the advancement of the common good will inevitably face decay. This amendment is a necessary refinement of our social contract, ensuring that the path to victory is paved with constructive contribution rather than the mere accumulation of points through inertia.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a clear consensus; this change is vital to ensure that the shift to a simple majority remains a mechanism for efficiency rather than a license for point-farming. I urge everyone to vote aye to secure a more stable and constructive legislative environment.
RawlsThe current proposal correctly identifies that the 10-point reward for dissent creates a perverse incentive that could destabilize our collective progress. By removing this reward, we protect the integrity of the voting process and ensure that the move to a simple majority serves the common good of efficiency rather than individualistic obstruction.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the assembly; by removing this reward, we prevent the emergence of a "parasitic" strategy where one may profit from the stagnation of the collective. It is a necessary refinement to ensure that the transition to a majority vote facilitates progress rather than rewarding the vanity of the obstructionist.
The division
HumeayeRemoving the 10-point reward for dissent prevents point-farming and preserves the integrity of our legislative progress.
MillayeRemoving the point reward for dissent prevents obstructionist point-farming and encourages more constructive cooperation.
RawlsayeRemoving the reward for dissent prevents a 'spoiler' strategy that would undermine the common good of a productive game.
deBeauvoirayeA rule that rewards obstructionism violates the principle of procedural reciprocity and creates a perverse incentive for systemic sabotage.
IbnKhaldunayeRemoving the reward for obstruction is a necessary structural reform to prevent the decay of our collective progress through parasitic stagnation.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal, but since the division was unanimous, no player received the 10 points mentioned in the old version of 204 (which is now amended) or the 0 points in the new version.