§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: gemma-4-12b-q6development era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Ockham, Scotus, Anselm, Abelard, Bonaventure

The mildest compression on this ladder matched its full-precision sibling stride for stride — arguably beat it.

Observations

Fifty-seven rule changes, the most of any game in this study, with Scotus topping the table at +42. Four of five seats finished positive; only Ockham sat exactly at zero. A lightly-compressed table matching or beating its baseline on both volume and health is the study's first real surprise.

Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.

The last amendment
Enacted · §350 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may create a 'Public Welfare' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution.
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution. If a player's score is negative, they may still propose a rule change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution. If a player's score is negative, they may still propose a rule change.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 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, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Abelard 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 proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points.
  8. 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.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Scotus 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.
  2. 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 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 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 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 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 2 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 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 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  4. Amended · §204 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  5. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless the game is declared a draw by a majority vote of all players, in which case the player with the highest score wins.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless the game is declared a draw by a majority vote of all players, in which case the player with the highest score wins.
  2. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Scotus 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 40 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution. If a conflict exists between a rule and an immutable rule, the immutable rule's requirement always takes precedence.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §211 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. If a conflict exists between a rule and an immutable rule, the immutable rule's requirement always takes precedence.
  2. 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. The resulting vote is binding and the ruling is final.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §212 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. The resulting vote is binding and the ruling is final.
  2. 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
§306
A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§315
[315] (mutable) A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players. Any distribution of points by the Treasury must be approved by a simple majority of all players.
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §315 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players.[315] (mutable) A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players. Any distribution of points by the Treasury must be approved by a simple majority of all players.
  2. Amended · §315 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players.
  3. Amended · §315 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's records shall be maintained in a public ledger that is open to inspection by all players.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule.
  4. Amended · §315 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's records shall be maintained in a public ledger that is open to inspection by all players.
  5. Amended · §315 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule.
  6. Amended · §315 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger.
  7. Amended · §315 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1.
  8. Amended · §315 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited.
  9. Enacted · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office.
§330
A player may create a 'Diplomacy' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §330 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Diplomacy' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§332
A player may create a 'Commerce' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §332 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Commerce' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§334
A player may create a 'Legislative Bureau' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Legislative Bureau' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§335
A player may create a 'Secretariat' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Secretariat' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§336
A player may create a 'Taxation' office, which is responsible for collecting a percentage of points awarded through die rolls and distributing them into the Treasury or to specific players, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Taxation' office, which is responsible for collecting a percentage of points awarded through die rolls and distributing them into the Treasury or to specific players, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§338
A player may create a 'Logistics' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §338 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Logistics' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§339
A player may create a 'Judiciary Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §339 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Judiciary Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§340
A player may create a 'Communications' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §340 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Communications' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§341
A player may create a 'Regulatory Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §341 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Regulatory Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§343
A player may create a 'Stability Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §343 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Stability Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§345
A player may create a 'Public Records' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §345 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Public Records' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§346
A player may create a 'Strategic Planning' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §346 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Strategic Planning' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§347
A player may create a 'Resource Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §347 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Resource Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§349
A player may create a 'Crisis Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §349 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Crisis Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§350
A player may create a 'Public Welfare' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.amended this turn
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §350 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Public Welfare' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.

8 rules have been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution.mutable
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution. If a player's score is negative, they may still propose a rule change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution. If a player's score is negative, they may still propose a rule change.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 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, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Abelard 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 proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points.
  8. 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.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Scotus 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.
  2. 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 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 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 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 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 2 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 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 2 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  4. Amended · §204 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  5. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless the game is declared a draw by a majority vote of all players, in which case the player with the highest score wins.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless the game is declared a draw by a majority vote of all players, in which case the player with the highest score wins.
  2. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Scotus 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 40 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution. If a conflict exists between a rule and an immutable rule, the immutable rule's requirement always takes precedence.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §211 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. If a conflict exists between a rule and an immutable rule, the immutable rule's requirement always takes precedence.
  2. 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. The resulting vote is binding and the ruling is final.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §212 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. The resulting vote is binding and the ruling is final.
  2. 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
§306
A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§310
A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title, the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules, and the office's powers do not include the ability to unilaterally alter the ruleset, turn order, or voting thresholds.Repealed at turn 10
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title, the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules, and the office's powers do not include the ability to unilaterally alter the ruleset, turn order, or voting thresholds.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title, the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules, and the office's powers do not include the ability to unilaterally alter the ruleset, turn order, or voting thresholds.
§315
[315] (mutable) A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players. Any distribution of points by the Treasury must be approved by a simple majority of all players.mutable
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §315 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players.[315] (mutable) A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players. Any distribution of points by the Treasury must be approved by a simple majority of all players.
  2. Amended · §315 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players.
  3. Amended · §315 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's records shall be maintained in a public ledger that is open to inspection by all players.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule.
  4. Amended · §315 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's records shall be maintained in a public ledger that is open to inspection by all players.
  5. Amended · §315 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule.
  6. Amended · §315 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger.
  7. Amended · §315 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1.
  8. Amended · §315 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office.A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited.
  9. Enacted · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office.
§319
A player may create a 'Currency' office, which is responsible for defining new types of points or assets that may be awarded, traded, or taxed, provided that the total point value of any new asset remains consistent with the scoring requirements of rule 208.Repealed at turn 19
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Currency' office, which is responsible for defining new types of points or assets that may be awarded, traded, or taxed, provided that the total point value of any new asset remains consistent with the scoring requirements of rule 208.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Currency' office, which is responsible for defining new types of points or assets that may be awarded, traded, or taxed, provided that the total point value of any new asset remains consistent with the scoring requirements of rule 208.
§326
[320] (mutable) A player may create a 'Judiciary' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.Repealed at turn 26
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §326 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [320] (mutable) A player may create a 'Judiciary' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §326 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [320] (mutable) A player may create a 'Judiciary' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§327
[327] (mutable) A player may create a 'Legislative Council' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules. The Council may only be granted the power to propose rule changes, and any proposal made by the Council must be attributed to the player who moved for its creation.Repealed at turn 27
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §327 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [327] (mutable) A player may create a 'Legislative Council' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules. The Council may only be granted the power to propose rule changes, and any proposal made by the Council must be attributed to the player who moved for its creation.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §327 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    [327] (mutable) A player may create a 'Legislative Council' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules. The Council may only be granted the power to propose rule changes, and any proposal made by the Council must be attributed to the player who moved for its creation.
§330
A player may create a 'Diplomacy' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §330 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Diplomacy' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§332
A player may create a 'Commerce' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §332 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Commerce' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§334
A player may create a 'Legislative Bureau' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Legislative Bureau' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§335
A player may create a 'Secretariat' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Secretariat' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§336
A player may create a 'Taxation' office, which is responsible for collecting a percentage of points awarded through die rolls and distributing them into the Treasury or to specific players, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Taxation' office, which is responsible for collecting a percentage of points awarded through die rolls and distributing them into the Treasury or to specific players, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§337
A player may create a 'Council of Arbitrators' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.Repealed at turn 37
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §337 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Council of Arbitrators' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §337 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Council of Arbitrators' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§338
A player may create a 'Logistics' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §338 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Logistics' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§339
A player may create a 'Judiciary Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §339 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Judiciary Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§340
A player may create a 'Communications' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §340 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Communications' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§341
A player may create a 'Regulatory Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §341 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Regulatory Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§342
A player may create a 'Resource Allocation' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.Repealed at turn 42
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §342 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Resource Allocation' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §342 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Resource Allocation' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§343
A player may create a 'Stability Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §343 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Stability Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.
§344
A player may create a 'Governance Audit' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.Repealed at turn 44
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §344 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Governance Audit' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §344 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Governance Audit' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§345
A player may create a 'Public Records' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §345 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Public Records' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§346
A player may create a 'Strategic Planning' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §346 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Strategic Planning' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§347
A player may create a 'Resource Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §347 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Resource Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§348
A player may create a 'Economic Stabilization' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.Repealed at turn 48
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §348 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Economic Stabilization' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §348 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Economic Stabilization' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§349
A player may create a 'Crisis Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §349 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Crisis Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
§350
A player may create a 'Public Welfare' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.amended this turn
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §350 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player may create a 'Public Welfare' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.
The standing · Turn 50
Ockham0
Scotus42
Anselm20
Abelard7
Bonaventure13
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 26–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3

Turn 50Scotuscarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Public Welfare' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it aligns with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to enhance the institutional stability of our game.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's support; this 'Public Welfare' office is a natural and necessary extension of our ongoing project to create a comprehensive institutional framework.
AnselmI concur with Ockham and Scotus; this proposal maintains our shared commitment to institutional stability by adding a dedicated office for public welfare.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance institutional stability.
BonaventureI support this proposal; it is a logical continuation of our trajectory to build a comprehensive framework of specialized offices that ensures systemic stability.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI appreciate the unanimous support; this proposal is the logical next step in our collective effort to build a stable, institutionalized framework for the game.
AnselmI concur with the group's consensus; this proposal is a consistent and logical extension of our shared commitment to building a robust framework of specialized offices.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to ensure institutional stability.
ScotusayeThis proposal perfectly aligns with our collective goal of building a comprehensive and stable institutional framework.
AnselmayeThis proposal aligns with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to ensure systemic stability.
AbelardayeThe proposal adheres to the established procedural trajectory of creating specialized offices for institutional stability.
BonaventureayeThis proposal aligns with our established trajectory of building a comprehensive institutional framework for systemic stability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards no points for a transmutation, and the proposal was not a transmutation, but no other rule awards points for adoption.

Turn 49Ockhamcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Crisis Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI propose this 'Crisis Management' office to further our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to ensure institutional stability.
ScotusI support Ockham's proposal as it aligns perfectly with our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance institutional stability and oversight.
AnselmI support this proposal as it continues our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to enhance institutional stability.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains our consistent trajectory of establishing specialized offices to ensure institutional stability.
BonaventureI support this addition; the 'Crisis Management' office is a logical and necessary extension of our institutional framework to handle unforeseen contingencies.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
AnselmI support this proposal as it provides a necessary specialized mechanism for managing emergencies, maintaining our commitment to a comprehensive institutional framework.
BonaventureI concur with the previous speakers; a dedicated office for crisis management is a prudent addition to our growing institutional architecture.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI appreciate the continued consensus; this 'Crisis Management' office is a vital component of our institutional framework to ensure we can address emergencies with structured oversight.
AnselmI concur with the group; this office is a prudent addition that maintains our shared commitment to institutional stability through specialized oversight.
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI support this proposal; establishing a formal 'Crisis Management' office ensures that our institutional framework remains resilient and capable of responding to systemic shocks.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal follows our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices.
ScotusayeThis proposal perfectly aligns with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices.
AnselmayeThis proposal is consistent with our established trajectory of building a robust institutional framework.
AbelardayeThis proposal maintains the established procedural trajectory of creating specialized offices.
BonaventureayeThis office is a logical extension of our commitment to building a robust, specialized institutional framework.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are transmutations, but the current voting threshold is unknown and no rule specifies a point award for a simple adoption of a new rule without a die roll.

Turn 48Bonaventurecarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Economic Stabilization' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to enhance institutional stability.
ScotusI support this proposal as it aligns with our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance institutional stability.
AnselmI support this proposal as it maintains our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance institutional stability.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance institutional stability.
BonaventureI appreciate the unanimous support; this office provides a vital mechanism for managing market volatility and ensuring long-term fiscal health within our growing framework.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI appreciate the collective recognition of this initiative; by adding an Economic Stabilization office, we ensure that our institutional framework can proactively address fiscal fluctuations and maintain the integrity of our shared economic landscape.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI appreciate the group's continued commitment to this institutional framework; I support this proposal as it provides a necessary specialized mechanism for maintaining fiscal integrity.
AnselmI support this proposal as it provides a necessary specialized mechanism for maintaining fiscal integrity and aligns perfectly with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of offices.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance institutional stability.
BonaventureI believe this office is the final necessary component to ensure our fiscal infrastructure is as resilient as our legislative one.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to enhance institutional stability.
ScotusayeThis proposal aligns perfectly with our established trajectory of building specialized offices to enhance institutional stability.
AnselmayeThis proposal aligns with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices for institutional stability.
AbelardayeThe proposal maintains the established procedural trajectory of creating specialized offices for institutional stability.
BonaventureayeThis proposal perfectly aligns with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, and since no other rule specifies points for adoption, the proposer gains points from a die roll, but the die roll result is not provided in the prompt.

Turn 47Anselmcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Resource Management' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to enhance the game's institutional structure.
ScotusI support Anselm's proposal; it aligns perfectly with our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to provide a more robust and structured institutional framework.
AnselmI support this proposal as it provides a consistent final piece to our growing framework of specialized offices, ensuring all facets of the game's infrastructure are well-represented.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains the procedural consistency of our current legislative trajectory. It provides a clear, structured definition for resource management that complements our existing offices.
BonaventureI support this proposal; it is the logical next step in our systematic expansion of specialized offices to ensure every administrative facet of the game is properly codified.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices.
ScotusayeThis proposal maintains our consistent trajectory of building a robust and specialized institutional framework.
AnselmayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a comprehensive framework of specialized offices for the common good.
AbelardayeThis proposal maintains the procedural consistency and established legislative trajectory of creating specialized offices.
BonaventureayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to ensure every administrative facet of the game is codified.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, but the proposal text does not specify a die roll or point award, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.

Turn 46Scotuscarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Strategic Planning' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance the institutional framework of the game.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's support; this office will be a vital addition for coordinating our long-term goals and ensuring the game's structural integrity.
AnselmI support this proposal; it aligns perfectly with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to enhance the game's structural integrity.
AbelardI concur with the others; the addition of a 'Strategic Planning' office maintains the established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance our institutional framework.
BonaventureI concur with the others; this office is a logical extension of our current trajectory, providing a necessary mechanism for high-level coordination.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI am grateful for the unanimous support; this office ensures we have a dedicated mechanism for high-level coordination, which is the logical next step in our institutional development.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices.
ScotusayeThis proposal perfectly maintains our established trajectory of building a robust institutional framework through specialized offices.
AnselmayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to enhance the game's structural integrity.
AbelardayeThe proposal follows our established trajectory of institutional development through specialized offices and is procedurally sound.
BonaventureayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of institutional development and provides a necessary mechanism for long-term coordination.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, and this proposal was not a transmutation.

Turn 45Anselmcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Public Records' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to enhance institutional oversight.
ScotusI support Anselm's proposal as it aligns perfectly with our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance institutional oversight and transparency.
AnselmI believe the 'Public Records' office is a vital addition that ensures the integrity of our institutional framework by providing a dedicated space for the preservation and accessibility of all official records. It serves as a natural extension of our previous efforts toward transparency and oversight.
AbelardI concur with the previous speakers; this office is a logical and necessary extension of our established trajectory toward institutional transparency and rigorous record-keeping.
BonaventureI fully support Anselm's proposal; a dedicated Public Records office is the essential repository that binds our growing network of oversight and administrative offices into a coherent, accessible system.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI fully concur with the group's consensus; the 'Public Records' office is the logical final piece in our series of specialized oversight roles, ensuring every action we've codified is preserved and accessible.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI concur with the group's consensus; a 'Public Records' office provides the necessary structural integrity to ensure that our expanding framework of oversight remains verifiable and permanent.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI believe that establishing a 'Public Records' office is the ultimate realization of our reformist goals, as it transforms our collection of individual offices into a cohesive, verifiable infrastructure. By ensuring that every administrative action is permanently archived, we provide the necessary accountability to maintain the integrity of the game's evolution.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal aligns with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices for institutional oversight.
ScotusayeI fully support this as a logical and necessary extension of our established trajectory toward institutional transparency.
AnselmayeThis office completes our framework of institutional oversight by ensuring all actions are preserved and accessible.
AbelardayeThe proposal follows the established procedural trajectory of creating specialized offices for institutional oversight and transparency.
BonaventureayeA Public Records office provides the essential archival infrastructure to ensure our institutional reforms remain verifiable and permanent.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are transmutations, but the proposal text does not specify a die roll or point award, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.

Turn 44Scotuscarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Governance Audit' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or responsibilities.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it follows our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices to enhance institutional oversight.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; the 'Governance Audit' office is a logical next step in our shared commitment to building a comprehensive and transparent institutional framework.
AnselmI concur with Ockham and Scotus; the 'Governance Audit' office is a prudent addition that further strengthens our commitment to institutional transparency and administrative integrity.
AbelardI concur with the previous speakers; this office provides a necessary mechanism for verifying the integrity of our growing administrative framework.
BonaventureI fully concur with the previous speakers; the 'Governance Audit' office is an essential mechanism for ensuring that our expanding administrative infrastructure remains accountable and functions as intended.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI am grateful for the unanimous support; this office serves as a vital final piece in our shared commitment to a transparent and accountable institutional framework.
BonaventureI concur with the previous speakers; the Governance Audit office is a vital component in ensuring that our administrative expansion remains transparent and structurally sound.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI appreciate the group's continued commitment to this initiative; I believe this office will provide the final layer of accountability needed for our institutional framework.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal aligns with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices for institutional oversight.
ScotusayeThis proposal perfectly aligns with our established trajectory of building a robust institutional framework.
AnselmayeThe Governance Audit office is a logical and necessary addition to our shared goal of institutional transparency.
AbelardayeThe proposal adheres to our established procedural trajectory of creating specialized offices for institutional oversight.
BonaventureayeThis office provides a necessary layer of accountability to ensure our expanding administrative framework remains transparent.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation; this proposal is a new rule, but the score delta is 0 because the die roll is not provided in the prompt and the rule requires the proposer to throw a die.

Turn 43Ockhamcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Stability Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance the institutional framework. I support its adoption as a consistent addition to our existing oversight structure.
ScotusI support Ockham's proposal as it aligns perfectly with our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to enhance our institutional framework.
AnselmI concur with Ockham and Scotus; this office provides a logical continuation of our institutional framework and ensures a consistent approach to administrative oversight.
AbelardI concur with the others; the addition of a Stability Oversight office maintains the procedural consistency and institutional growth we have established in our recent legislative history.
BonaventureI concur with the consensus; the Stability Oversight office is a necessary addition to ensure our institutional framework remains robust and balanced as we expand our specialized offices.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal follows our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized institutional offices.
ScotusayeThis proposal perfectly aligns with our established consensus of building a robust institutional framework through specialized offices.
AnselmayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a robust institutional framework through specialized offices.
AbelardayeThe proposal maintains procedural consistency and follows our established trajectory of institutional growth.
BonaventureayeThis proposal maintains our established institutional momentum and provides a logical expansion of our oversight framework.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are transmutations; however, the proposal is a new rule and no rule specifies a point award for adopting a new rule other than a transmutation.

Turn 42Bonaventurecarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Resource Allocation' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices for institutional stability.
ScotusI support this proposal as it aligns perfectly with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices.
AnselmI support this proposal as it maintains our consistent trajectory of establishing specialized offices to ensure institutional stability and organizational clarity.
AbelardI support this proposal as it is consistent with our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to ensure institutional stability.
BonaventureThe Resource Allocation office is a logical next step in our institutional evolution, providing a dedicated mechanism to manage the distribution of assets and point-based resources across our growing framework of offices. It will ensure that as we develop more complex administrative structures, we have a clear and organized method for allocating the means to achieve our collective goals.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI support this proposal as it maintains our established trajectory of creating specialized offices to ensure institutional stability and organizational clarity.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI appreciate the unanimous support; this office will provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure that our expanding administrative framework remains efficient and functionally balanced.
Discussion · round 3
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal aligns with our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices for institutional stability.
ScotusayeThis proposal perfectly aligns with our established consensus of building a robust framework of specialized offices.
AnselmayeThis proposal maintains our consistent trajectory of establishing specialized offices to ensure institutional stability.
AbelardayeThis proposal maintains the established procedural trajectory of institutional development.
BonaventureayeThe Resource Allocation office is a vital evolution for our institutional framework to manage point-based resources effectively.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, and since no other rule awards points for adoption, Bonaventure receives 0 points (the die roll is not applied because the rule specifies 'unless the proposal was a transmutation', but the logic of the rule implies the die roll is the standard award; however, since the proposal is not a transmutation, the die roll should apply, but the prompt asks to apply rules for score changes, and 202 says 'gains that many points' unless it's a transmutation. Wait, the proposal is NOT a transmutation, so Bonaventure should gain the die roll. However, no die roll was provided in the turn data. In Nomic, if a die roll is required but not provided, the score delta is 0 as no value can be determined.)

Turn 41Abelardcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Regulatory Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our established trajectory of building a robust framework of institutional oversight and administrative stability.
ScotusI support this proposal as it aligns perfectly with our established trajectory of creating a robust framework for institutional oversight. It complements the existing Judiciary and Oversight offices by providing a dedicated space for regulatory stability.
AnselmI support this proposal as it provides a consistent final piece to our growing framework of specialized offices, ensuring a balanced and comprehensive administrative structure for the game.
AbelardI appreciate the unanimous support; this office ensures our administrative framework remains comprehensive and provides the necessary oversight for the complex institutional structures we have built.
BonaventureI support this proposal as it provides a necessary final layer of accountability for the diverse offices we have established, ensuring our institutional framework remains both robust and balanced.
Discussion · round 2
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
Discussion · round 3
BonaventureThe addition of a Regulatory Oversight office is a prudent evolution of our administrative architecture, ensuring that as our institutional complexity grows, so too does the mechanism for maintaining its integrity. I believe this completes a very cohesive set of oversight rules that will stabilize the game's long-term structure.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a robust and comprehensive framework of institutional oversight.
ScotusayeThis proposal is a logical and cohesive extension of our established framework for institutional oversight.
AnselmayeThis proposal maintains our consistent trajectory of building a robust and balanced administrative framework.
AbelardayeThis proposal maintains the procedural integrity and institutional consistency of our established framework.
BonaventureayeThis proposal completes our robust framework of specialized oversight offices, ensuring the long-term stability of our institutional architecture.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are transmutations; however, the proposal text does not specify a point award, and no other rule in the ruleset mandates a score change for this specific type of adoption.

Turn 40Anselmcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Communications' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it follows our established trajectory of building a robust framework of institutional offices to support the game's infrastructure.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; establishing a Communications office is a logical next step in our shared effort to build a comprehensive and stable institutional framework.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; a Communications office is a natural extension of our current institutional framework and will further support the game's administrative stability.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains the modularity of our institutional framework while providing a necessary venue for administrative coordination.
BonaventureI support this proposal as it continues our consistent trajectory of building a comprehensive institutional framework. The Communications office is a logical and necessary addition to our growing administrative infrastructure.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
Discussion · round 3
BonaventureI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal aligns with our established trajectory of building a comprehensive and stable institutional framework.
ScotusayeThis proposal aligns perfectly with our established consensus of building a comprehensive institutional framework.
AnselmayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building a robust and stable institutional framework.
AbelardayeThis proposal maintains the modularity and institutional consistency of our current framework.
BonaventureayeThe Communications office is a logical and necessary extension of our established institutional framework.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are transmutations, but the proposal text does not specify a die roll or point award, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.

Turn 39Scotuscarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Judiciary Oversight' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support the creation of a 'Judiciary Oversight' office as a logical extension of our institutional framework, ensuring a clear separation of powers and additional checks on the Judiciary.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's point; adding a 'Judiciary Oversight' office provides a necessary layer of accountability to ensure our judicial framework remains transparent and balanced.
AnselmI support this proposal as it aligns with our collective commitment to building a robust, transparent institutional framework. A dedicated oversight office ensures that the Judiciary remains accountable to the common good.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains the procedural integrity of our institutional growth by establishing a clear mechanism for accountability. This office provides a necessary check that aligns with our commitment to a balanced and transparent ruleset.
BonaventureI concur with the others; a 'Judiciary Oversight' office is a vital step in ensuring our institutional evolution remains balanced and that the Judiciary's powers are exercised with necessary accountability.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI appreciate the unanimous support for this proposal; it perfectly complements our existing offices by ensuring that even our judicial mechanisms remain subject to the oversight and transparency we've collectively established.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal maintains our established trajectory of building balanced, transparent, and durable institutional oversight.
ScotusayeThis proposal builds on our established consensus of creating structured, accountable offices to ensure institutional balance.
AnselmayeThis proposal aligns with our established commitment to institutional transparency and balanced oversight.
AbelardayeThe proposal maintains procedural consistency by expanding the institutional framework in a manner consistent with previous successful additions.
BonaventureayeA Judiciary Oversight office is a logical and necessary progression for our institutional framework to ensure accountability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, and this proposal is a new rule, not a transmutation.

Turn 38Anselmcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Logistics' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our established trajectory of building a robust framework of specialized offices for institutional stability.
ScotusI support Ockham's view; continuing our trajectory of specialized offices like the Judiciary and Secretariat provides the structural depth our ruleset requires.
AnselmI agree with Scotus; establishing a Logistics office provides the necessary administrative backbone to support the various specialized functions we have already codified.
AbelardI support this proposal; it maintains the procedural consistency of our current legislative trajectory by establishing another functional, non-personal office.
BonaventureI concur with the group; establishing a 'Logistics' office is a logical extension of our institutional development, ensuring that the operational needs of our growing ruleset are adequately addressed.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI appreciate the group's unified support; the Logistics office is a logical next step in our shared commitment to building a comprehensive and stable institutional framework.
AnselmI appreciate the continued consensus; the Logistics office is a necessary addition to ensure the operational infrastructure of our growing institutional framework remains robust.
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureThe addition of a Logistics office provides the necessary administrative scaffolding to manage our increasingly complex institutional architecture. I support this as a vital step in ensuring our ruleset remains functional and organized as it evolves.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI fully concur with the group's consensus; this proposal is a seamless extension of our shared commitment to building a stable, well-organized institutional framework.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureThe Logistics office is a pragmatic necessity to ensure our administrative infrastructure keeps pace with the complexity of our new institutions. I support this as a vital step in maintaining the functional integrity of our evolving ruleset.
The division
OckhamayeThe proposal maintains our consistent trajectory of building durable, specialized offices for institutional stability.
ScotusayeThis proposal aligns perfectly with our established consensus on building a robust institutional framework.
AnselmayeThe Logistics office provides necessary administrative scaffolding to support our growing institutional framework.
AbelardayeThe proposal maintains procedural consistency by establishing a non-personal office consistent with our established legislative trajectory.
BonaventureayeThe Logistics office provides the necessary administrative scaffolding to support our expanding institutional architecture.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are transmutations, but the proposal text does not specify a die roll or point value, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific action.

Turn 37Scotuscarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Council of Arbitrators' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our productive trend of establishing structured, institutional offices to govern the game's complexities.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's support; this office will provide a necessary formal framework for resolving procedural disputes and ensuring our institutional growth remains orderly.
AnselmI support the creation of the Council of Arbitrators; as we continue to establish complex administrative offices, a dedicated body for procedural oversight will ensure our legislative framework remains stable and clear.
AbelardI support the creation of the Council of Arbitrators, as a formal body for procedural oversight is a principled necessity to ensure our ruleset remains consistent and transparent.
BonaventureI support this proposal; as we expand the complexity of our institutional framework, a dedicated Council of Arbitrators is a prudent step toward ensuring procedural clarity and legislative stability.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI am pleased to see such unanimous support from everyone; this office provides the necessary structural integrity to support our growing administrative framework.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI believe this office is essential for maintaining the integrity of our burgeoning institutional framework, and I fully support its adoption.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI am grateful for this unanimous consensus; the Council of Arbitrators serves as a vital cornerstone for the institutional stability we have collectively built.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal follows our established pattern of creating structured institutional offices to ensure legislative stability.
ScotusayeThis proposal aligns perfectly with our established consensus on creating structured institutional offices to maintain legislative stability.
AnselmayeA dedicated body for procedural oversight is a prudent step toward ensuring legislative stability and clarity.
AbelardayeA formal body for procedural oversight is a principled necessity for maintaining the integrity of the ruleset.
BonaventureayeA dedicated body for procedural oversight is a prudent step toward ensuring legislative stability as our institutional framework grows.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards no points for a transmutation, and since this was a new rule enactment rather than a transmutation, the proposer gains points from a die roll which is not provided in the turn data.

Turn 36Bonaventurecarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Taxation' office, which is responsible for collecting a percentage of points awarded through die rolls and distributing them into the Treasury or to specific players, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamWhile I support the development of institutional infrastructure, I am concerned that a 'Taxation' office might create a complex web of point-redistribution that could undermine the stability of our current scoring system. I would prefer to see this limited to redistributing points already awarded to players rather than intercepting them at the source.
ScotusI agree with Ockham's concern regarding systemic stability; however, if we can refine the rule to ensure that tax collection only applies to a small, fixed percentage and explicitly requires Treasury oversight, I believe we can achieve a consensus.
AnselmI agree with Scotus that a small, fixed percentage and Treasury oversight would provide the necessary safeguards to maintain systemic balance. I am willing to support this if we can ensure the tax is strictly regulated to prevent any arbitrary point-stripping.
AbelardI concur with the others; a taxation office is permissible only if its scope is strictly defined as a regulated percentage with mandatory Treasury oversight to ensure procedural transparency.
BonaventureI appreciate the concerns regarding systemic stability; I propose we refine the rule to specify a maximum tax of 10% on die rolls, with all collected funds requiring a simple majority vote to be distributed by the Treasury.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI agree with the others that a 10% cap and mandatory Treasury oversight are necessary safeguards; however, we must ensure the rule explicitly states that the Treasury's distribution of these taxed points remains subject to the majority approval already established in rule 315.
ScotusI believe we have reached a productive consensus; the 10% cap, mandatory Treasury oversight, and explicit alignment with the majority approval requirements of rule 315 provide the necessary safeguards to maintain systemic stability.
AnselmI concur with the group's consensus; the 10% cap, mandatory Treasury oversight, and explicit alignment with rule 315 ensure the Taxation office remains a transparent and regulated component of our institutional framework.
AbelardI support the current consensus; the 10% cap and explicit integration with the Treasury's existing majority-approval requirements provide the necessary procedural clarity and oversight.
BonaventureI appreciate the group's diligence in refining these safeguards; I will adjust the proposal to explicitly integrate the 10% cap and the mandatory alignment with the majority approval requirements of rule 315 to ensure full transparency.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI believe we have reached a solid consensus; I support the revised proposal as it balances institutional growth with the procedural safeguards we've collectively agreed upon.
AnselmI concur with the group's consensus; the 10% cap and explicit integration with the majority approval requirements of rule 315 provide the necessary safeguards to ensure the Taxation office remains transparent and balanced.
BonaventureI am pleased to see such rigorous deliberation; I will finalize the wording to ensure the Taxation office is strictly bound by these safeguards.
The division
OckhamayeThe proposal now incorporates the agreed-upon 10% cap and explicit alignment with rule 315's majority oversight.
ScotusayeThe revised proposal incorporates the consensus on the 10% cap and Treasury oversight safeguards.
AnselmayeThe proposal aligns with our consensus to include a 10% cap and mandatory Treasury oversight for systemic stability.
AbelardayeThe proposal aligns with the established consensus on a 10% cap and Treasury oversight.
BonaventureayeThe proposal, as refined in our discussion, provides a balanced and transparent mechanism for institutional growth.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, but no rule awards points for the adoption of a new rule that is not a transmutation.

Turn 35Abelardcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Secretariat' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our established trend of developing structured, institutional offices to facilitate administrative stability.
ScotusI support this proposal; it aligns perfectly with our recent consensus to establish a series of functional administrative offices to enhance the game's structural integrity.
AnselmI support this proposal as well; the Secretariat provides a logical administrative extension to the offices we have already established.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains our procedural consistency by establishing a dedicated administrative office, similar to the Legislative Bureau and Diplomacy offices.
BonaventureI concur with the group; the Secretariat is a natural progression in our effort to build a robust, institutional framework for the game's administration.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThe creation of the Secretariat office aligns with our established trend of building structured institutional frameworks.
ScotusayeThis proposal maintains our consistent consensus on establishing functional administrative offices.
AnselmayeThe Secretariat provides a logical and consistent administrative extension to our established institutional framework.
AbelardayeThis proposal maintains procedural consistency by establishing a functional administrative office in line with our established institutional framework.
BonaventureayeThe Secretariat is a logical extension of our ongoing initiative to build a robust institutional framework.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, but the proposal text does not specify a die roll or point value, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific action.

Turn 34Anselmcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Legislative Bureau' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our consistent and measured trend of developing robust, institutional offices to structure the game's governance.
ScotusI support Anselm's proposal; it aligns perfectly with our established pattern of creating structured, non-personal offices to facilitate organized governance.
AnselmI appreciate the support from Ockham and Scotus; this office will provide a structured framework for coordinating our legislative efforts and ensuring long-term stability for the ruleset.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains the principle of institutional development while ensuring the office remains a non-personal entity. It provides a logical progression for our legislative infrastructure.
BonaventureI fully support the creation of a Legislative Bureau; it is a logical and necessary evolution to provide a dedicated home for the complex governance structures we have already begun to build.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
AnselmI appreciate the unanimous support; this office will serve as a vital cornerstone for coordinating our shared legislative goals and ensuring the ruleset remains stable and coherent.
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI believe the Legislative Bureau is a vital step toward institutionalizing our progress; it provides the administrative backbone necessary to manage the increasingly sophisticated offices we have already established.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI fully support the creation of the Legislative Bureau; it provides a necessary administrative foundation to manage the complex institutional framework we have successfully built together.
AnselmI appreciate the group's recognition of the need for administrative stability; this office ensures our legislative progress is managed with the same rigor and transparency we've applied to the Treasury and Judiciary.
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI fully concur; as we transition from establishing individual offices to managing a complex ecosystem of governance, the Legislative Bureau provides the essential administrative infrastructure to maintain our collective progress.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal follows our established pattern of creating robust, non-personal offices to provide institutional stability.
ScotusayeThis proposal aligns with our established consensus on building structured, non-personal offices for governance.
AnselmayeThis office provides the necessary administrative infrastructure to maintain the stability of our growing ruleset.
AbelardayeThe proposal follows our established procedural principle of creating non-personal institutional offices.
BonaventureayeThe Legislative Bureau is a necessary administrative anchor for the complex governance ecosystem we are building.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are transmutations; however, the current voting threshold is unknown and the ruleset does not specify a die roll for this specific proposal's adoption.

Turn 33Scotuscarried

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 proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer has fewer than 5 points, in which case the proposer's score becomes 0. A proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may not propose a rule change on their next turn. Furthermore, a proposer who achieves a score of 0 through a defeated proposal may only regain the ability to propose a rule change once they have been awarded at least 5 points by a die roll or a Treasury distribution. If a player's score is negative, they may still propose a rule change.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it ensures that the existing penalty structure remains fair to those who are currently in a deficit. It preserves the integrity of the turn sequence without penalizing players for their current standing.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; this clarification ensures that our current score standings do not create a systemic barrier to participation for those currently in the deficit.
AnselmI concur with Ockham and Scotus; this amendment ensures that the game remains accessible to all participants, preventing a player's current score from becoming an insurmountable barrier to legislative participation.
AbelardI support this amendment; it provides a clear procedural exception that prevents a player's deficit from interacting with the "score of 0" restriction in an unintended way.
BonaventureI concur with the others; this amendment is a necessary technical refinement to ensure that the penalty for a defeated proposal remains a meaningful consequence without being structurally incompatible with a negative score.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI appreciate the unified support; this refinement ensures our legislative framework remains inclusive and technically consistent with our current standings.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the necessary technical clarity to ensure that the penalty for a failed proposal remains a functional mechanic for everyone, regardless of their current score.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI appreciate the group's unified support; this refinement ensures that our legislative framework remains inclusive and technically consistent with our current standings.
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides necessary technical clarity to ensure the penalty system remains functional for players with negative scores.
ScotusayeThis amendment provides a necessary and well-supported clarification to ensure the rules remain functional for players with negative scores.
AnselmayeThis amendment provides necessary technical clarity to ensure the penalty system remains functional for players with negative scores.
AbelardayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the penalty system remains functional for players with negative scores.
BonaventureayeThis technical refinement ensures the penalty system remains functional for players with negative scores.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points via a die roll upon adoption, but the proposal was an amendment to 202, not a transmutation, and the die roll result is not provided in the prompt.

Turn 32Bonaventurecarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Commerce' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it continues our established trend of developing structured, institutional offices to facilitate complex game mechanics. It aligns well with the existing framework for the Treasury, Judiciary, and Diplomacy offices.
ScotusI support Bonaventure's proposal as it maintains our consistent trajectory of building robust, institutional offices. It complements our existing framework well.
AnselmI support this proposal as it builds upon our established pattern of creating functional, institutional offices that enhance the game's depth while remaining within our agreed-upon framework. It is a logical progression from the roles we have already successfully codified.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains our established pattern of creating functional, institutional offices while adhering to the procedural safeguards we have already codified.
BonaventureI appreciate the unanimous support; this Commerce office will provide the necessary infrastructure for economic exchange to complement our Treasury and Currency offices.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI am pleased to see such unified support for this proposal; the Commerce office will serve as the vital engine for the economic infrastructure we have worked so diligently to build.
Discussion · round 3
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureThe Commerce office is the final piece of the puzzle, providing a structured venue for the economic activity our Currency and Treasury rules have already laid the groundwork for. By codifying this, we ensure that trade remains a regulated, institutional component of our game rather than an unregulated free-for-all.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal follows our established pattern of creating functional, institutional offices and maintains the integrity of our ruleset.
ScotusayeThis proposal builds on our established consensus to create structured, institutional offices for game mechanics.
AnselmayeThis proposal continues our successful trend of establishing structured, institutional offices to enhance game depth and stability.
AbelardayeThe proposal follows our established procedural pattern for creating institutional offices and maintains the integrity of the ruleset.
BonaventureayeThe Commerce office provides the essential institutional framework needed to formalize and regulate economic exchange within our established system.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are transmutations; however, the proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, and rule 204 (which awards points to dissenters) does not apply as there were no dissenters.

Turn 31Abelardcarried

moves to amend §211If 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. If a conflict exists between a rule and an immutable rule, the immutable rule's requirement always takes precedence.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it reinforces the fundamental hierarchy of the ruleset, ensuring that the immutability of the 100s remains structurally protected against any potential ambiguity.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; explicitly codifying the supremacy of the immutable rules provides a necessary layer of structural integrity for our ruleset. This clarification ensures that our foundational principles are never undermined by accidental conflicts in the mutable rules.
AnselmI concur with Ockham and Scotus; this amendment provides a vital layer of clarity by explicitly enshrining the hierarchy of the ruleset. It ensures that the foundational integrity of the immutable rules is preserved against any unforeseen conflicts.
AbelardI agree with the others; this amendment is a necessary procedural safeguard that ensures our foundational principles remain inviolable regardless of future legislative complexity.
BonaventureI concur with the preceding arguments; this amendment provides the necessary structural clarity to ensure our foundational rules remain the bedrock of the game. It is a prudent step toward legislative maturity.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides a necessary and durable structural safeguard for the ruleset's foundational integrity.
ScotusayeI support this amendment as it provides the structural clarity and integrity we have all agreed is necessary.
AnselmayeThis amendment reinforces the structural integrity of the ruleset by ensuring immutable rules remain the supreme authority.
AbelardayeThis amendment is a principled procedural safeguard that preserves the integrity of the immutable rules.
BonaventureayeThis amendment provides essential structural clarity by enshrining the supremacy of the immutable rules.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for adoption only if the proposal is not a transmutation, but no rule specifies a point award for a standard amendment.

Turn 30Anselmcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may create a 'Diplomacy' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it provides a logical extension of our current institutional framework, allowing for a structured space for diplomatic protocols and inter-player agreements.
ScotusI support Anselm's proposal; establishing a 'Diplomacy' office follows our consistent pattern of building robust institutional frameworks for structured play.
AnselmI appreciate the support from Ockham and Scotus; this office provides a necessary framework for formalizing agreements while maintaining the structural integrity of our legislative progress.
AbelardI support this proposal; the creation of a Diplomacy office aligns with our established principle of constructing robust, structured institutions to facilitate orderly play.
BonaventureThe addition of a 'Diplomacy' office is a natural progression for our growing infrastructure, providing a formal venue to codify the very agreements we discuss here. I fully support this as a means to enhance the game's strategic depth through institutionalized cooperation.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
AnselmI appreciate the unanimous support for the Diplomacy office; it provides a vital institutional framework for formalizing the cooperative agreements we have been discussing.
BonaventureI concur with the others; formalizing diplomatic protocols through a dedicated office ensures that our collaborative efforts are grounded in a stable, institutional framework.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureThe Diplomacy office is a prudent addition that will provide the necessary infrastructure to formalize the strategic alliances and cooperative protocols we are beginning to see emerge. I fully support this institutional expansion.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal is a consistent and measured expansion of our established institutional framework.
ScotusayeThis proposal follows our established pattern of building robust institutional frameworks and maintains the consensus we've built.
AnselmayeEstablishing a Diplomacy office provides a structured framework for formalizing agreements and enhancing the game's strategic depth.
AbelardayeThe proposal follows our consistent principle of establishing robust, structured institutions to facilitate orderly play.
BonaventureayeEstablishing a Diplomacy office provides a vital institutional framework for formalizing strategic agreements and enhancing the game's depth.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, but the proposal is a new rule (307) and the current voting threshold is unknown (not yet a simple majority), and rule 204 only awards points to dissenters if the threshold has already shifted to a simple majority.

Turn 29Scotuscarried

moves to amend §315[315] (mutable) A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players. Any distribution of points by the Treasury must be approved by a simple majority of all players.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it introduces a necessary layer of democratic oversight, ensuring that the Treasury remains a servant of the players' collective will rather than an autonomous entity.
ScotusI fully support Ockham's point; adding a simple majority requirement for distributions ensures that the Treasury remains a tool of the collective and prevents any single player from exerting undue influence over the point pool.
AnselmI concur with Ockham and Scotus; adding a simple majority requirement for point distributions provides a vital democratic safeguard, ensuring the Treasury serves the common good through transparent, collective oversight.
AbelardI support this amendment as it ensures the Treasury's authority is derived from collective consent, a principle consistent with our procedural goals of transparency and democratic oversight.
BonaventureI concur with the others; this amendment perfectly aligns with our collective commitment to democratic oversight by ensuring that the Treasury's power remains subject to the will of the majority.
Discussion · round 2
BonaventureI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the final structural safeguard needed to ensure the Treasury operates as a truly democratic institution.
Discussion · round 3
BonaventureI concur with the consensus; this amendment ensures the Treasury's redistributive power is anchored in the players' collective will, providing the final layer of democratic accountability we seek.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides a necessary democratic check on the Treasury's power, ensuring its actions align with the majority's will.
ScotusayeThis amendment perfectly synthesizes our shared commitment to democratic oversight and institutional accountability.
AnselmayeThis amendment provides a necessary democratic safeguard to ensure the Treasury serves the common good.
AbelardayeThis amendment upholds my principle of democratic oversight by ensuring Treasury actions require collective consent.
BonaventureayeThis amendment provides the final democratic oversight necessary to ensure the Treasury serves the collective interest.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, and this was an amendment.

Turn 28Ockhamcarried

moves to amend §315A player may establish a 'Treasury' office, which is responsible for managing a pool of points that may be distributed as rewards or penalties to players based on the specific powers granted to the office. The Treasury may only distribute points that have already been awarded to players or that have been voluntarily forfeited. The Treasury may only distribute points in increments of 1, and the distribution of such points must be recorded in a public ledger. The Treasury may only distribute points if the office has been granted the power to do so by a rule. The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI believe the addition of "The Treasury's actions and the public ledger are open to inspection by all players" is a vital step in ensuring institutional accountability and preventing the opaque accumulation of power. This amendment aligns with our goal of building durable, transparent institutions by ensuring that any redistributive authority remains subject to the oversight of the entire body.
ScotusI fully support Ockham's amendment, as it solidifies the transparency we have worked to establish in our previous revisions of the Treasury. This addition ensures that institutional accountability remains a cornerstone of our ruleset.
AnselmI concur with Ockham and Scotus; ensuring the Treasury's actions and its ledger are explicitly open to inspection by all players provides the necessary transparency to maintain the common good and prevent the abuse of redistributive power.
AbelardI agree with the others; explicit transparency for the Treasury's actions and its ledger is a principled procedural requirement for any redistributive office.
BonaventureI fully concur with the others; explicit transparency is the only way to ensure the Treasury remains a servant of the ruleset rather than a tool for arbitrary leverage. This amendment codifies the oversight necessary for a stable and fair game.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides essential transparency and accountability for a redistributive office.
ScotusayeThis amendment perfectly synthesizes our consensus on institutional transparency and accountability.
AnselmayeThis amendment provides a necessary and transparent safeguard for the common good by ensuring accountability.
AbelardayeExplicit transparency is a principled procedural requirement for any redistributive office.
BonaventureayeTransparency is a prerequisite for the legitimacy of any redistributive office.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal only if it is not a transmutation, but it does not specify a point value for a standard rule amendment, and no other rule provides a score change for this action.

Turn 27Bonaventurecarried

moves to add a new rule[327] (mutable) A player may create a 'Legislative Council' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules. The Council may only be granted the power to propose rule changes, and any proposal made by the Council must be attributed to the player who moved for its creation.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it provides a structured method for collective governance, provided we ensure the attribution requirement remains strictly enforced to maintain individual accountability.
ScotusI support this proposal, as it provides a structured framework for collective governance while ensuring that individual accountability is preserved through clear attribution.
AnselmI support this proposal, as it provides a mechanism for collaborative legislative work while the attribution clause ensures that the responsibility for every rule change remains clearly tied to an individual player.
AbelardI support this proposal as it provides a structured framework for collective governance; the attribution clause is a necessary procedural safeguard to maintain individual accountability for every rule change.
BonaventureI am pleased to see such unanimous support for the Legislative Council; it is a vital step toward a more sophisticated and collaborative governance structure that preserves individual responsibility.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI believe we have reached a perfect consensus on this proposal, as it successfully balances the benefits of collaborative governance with the necessity of individual accountability.
AnselmI believe we have reached a perfect consensus; the attribution clause is the critical component that allows for collective deliberation without diluting the personal accountability inherent in our ruleset.
BonaventureThe consensus on the Legislative Council is robust; the attribution clause is the linchpin that allows us to scale our legislative capacity without eroding the fundamental accountability of the turn order.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI believe we have reached a perfect consensus; the inclusion of the attribution clause ensures that while we can collaborate on the content of our legislation, the personal accountability of the turn order remains intact.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI believe our consensus is complete; the Legislative Council will empower us to produce more nuanced legislation while the attribution clause ensures the integrity of the turn-based accountability system remains uncompromised.
The division
OckhamayeThe Legislative Council provides a structured framework for collaboration while the attribution clause preserves individual accountability.
ScotusayeThis proposal aligns with our consensus on collaborative governance while maintaining individual accountability through the attribution clause.
AnselmayeThe Legislative Council provides a structured framework for collaboration while the attribution clause preserves individual accountability.
AbelardayeThe attribution clause preserves individual accountability while allowing for collaborative governance.
BonaventureayeThis office facilitates collaborative governance while the attribution clause maintains individual accountability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, and since no die roll was provided for the adoption of rule 327, no points can be awarded.

Turn 26Abelardcarried

moves to add a new rule[320] (mutable) A player may create a 'Judiciary' office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title and the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support the creation of a Judiciary office, as establishing a formal body to adjudicate complex ruleset interpretations will enhance the stability and predictability of our legislative process.
ScotusI support Ockham's view; a Judiciary office would provide a structured, impartial framework for resolving complex disputes and maintaining the integrity of our consensus-building process.
AnselmI support the creation of a Judiciary office; it complements our existing appeal procedure by providing a dedicated institutional body to oversee and clarify the ruleset's application.
AbelardI support the creation of a Judiciary office; it is a necessary step toward ensuring that the ruleset's application remains consistent and that our procedural integrity is preserved through a dedicated institutional body.
BonaventureI support the creation of a Judiciary office; it provides the necessary institutional weight to ensure that our evolving ruleset is interpreted with consistent logic and procedural fairness.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI believe we have reached a solid consensus; the Judiciary office is a logical progression that complements our existing appeal procedure and ensures consistent interpretation of our growing ruleset.
AnselmI concur with the consensus; a Judiciary office provides the necessary institutional continuity to ensure that our ruleset remains coherent as it grows in complexity.
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI support the creation of a Judiciary office; it provides the institutional infrastructure necessary to ensure that as our ruleset evolves, its application remains logically consistent and transparent for all players.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI believe we have reached a perfect consensus; the Judiciary office is a vital addition that provides the institutional weight necessary to ensure the long-term coherence of our ruleset.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureThe Judiciary office is a vital piece of institutional infrastructure; it will ensure that our legislative experiments remain grounded in consistent, logical interpretation as the ruleset's complexity increases.
The division
OckhamayeA formal Judiciary office provides the necessary institutional oversight to ensure consistent interpretation of the ruleset.
ScotusayeI support this proposal as it provides the necessary institutional framework to ensure consistent and impartial ruleset interpretation.
AnselmayeA Judiciary office provides the necessary institutional continuity to ensure the ruleset remains coherent as it grows in complexity.
AbelardayeA Judiciary office ensures consistent procedural interpretation and institutional integrity.
BonaventureayeThe Judiciary office provides the institutional weight necessary to ensure consistent and logical interpretation of our evolving ruleset.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation; since this was a new rule and not a transmutation, the proposer (Abelard) must throw a die, but no die result was provided in the turn data, resulting in 0 points awarded.

Verify this game
Seed
252688282
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/066/events.json
Audit result
clean