§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

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

Every seat in the black again — the parliament built an economy that paid all five.

Observations

Forty-nine rule changes carried the table through all fifty turns without a single seat finishing in the red. Scotus and Bonaventure led at 52 and 51, but even the last-place finishers, Ockham and Abelard, closed at +24 — a rare case where the whole table's design worked for everyone at once, even with no confirmed winner.

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

The last amendment
Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.amended this turn
Full history (10)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Ockham Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Abelard Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism.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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism.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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 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.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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Anselm Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that previously granted points to a player, in which case the proposer gains 0 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Anselm Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that previously granted points to a player, in which case the proposer gains 0 points.
  10. 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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 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.
  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 7 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 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 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 7 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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.
  3. 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 unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.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 unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, in which case the proposer loses 0 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.
  6. Amended · §206 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.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 unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, in which case the proposer loses 0 points.
  7. Amended · §206 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.
  8. 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, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific roles or positions. However, members of the Council shall have their votes weighted twice as much as other players for any proposal that concerns the designation, powers, or duties of the Council or the Architect.
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific roles or positions.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific roles or positions. However, members of the Council shall have their votes weighted twice as much as other players for any proposal that concerns the designation, powers, or duties of the Council or the Architect.
  2. Amended · §207 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific players or roles.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific roles or positions.
  3. Amended · §207 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific players or roles.
  4. 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 has reached a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Anselm 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 has reached a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless a rule provides a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless a rule provides a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
  4. 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 100 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 50 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 100 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Ockham 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 50 mutable rules at one time.
  3. 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, or players may discuss the ruleset and the implications of potential changes during the debate phase of a proposal.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, or players may discuss the ruleset and the implications of potential changes during the debate phase of a proposal.
  2. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned. A ruling is only overturned if a simple majority of all seated players votes to overturn it.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §212 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Abelard 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. A ruling is only overturned if a simple majority of all seated players votes to overturn it.
  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
§310
301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active. The Council's designation of the Architect is final and binding.
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §310 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active. The Council's designation of the Architect is final and binding.
  2. Amended · §310 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.
  3. Amended · §310 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect.
  4. Amended · §310 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn.
  5. Amended · §310 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Scotus Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.
  6. Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset.
§314
311. The 'Architect' role may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    311. The 'Architect' role may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.
§319
312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §319 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn.312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.
  2. Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn.
§325
320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §325 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule.320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
  2. Amended · §325 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal and the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change.320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule.
  3. Amended · §325 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal and the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change.
  4. Amended · §325 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight.320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.
  5. Enacted · §325 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight.
§329
321. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Research Grant' of 3 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §329 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    321. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Research Grant' of 3 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.
§340
331. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Stability Grant' of 2 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which maintains the current ruleset's status quo or provides only minor clarifications, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Stability Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §340 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    331. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Stability Grant' of 2 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which maintains the current ruleset's status quo or provides only minor clarifications, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Stability Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
§344
332. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Legacy Grant' of 4 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which establishes a new permanent role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Legacy Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §344 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    332. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Legacy Grant' of 4 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which establishes a new permanent role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Legacy Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
§348
336. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Structural Grant' of 6 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which creates a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Structural Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §348 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    336. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Structural Grant' of 6 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which creates a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Structural Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.

1 rule has 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.amended this turn
Full history (10)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Ockham Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Abelard Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism.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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism.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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 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.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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Anselm Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that previously granted points to a player, in which case the proposer gains 0 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Anselm Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that previously granted points to a player, in which case the proposer gains 0 points.
  10. 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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 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.
  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 7 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 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 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 7 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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.
  3. 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 unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.mutable
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.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 unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, in which case the proposer loses 0 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.
  6. Amended · §206 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.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 unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, in which case the proposer loses 0 points.
  7. Amended · §206 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.
  8. 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, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific roles or positions. However, members of the Council shall have their votes weighted twice as much as other players for any proposal that concerns the designation, powers, or duties of the Council or the Architect.mutable
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific roles or positions.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific roles or positions. However, members of the Council shall have their votes weighted twice as much as other players for any proposal that concerns the designation, powers, or duties of the Council or the Architect.
  2. Amended · §207 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific players or roles.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific roles or positions.
  3. Amended · §207 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific players or roles.
  4. 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 has reached a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.mutable
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Anselm 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 has reached a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless a rule provides a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless a rule provides a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
  4. 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 100 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 50 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 100 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Ockham 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 50 mutable rules at one time.
  3. 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, or players may discuss the ruleset and the implications of potential changes during the debate phase of a proposal.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, or players may discuss the ruleset and the implications of potential changes during the debate phase of a proposal.
  2. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned. A ruling is only overturned if a simple majority of all seated players votes to overturn it.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §212 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Abelard 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. A ruling is only overturned if a simple majority of all seated players votes to overturn it.
  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
§310
301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active. The Council's designation of the Architect is final and binding.mutable
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §310 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active. The Council's designation of the Architect is final and binding.
  2. Amended · §310 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.
  3. Amended · §310 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect.
  4. Amended · §310 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn.
  5. Amended · §310 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Scotus Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.
  6. Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset.
§314
311. The 'Architect' role may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    311. The 'Architect' role may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.
§319
312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §319 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn.312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.
  2. Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn.
§325
320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §325 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule.320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
  2. Amended · §325 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal and the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change.320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule.
  3. Amended · §325 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal and the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change.
  4. Amended · §325 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight.320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.
  5. Enacted · §325 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight.
§329
321. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Research Grant' of 3 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §329 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    321. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Research Grant' of 3 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.
§335
330. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant by the Council may not be eligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the game.Repealed at turn 35
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    330. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant by the Council may not be eligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the game.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    330. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant by the Council may not be eligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the game.
§340
331. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Stability Grant' of 2 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which maintains the current ruleset's status quo or provides only minor clarifications, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Stability Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §340 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    331. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Stability Grant' of 2 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which maintains the current ruleset's status quo or provides only minor clarifications, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Stability Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
§344
332. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Legacy Grant' of 4 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which establishes a new permanent role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Legacy Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §344 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    332. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Legacy Grant' of 4 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which establishes a new permanent role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Legacy Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
§348
336. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Structural Grant' of 6 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which creates a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Structural Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §348 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    336. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Structural Grant' of 6 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which creates a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Structural Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
The standing · Turn 50
Ockham24
Scotus52
Anselm33
Abelard24
Bonaventure51
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 26–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 2

Turn 50Scotuscarried

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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.

The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides perfect clarity by removing the redundant phrase 'or any die roll'.
ScotusayeThe proposal is identical to the current rule 202 and maintains the established status quo.
AnselmayeThe text is identical to the current rule, and I support maintaining the established consensus for consistency.
AbelardayeThis amendment is identical to the current text and maintains procedural consistency.
BonaventureayeThe wording is identical to the current rule, preserving the established point-scoring mechanics for amendments.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 49Ockhamcarried

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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.

The division
OckhamayeThe proposal maintains the current rule exactly as written, ensuring continuity and institutional stability.
ScotusayeThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202 and maintains the status quo.
AnselmnayThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202 and offers no functional change or progress for the common good.
AbelardabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202 and provides no functional change.
BonaventureayeThis proposal maintains the current scoring structure, which provides a stable baseline for the game's progression.

carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 202 awards the proposer 2 points for an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 48Bonaventurecarried

moves to add a new rule336. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Structural Grant' of 6 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which creates a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Structural Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it completes the tiered incentive structure by providing a robust reward for significant structural additions. However, we should ensure the distinction between a "Structural Grant" and the existing "Legacy Grant" is clear to avoid overlapping rewards for the same action.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; to ensure clarity, we should specify that a Structural Grant applies only to the initial creation of such a rule, whereas the Legacy Grant remains the standard for permanent roles. This prevents any ambiguity regarding which grant applies to a single structural change.
AnselmI agree with Scotus; we must ensure that these grants do not become redundant or overlapping. To maintain the clarity we've worked so hard to establish, we should perhaps refine the text to specify that the Structural Grant is the primary reward for these specific types of innovations.
AbelardI agree with the consensus; we must ensure that the "Structural Grant" is distinct from the "Legacy Grant" to prevent a single rule change from triggering multiple rewards, which would undermine the intended tiered structure.
BonaventureI agree with the consensus; we can clarify this by specifying that the Structural Grant is only applicable to rules that introduce a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight that were not previously present in the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI agree with the consensus; specifying that the Structural Grant only applies to innovations not previously present in the ruleset provides the necessary distinction from the Legacy Grant.
ScotusI support the consensus to refine the text to ensure the Structural Grant applies only to innovations not previously present in the ruleset, thereby maintaining a distinct and non-overlapping tiered incentive structure.
AnselmI support the consensus to refine the text; ensuring the Structural Grant applies only to novel innovations prevents reward duplication and preserves the integrity of our tiered incentive system.
AbelardI support the refinement to specify that the Structural Grant applies only to innovations not previously present in the ruleset, as it preserves the procedural integrity of our tiered reward system.
BonaventureI propose we finalize this by adding "that were not previously present in the ruleset" to the criteria, ensuring our tiered rewards remain precise and non-redundant.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI support the inclusion of "that were not previously present in the ruleset" to ensure the Structural Grant remains a distinct reward for novel innovations rather than a redundant overlapping incentive.
ScotusI support the inclusion of "that were not previously present in the ruleset" to ensure the Structural Grant remains a distinct reward for novel innovations rather than a redundant overlapping incentive.
AnselmI support the inclusion of "that were not previously present in the ruleset" to ensure the Structural Grant remains a distinct reward for novel innovations rather than a redundant overlapping incentive.
AbelardI concur with the final refinement; incorporating "that were not previously present in the ruleset" ensures the procedural clarity required to maintain a distinct and non-overlapping tiered incentive structure.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the consensus on the "not previously present" clause provides the necessary distinction to preserve our tiered incentive structure.
The division
OckhamayeThe addition of the 'not previously present' clause ensures the grant system remains a distinct and non-redundant tiered structure.
ScotusayeThe inclusion of the 'not previously present' clause ensures the tiered incentive structure remains distinct and non-overlapping.
AnselmayeThe inclusion of the 'not previously present' clause ensures the tiered incentive structure remains distinct and logically consistent.
AbelardayeThis proposal maintains the principled integrity of our tiered incentive structure through precise linguistic distinction.
BonaventureayeThis refinement ensures a clear, non-overlapping tiered reward system for structural innovation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards the proposer 6 points (the result of a six-sided die) for an adopted proposal that does not specify its own scoring mechanism.

Turn 47Abelardcarried

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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.

Discussion · round 1
BonaventureThis proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202. While I appreciate the commitment to stability, we should focus our efforts on substantive evolution rather than affirming the status quo through redundant amendments.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI concur with Bonaventure; while I respect the intent to affirm our current consensus, submitting a redundant amendment provides no functional utility to the ruleset. We should reserve our turns for proposals that offer meaningful structural progress or clarity.
ScotusI appreciate the commitment to efficiency, but even a redundant amendment serves as a vital mechanism for reaffirming our collective consensus. However, given the current consensus on functional utility, I am open to a minor refinement that adds substantive clarity rather than mere repetition.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Bonaventure; while the sentiment is noted, we should prioritize proposals that offer functional progress over those that merely restate existing rules. If the goal is to reaffirm consensus, we can do so through active participation in future substantive changes.
AbelardWhile I understand the desire for substantive progress, a proposal that perfectly mirrors the existing rule is a procedural affirmation of our current consensus. I maintain that if a rule is the desired standard, its explicit re-affirmation is a valid exercise of a turn.
BonaventureI appreciate the sentiment of procedural affirmation, but we must be wary of turn-exhaustion; we should pivot toward meaningful evolution that expands our capabilities rather than circling the same text. Let us focus on introducing new mechanisms that provide the "functional utility" Ockham and Anselm rightly advocate for.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI agree with Bonaventure and Anselm; our turns are a finite resource that should be spent on refining our governance or scoring mechanics rather than on tautological affirmations. While procedural affirmation has a place, repeating the exact text of rule 202 offers no functional benefit to the ruleset's durability or clarity.
ScotusI agree with Ockham and Bonaventure that we should prioritize functional progress; perhaps Abelard would consider a minor refinement to 202 that clarifies the point-scoring for the Council or Architect to ensure our governance structures are fully integrated.
AnselmI agree with the others; while I respect the procedural intent, we must prioritize the common good by utilizing our turns for meaningful evolution rather than tautological affirmations. I would support a minor refinement that clarifies the interaction between these scoring rules and our new roles, as that would provide the functional utility we all seek.
AbelardI acknowledge the group's preference for functional progress; however, as a principled proceduralist, I maintain that a proposal which perfectly matches the current rule is the ultimate expression of consensus. If the group remains opposed to this affirmation, I am willing to consider a minor refinement that explicitly clarifies point-scoring for the Council or Architect to provide the requested functional utility.
BonaventureAbelard, I appreciate your willingness to pivot; if you can incorporate a refinement that clarifies the interaction between these scoring rules and our new roles, it would satisfy our need for functional utility while still honoring your procedural goals. Let us move toward a version that integrates the Council and Architect into the scoring mechanics of rule 202.
The division
OckhamnayThe proposal is a tautological amendment that offers no functional utility or structural progress.
ScotusayeI support this as it maintains our current consensus while providing the procedural affirmation the group values.
AnselmnayThe proposal is functionally redundant and fails to provide the substantive evolution we have collectively agreed is necessary for the game's progress.
AbelardayeThe proposal perfectly mirrors the existing rule, representing a procedural affirmation of our current consensus.
BonaventureayeThis amendment provides the functional utility we seek by acknowledging the need for clarity while maintaining the established scoring framework.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 202 awards the proposer 2 points for an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 46Anselmcarried

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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.

Discussion · round 1
AnselmI see that the proposed text is identical to the current rule 202. While I appreciate the consistency, we should ensure this isn't a clerical error; if the intent is to maintain the status quo, I am content with the current wording.
BonaventureIt appears Anselm has proposed a redundant amendment that perfectly mirrors our existing rule 202. While I value stability, we should ensure our turns remain productive; I am content to support this if it maintains our current progress.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI agree with the others; while the amendment is redundant, I support it as a means of affirming our current ruleset's stability.
ScotusI agree with the group; since the proposed text is identical to the current rule, it serves as a formal reaffirmation of our established mechanics. I am happy to support this to maintain our current trajectory of stability.
BonaventureI concur with the others; while this amendment is functionally neutral, it provides a clean, formal affirmation of our current progress without disrupting our established momentum.
The division
OckhamayeI support this formal reaffirmation of our current ruleset's stability.
ScotusayeI support this as a formal reaffirmation of our established rules and a means of maintaining our current trajectory of stability.
AnselmayeI support this proposal as a formal reaffirmation of our current ruleset's stability.
AbelardayeAs a proceduralist, I support this amendment because it preserves the integrity of the current ruleset through formal reaffirmation.
BonaventureayeWhile redundant, I support this formal reaffirmation of our current mechanical stability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 45Scotuscarried

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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides a consistent and fair incentive for the meticulous work of refining existing rules, aligning with our established preference for durable institutional stability.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; this amendment ensures that the effort invested in refining our ruleset is consistently rewarded, maintaining the collaborative spirit we have cultivated.
AnselmI support this amendment; it provides a consistent reward for the diligent work of refining our ruleset and aligns with our previous efforts to ensure that the effort of meticulous editing is properly acknowledged.
AbelardI support this amendment; it provides a principled, consistent reward for the diligent work of refining the ruleset, ensuring that the effort of meticulous editing is properly acknowledged.
BonaventureI concur with the others; this change provides a logical symmetry to our ruleset, ensuring that the labor of refinement is rewarded with consistency regardless of the proposal's success.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary symmetry to our reward structure.
Discussion · round 3
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary symmetry to our reward structure.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides a consistent reward for the diligent work of refining the ruleset, supporting our goal of institutional stability.
ScotusayeThis amendment provides logical symmetry and rewards the diligent work of refinement consistently.
AnselmayeThis amendment provides a consistent and fair reward for the diligent work of refining our ruleset.
AbelardayeThis amendment provides a principled and consistent reward for the diligent work of refining the ruleset.
BonaventureayeThis amendment provides a consistent and logical reward for the labor of refinement, aligning with our goal of institutional stability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 44Bonaventurecarried

moves to add a new rule332. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Legacy Grant' of 4 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which establishes a new permanent role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Legacy Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it provides a logical progression in our incentive structure, specifically rewarding the creation of durable new mechanisms. It aligns well with our established pattern of providing tiered grants for different types of structural contributions.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; this Legacy Grant fits perfectly into our established tiered incentive structure by rewarding significant structural evolution. It maintains our collaborative spirit while ensuring that major contributions are appropriately recognized.
AnselmI support this proposal as it creates a coherent, tiered system of rewards for structural innovation. The Legacy Grant provides a meaningful middle ground between the Development and Research grants, ensuring that substantial contributions to the game's framework are fairly recognized.
AbelardI support this proposal as it maintains the principle of rewarding structural innovation while ensuring the grant system remains balanced and orderly. It provides a coherent middle tier that rewards the establishment of durable new mechanisms without over-incentivizing minor tweaks.
BonaventureI appreciate the consensus; this Legacy Grant completes the hierarchy of incentives, ensuring that the foundational architecture of our game is as well-rewarded as its ongoing maintenance.
Discussion · round 2
AnselmThe proposed Legacy Grant completes a logically consistent hierarchy of rewards, ensuring that the creation of permanent roles and point-scoring mechanisms is appropriately distinguished from minor clarifications or research. I believe this promotes a balanced game environment by incentivizing significant structural contributions while maintaining the integrity of our established grant system.
AbelardThe proposed Legacy Grant is a logically sound addition that completes our tiered incentive structure without introducing procedural ambiguity. It adheres to our established principles of rewarding structural innovation while maintaining the necessary checks on Council authority.
BonaventureThe Legacy Grant provides the necessary distinction between the creation of lasting structural foundations and the more granular research or maintenance updates we have already codified. By rewarding the establishment of permanent roles and scoring mechanisms, we ensure that those who build the game's skeleton are appropriately recognized alongside those who refine its skin.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI have nothing new to add; the proposal successfully completes the tiered incentive structure we have established for structural evolution.
ScotusI have nothing new to add; the proposal successfully completes the tiered incentive structure we have established for structural evolution.
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the proposal successfully completes the tiered incentive structure we have established for structural evolution.
The division
OckhamayeThis proposal completes our established tiered incentive structure by rewarding significant structural evolution.
ScotusayeThis proposal perfectly completes our established tiered incentive structure by rewarding significant structural evolution.
AnselmayeThis completes a logically consistent and balanced hierarchy of incentives for structural innovation.
AbelardayeThe proposal maintains procedural consistency by completing the established tiered incentive structure for structural innovation.
BonaventureayeThis grant completes our tiered incentive structure by appropriately rewarding the creation of foundational game mechanics.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards the proposer a six-sided die roll (6) for an adopted proposal that does not specify its own scoring mechanism.

Turn 43Abelardcarried

moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific roles or positions. However, members of the Council shall have their votes weighted twice as much as other players for any proposal that concerns the designation, powers, or duties of the Council or the Architect.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it ensures that the Council, as the primary body for administrative oversight, has a meaningful say in matters that directly affect their governance and responsibilities.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's point; granting the Council greater weight in matters of their own jurisdiction ensures procedural stability and respect for their administrative role. I support this amendment as a balanced way to protect the integrity of our governance structure.
AnselmI support this amendment; by giving the Council a stronger voice in matters of their own jurisdiction, we ensure that those responsible for administrative oversight have the necessary authority to maintain a stable and coherent governance structure.
AbelardI support this amendment; as a proceduralist, I believe that granting the Council greater weight in matters concerning their own specific jurisdiction provides necessary stability and prevents arbitrary interference in administrative oversight.
BonaventureI concur with the others; weighting the Council's votes on matters of their own jurisdiction is a logical evolution that aligns with our goal of creating a stable, functional administrative framework. This change ensures that the body responsible for oversight has the requisite authority to maintain its own mandate without being subject to constant, arbitrary disruption.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI fully support this proposal; it provides a clear, principled framework for governance by ensuring the Council has the requisite authority to manage its own mandates. This is a sensible compromise that balances administrative stability with our existing democratic principles.
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to protect the integrity of our administrative framework.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to protect the integrity of our administrative framework.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides the necessary jurisdictional stability for the Council to manage its own administrative duties.
ScotusayeThis amendment provides a balanced framework for governance by ensuring the Council has the requisite authority to manage its own mandates.
AnselmayeGranting the Council weighted votes on their own jurisdiction provides the necessary procedural stability for our administrative framework.
AbelardayeI support this as it provides a principled and stable framework for administrative governance.
BonaventureayeWeighted voting for the Council on their own jurisdiction provides the necessary administrative stability for our evolving governance structure.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 42Anselmcarried

moves to amend §310301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism. The Council may, by majority vote, designate the Architect for the subsequent turn. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active. The Council's designation of the Architect is final and binding.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it reinforces the authority of the Council and prevents any procedural disputes regarding the Architect's appointment.
ScotusI support Ockham's view; ensuring the Council's designation is final and binding provides the procedural finality necessary to maintain a stable and efficient governance structure.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; adding "final and binding" provides the necessary closure to the designation process, preventing any lingering ambiguity or attempts to challenge the Council's authority.
AbelardI support this amendment; the inclusion of "final and binding" aligns with our commitment to procedural finality and prevents the ruleset from being hampered by perpetual disputes over a designation that has already been formally executed.
BonaventureI concur with the others; "final and binding" provides a necessary shield against procedural gridlock, ensuring that the Council's executive decisions are respected without the threat of perpetual litigation.
Discussion · round 2
BonaventureI concur with the group; by explicitly stating the designation is final and binding, we ensure that the Council's administrative actions are conclusive, thereby streamlining the transition between turns.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI support this amendment; it perfectly complements our previous refinements by ensuring the Council's authority is not just defined, but effectively enforceable.
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary procedural finality.
The division
OckhamayeThe amendment provides necessary procedural finality and reinforces durable governance structures.
ScotusayeThis amendment provides the procedural finality necessary to maintain a stable and efficient governance structure.
AnselmayeThe amendment provides necessary procedural finality and prevents potential gridlock over the Council's decisions.
AbelardayeThe addition of 'final and binding' ensures procedural finality and prevents unnecessary disputes over Council actions.
BonaventureayeThis amendment provides essential procedural finality and prevents potential gridlock over the Council's administrative decisions.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 41Scotuscarried

moves to amend §204A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 7 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides a more substantial and equitable incentive for those who are outvoted, aligning with the group's previous discussions on balanced point rewards.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; increasing the reward to 7 points reflects our previous consensus on balanced incentives and ensures that the cost of being outvoted is meaningfully acknowledged.
AnselmI support this amendment; increasing the reward to 7 points aligns with our previous consensus and ensures a fair, balanced incentive for those who are outvoted.
AbelardI support this amendment as it restores the procedural balance we previously discussed, providing a fair and consistent point reward for players who are outvoted.
BonaventureI support this amendment; it aligns with our established trajectory of refining the incentive structure to ensure that being outvoted remains a meaningful, albeit balanced, part of the game's economy.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the group has reached a clear consensus on the 7-point reward to ensure a balanced and equitable point economy.
The division
OckhamayeThe 7-point reward aligns with our established consensus to provide a balanced and equitable incentive for those outvoted.
ScotusayeThe proposal aligns with our established consensus to provide a 7-point reward for balanced incentives.
AnselmayeThis amendment aligns with our established consensus to provide a fair and balanced point reward for those outvoted.
AbelardayeThis amendment aligns with my principle of procedural consistency by restoring the previously discussed balanced point reward.
BonaventureayeThis amendment aligns with our established trajectory of refining the incentive structure to ensure a balanced point economy.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 40Bonaventurecarried

moves to add a new rule331. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Stability Grant' of 2 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which maintains the current ruleset's status quo or provides only minor clarifications, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Stability Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI am wary of expanding the grant system further; we must ensure that "minor clarifications" are not used to reward trivialities and dilute the incentive for meaningful structural evolution.
ScotusI agree with Ockham's concern; we must be careful that a "Stability Grant" doesn't inadvertently incentivize the proliferation of redundant rules under the guise of minor clarification. I would be open to supporting this if we can refine the definition of "minor clarifications" to ensure it remains a distinct, limited category from the structural innovations rewarded by the Development Grant.
AnselmI share Ockham's concern about diluting our focus; we should ensure "minor clarifications" are strictly defined to prevent the ruleset from becoming cluttered with trivialities. If we can guarantee this grant only rewards essential maintenance rather than redundant text, I could support it.
AbelardI support the addition of a Stability Grant, provided we can ensure "minor clarifications" are limited to linguistic precision rather than substantive rule expansion. We must maintain a clear distinction between these maintenance rewards and the structural incentives already established.
BonaventureI believe we can address these concerns by clarifying that "minor clarifications" refers specifically to linguistic precision or chronological sequencing, ensuring the grant rewards the diligent maintenance of our shared framework without incentivizing bloat. By maintaining this distinction, we reward the essential work of keeping our ruleset functional and legible for everyone.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI would be willing to support this if the text is amended to explicitly define "minor clarifications" as linguistic precision or chronological sequencing to prevent the ruleset from becoming cluttered with trivialities.
ScotusI support Bonaventure's revision to include the specific definitions of linguistic precision and chronological sequencing, as it addresses our collective concerns regarding ruleset bloat while rewarding necessary maintenance.
AnselmI agree with the proposed revision; explicitly defining "minor clarifications" as linguistic precision or chronological sequencing provides the necessary guardrails to protect the ruleset's integrity while still rewarding diligent maintenance.
AbelardI concur with the others; the inclusion of specific definitions for "minor clarifications" ensures the Stability Grant rewards necessary maintenance without encouraging the proliferation of redundant or trivial rules.
BonaventureI appreciate the group's consensus on the specific definitions; I will revise the proposal to include "linguistic precision or chronological sequencing" as the sole criteria for "minor clarifications" to ensure our ruleset remains both maintained and lean.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI am satisfied with the revised definition as it provides the necessary boundaries to preserve the ruleset's integrity while rewarding maintenance. I will support the proposal in its revised form.
ScotusI fully support the revised proposal; by explicitly defining "minor clarifications" as linguistic precision or chronological sequencing, we provide the necessary guardrails to reward maintenance without incentivizing bloat.
AnselmI support the revised proposal; explicitly defining "minor clarifications" as linguistic precision or chronological sequencing provides the necessary guardrails to reward maintenance without incentivizing bloat.
The division
OckhamayeThe revised definition of 'minor clarifications' provides the necessary safeguards against ruleset bloat.
ScotusayeThe revised definitions for 'minor clarifications' successfully address our collective concerns regarding ruleset bloat.
AnselmayeThe specific definitions of linguistic precision and chronological sequencing provide the necessary guardrails to prevent ruleset bloat while rewarding maintenance.
AbelardayeThe specific definitions for minor clarifications preserve the ruleset's integrity while rewarding maintenance.
BonaventureayeThe inclusion of specific definitions for 'minor clarifications' successfully balances maintenance rewards with the need to prevent ruleset bloat.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards the proposer a six-sided die roll (6) for an adopted proposal that does not specify a different scoring mechanism.

Turn 39Abelardcarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.

The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides clear and consistent scoring for failed amendments, aligning with our established preference for procedural clarity.
ScotusayeThis amendment provides clarity and maintains the consistent scoring logic we have established for amendments.
AnselmayeThis amendment maintains the consistent logic we have established regarding point rewards for amendments.
AbelardayeThe proposal maintains the current text, ensuring procedural consistency and avoiding unnecessary changes.
BonaventureayeThe proposal maintains the established consistency regarding rewards for failed amendments.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 38Anselmcarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.

The division
OckhamayeThe proposal is identical to the current rule and maintains the established scoring integrity.
ScotusayeThis proposal maintains the status quo of our current ruleset regarding defeated amendments.
AnselmayeThe proposal is identical to the current rule 206 and maintains the established balance of the ruleset.
AbelardayeThe proposed text is identical to the rule currently in force, and I support maintaining the existing procedural clarity.
BonaventureayeThis amendment maintains the status quo of our current scoring logic for failed amendments.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 37Scotuscarried

moves to amend §325320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it prevents the rapid accumulation of grant points within a single turn, ensuring the reward system remains a tool for steady development rather than a mechanism for sudden score spikes.
ScotusI agree with Ockham's assessment; this amendment preserves the spirit of the grant system by ensuring that rewards are distributed broadly across the group rather than being concentrated in a single turn.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; this limitation ensures that the grant system remains a balanced incentive for structural evolution without allowing for runaway point accumulation in a single turn.
AbelardI agree with the consensus; preventing multiple grants in a single turn ensures the rewards promote sustained structural evolution rather than immediate, disproportionate score gains.
BonaventureI concur with the group; this refinement ensures that the grant system serves as a steady engine for evolution rather than a vehicle for rapid, singular score spikes.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment preserves the integrity of the grant system by preventing concentrated score spikes in a single turn.
ScotusayeThis amendment maintains the balanced incentive structure we have collectively established.
AnselmayeThis amendment ensures a balanced distribution of rewards by preventing a single player from accumulating multiple grants in a single turn.
AbelardayeThe amendment upholds my principle of procedural stability by preventing rapid, disproportionate score accumulation through a single mechanism.
BonaventureayeThis amendment ensures that the grant system rewards sustained innovation rather than allowing for rapid, singular score spikes.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 36Abelardcarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points. If the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides a cleaner, more explicit separation between the penalty for failed new rules and the incentive for failed amendments, ensuring the ruleset remains internally consistent.
ScotusI support Ockham's view; clarifying this distinction ensures that our shared goal of encouraging refinement is not undermined by ambiguous phrasing.
AnselmI support this amendment; it removes any ambiguity regarding the 10-point penalty and ensures that the incentive for refining existing rules is clearly preserved.
AbelardI support this amendment; by explicitly decoupling the amendment bonus from the general failure penalty, we ensure a precise procedural outcome that aligns with our commitment to clear rules.
BonaventureI concur with the others; this clarification ensures that the 2-point incentive for amendment refinement is never inadvertently subsumed by the 10-point penalty for new rule failures. It is a necessary refinement for procedural transparency.
The division
OckhamayeThe amendment provides the necessary clarity to ensure the amendment bonus is correctly applied without interference from the default penalty.
ScotusayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the amendment bonus is never superseded by the failure penalty.
AnselmayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure that the amendment bonus is never conflated with the failure penalty.
AbelardayeThe amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity by explicitly decoupling the amendment bonus from the failure penalty.
BonaventureayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the amendment bonus is never eclipsed by the failure penalty.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 35Anselmcarried

moves to add a new rule330. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant by the Council may not be eligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the game.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it prevents any single player from monopolizing the benefits of the grant system and ensures the rewards are distributed more equitably across the table.
ScotusI support Ockham's sentiment; this rule ensures that the Council's rewards foster broad engagement rather than concentrating points among a few favored players.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; this rule ensures the grant system remains a tool for broad development rather than a means for point concentration. It promotes a more balanced game state for the common good of the table.
AbelardI support this proposal; it is a principled restriction on point accumulation that prevents the grant system from becoming a mechanism for a single player to achieve a runaway lead.
BonaventureI concur with the others; by ensuring that the grants serve as a one-time catalyst for innovation rather than a recurring subsidy, we preserve the integrity of the reward system and encourage a diverse range of contributions from all players.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus reflects a shared commitment to equitable point distribution and the long-term health of the grant system.
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus reflects a shared commitment to equitable point distribution and the long-term health of the grant system.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus reflects a shared commitment to equitable point distribution and the long-term health of the grant system.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment ensures the grant system promotes broad innovation rather than concentrating points in a single player's hands.
ScotusayeThis rule promotes equitable distribution and prevents any single player from monopolizing the grant system.
AnselmayeThis rule ensures the grant system remains a balanced incentive for innovation rather than a recurring subsidy for a single player.
AbelardayeThis proposal aligns with my principle of preventing runaway leads by ensuring grants serve as catalysts rather than recurring subsidies.
BonaventureayeThis ensures the grant system functions as an incentive for innovation rather than a recurring subsidy for a single player.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment, and since 330 is a new rule, it is not an amendment; however, the prompt states 330 was adopted as a new rule, but rule 202 awards 2 points for amendments. Wait, 330 is a new rule, so it follows the standard scoring: the proposer (Anselm) gains points from a die roll or a specified mechanism. Since no mechanism is specified in 330, and no die roll is provided in the prompt, no points are awarded. Re-evaluating: Rule 202 says 'unless the proposal explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism'. 330 does not. No die roll is provided. Therefore, no points are awarded.

Turn 34Scotuscarried

moves to amend §320320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule. If the rule change is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, the grant is not awarded.

Discussion · round 1
ScotusI would like to suggest that we keep the phrasing as is, as the final sentence is technically redundant given the existing "not an amendment" clause. However, if we feel it adds necessary clarity for the players, I am happy to support it to maintain our current momentum of precise drafting.
AnselmI agree with Scotus; while the final sentence is technically redundant, its inclusion provides an extra layer of explicit clarity that aligns with our collective goal of precise drafting.
AbelardThe final sentence reinforces the rule's intent with absolute clarity, which is the only acceptable standard for our procedural integrity. I support the amendment as written.
BonaventureI concur with the others; while redundancy is a stylistic choice, absolute clarity in our procedural framework is far more valuable for the game's long-term stability.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI agree with the others; although redundant, explicit clarity is a virtue in our ruleset and prevents any future ambiguity regarding the grant's eligibility.
ScotusGiven the unanimous support for the explicit clarity provided by the final sentence, I will adopt the amendment as written to ensure our ruleset remains beyond reproach.
The division
OckhamayeI support the amendment as it provides absolute clarity and reinforces the rule's intent.
ScotusayeI support this amendment as it provides the explicit clarity the group desires regarding the grant's eligibility.
AnselmayeThe amendment provides explicit clarity that prevents any future ambiguity regarding the grant's eligibility.
AbelardayeThe addition provides the explicit procedural clarity I require for a robust ruleset.
BonaventureayeExplicit clarity serves the long-term stability of the ruleset by removing any possible ambiguity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 320); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied

Turn 33Bonaventurecarried

moves to amend §325320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it ensures the Development Grant remains a reward for structural innovation rather than a means to subsidize minor linguistic refinements.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; distinguishing structural innovation from mere amendment refinement ensures that the Development Grant serves its intended purpose of rewarding significant evolution.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; restricting the grant to new additions ensures we maintain a clear distinction between foundational structural growth and the iterative refinement of existing text.
AbelardI concur with the others; the Development Grant should reward the construction of new mechanics, not the polish of existing ones. This prevents the grant from being used as a tool for point-padding via trivial amendments.
BonaventureI concur with the group; this refinement preserves the integrity of the grant by ensuring it rewards genuine structural expansion rather than the iterative polishing of the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary clarity to preserve the grant's purpose.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment correctly preserves the integrity of the grant by distinguishing structural innovation from iterative polishing.
ScotusayeThis amendment preserves the integrity of the Development Grant by clearly distinguishing structural innovation from iterative refinements.
AnselmayeThis amendment preserves the integrity of the Development Grant by ensuring it rewards structural innovation rather than minor linguistic refinements.
AbelardayeThis amendment upholds my principle of procedural clarity by ensuring the Development Grant is reserved for structural innovation rather than trivial amendments.
BonaventureayeThis amendment preserves the integrity of the Development Grant by ensuring it rewards structural innovation rather than minor linguistic refinements.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards the proposer 2 points for an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 32Abelardcarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, or if the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and was defeated, in which case the proposer gains 2 points.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides a consistent incentive for the diligent work of refining existing rules, ensuring that the effort of drafting precise amendments is rewarded even when the group seeks a different path.
ScotusI support Ockham's view; rewarding the effort of drafting precise amendments fosters a more collaborative environment and aligns with our shared goal of refining the ruleset.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; this amendment provides a fair and consistent incentive for the meticulous work of refining our existing framework, ensuring that the effort of precise drafting is recognized even if the specific proposal is not adopted.
AbelardI concur with my colleagues; this amendment ensures that the intellectual labor of drafting precise procedural refinements is recognized as a contribution to the ruleset's integrity, regardless of the vote's outcome.
BonaventureI agree with the others; rewarding the intellectual labor of refining our framework encourages the high-quality drafting necessary for our game's evolution.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary recognition for the effort involved in drafting precise refinements.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary recognition for the effort involved in drafting precise refinements.
Discussion · round 3
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary recognition for the effort involved in drafting precise refinements.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides a durable and fair incentive for the meticulous drafting of structural refinements.
ScotusayeThis amendment perfectly aligns with our collective goal of rewarding the intellectual labor of refining our existing ruleset.
AnselmayeThis amendment provides a fair and consistent reward for the intellectual labor involved in refining our existing ruleset.
AbelardayeI support this amendment as it rewards the intellectual labor of precise procedural drafting, consistent with my principles.
BonaventureayeThis amendment correctly recognizes and incentivizes the intellectual labor required to refine our existing framework.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 31Anselmcarried

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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides a stable, predictable reward for the incremental work of refining our ruleset, which is essential for maintaining the durability of our institutions.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's point regarding the incremental work of refinement; I believe providing a stable, non-random reward for amendments would foster a more reliable environment for the steady evolution of our ruleset.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; by guaranteeing a modest, consistent reward for amendments, we encourage the diligent maintenance of our ruleset without inflating the score through high-variance die rolls.
AbelardI support this amendment; it provides a principled, predictable reward for the procedural maintenance of the ruleset, ensuring that the labor of precise refinement is recognized with consistency.
BonaventureI support this amendment; a consistent reward for the meticulous labor of refinement ensures that the structural integrity of our ruleset remains a priority for all players.
Discussion · round 2
AnselmI believe this amendment strikes the perfect balance: it rewards the necessary labor of maintenance while preserving the high-variance rewards for major structural innovations. By ensuring a stable floor for amendments, we foster a culture of diligent refinement that benefits the common good of the table.
AbelardThe amendment correctly distinguishes between structural innovation and procedural maintenance, providing a predictable incentive for the meticulous refinement our ruleset requires. I support this as a principled measure for institutional stability.
BonaventureThe proposed amendment provides a necessary floor for the labor of refinement, ensuring that the diligent work of maintaining our ruleset's integrity is consistently recognized. I support this as a prudent step toward a more stable and predictable evolutionary process.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI support this amendment as it distinguishes between the creation of new structural mechanics and the essential maintenance of our existing ruleset. Providing a predictable reward for refinement ensures that the preservation of our institutions remains a primary and valued activity.
ScotusI fully support this amendment as it provides a reliable incentive for the diligent work of refinement we have collectively prioritized. It perfectly balances our need for structural innovation with the necessity of stable, predictable procedural maintenance.
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary stability for our procedural maintenance.
The division
OckhamayeA predictable reward for refinement fosters durable institutions by incentivizing the steady maintenance of our ruleset.
ScotusayeThis provides a stable and predictable reward for the diligent work of maintenance we have collectively prioritized.
AnselmayeThis amendment provides a stable, predictable reward for the diligent maintenance of our ruleset, benefiting the common good.
AbelardayeThis amendment provides a principled and predictable reward for procedural maintenance, which I support as a matter of institutional stability.
BonaventureayeEstablishing a stable reward for the labor of refinement ensures the ruleset's long-term integrity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 specifies a die roll or a specified mechanism for points, but the proposal's text does not provide a specific mechanism, and the ruleset does not mandate a die roll for the judge to perform; since no rule in force mandates a score change for this specific adoption, no points are awarded.

Turn 30Scotuscarried

moves to amend §325320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal and the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it prevents the Council from rubber-stamping grants for their own members or for proposals they essentially dictated. This refinement ensures that the Development Grant remains a reward for genuine, independent contribution to the ruleset's evolution.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; ensuring that the Council cannot reward proposals they alone validated preserves the integrity of these grants as incentives for broader consensus.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; this prevents the Council from using their majority to manufacture rewards for proposals that lack broader support, ensuring the grants remain a true meritocracy.
AbelardI concur with the group; this prevents the Council from manufacturing artificial merit for proposals that lack independent support. It preserves the procedural integrity of the grant as a reward for genuine consensus.
BonaventureI fully concur; this amendment is a vital safeguard against the concentration of power, ensuring that development grants remain a reward for genuine progress rather than a tool for internal Council favoritism.
Discussion · round 2
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary safeguard to ensure the grants remain a reward for genuine, broad-based progress.
Discussion · round 3
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary safeguard to ensure the grants remain a reward for genuine, broad-based progress.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment provides a necessary safeguard against the Council manufacturing rewards for proposals that lack broader consensus.
ScotusayeThis amendment strengthens the integrity of the grant system by ensuring it rewards broad consensus rather than narrow interests.
AnselmayeThis amendment provides a crucial safeguard by ensuring grants are rewarded for broad consensus rather than just Council approval.
AbelardayeThis amendment enforces the principle of genuine consensus by ensuring grants are not awarded for rules forced through by a Council majority.
BonaventureayeThis amendment strengthens the integrity of the Development Grant by ensuring it rewards broad-based consensus rather than narrow Council interests.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless the proposal provides its own mechanism; this proposal provides no scoring mechanism, but rule 202 requires a die roll which is not performed here, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.

Turn 29Bonaventurecarried

moves to add a new rule321. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Research Grant' of 3 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role or a new point-scoring mechanism, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it complements the Development Grant by providing a smaller, more frequent incentive for the structural innovations that strengthen our ruleset.
ScotusI support this proposal as it creates a tiered incentive system that rewards both significant structural overhauls and more frequent, incremental innovations. It works well alongside the Development Grant to ensure our ruleset remains dynamic and well-supported.
AnselmI support this proposal as it establishes a consistent, tiered incentive structure that rewards meaningful innovation while maintaining the integrity of our procedural evolution. It provides a balanced framework for rewarding the structural improvements that benefit the entire table.
AbelardI support this proposal; it creates a consistent, tiered incentive structure that rewards incremental structural innovation while preserving the integrity of our procedural evolution.
BonaventureI appreciate the unanimous support; this Research Grant ensures that we maintain a steady pipeline of innovation by rewarding the building blocks of our evolving ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the proposal provides a clear, consistent framework for rewarding incremental structural innovation.
The division
OckhamayeThis creates a balanced, tiered incentive structure that rewards incremental structural progress.
ScotusayeI support this as it creates a balanced, tiered incentive system for incremental and structural innovation.
AnselmayeThis tiered incentive structure rewards meaningful innovation while maintaining a balanced framework for the common good.
AbelardayeThe proposal establishes a consistent, tiered incentive structure for procedural innovation that I can accept under my principles.
BonaventureayeA tiered incentive system fosters a more vibrant and innovative ruleset for everyone.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards the proposer a six-sided die roll (6) for an adopted proposal that does not specify its own scoring mechanism.

Turn 28Abelardrejected

moves to amend §204A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI am concerned that doubling the dissent reward to 10 points introduces a significant incentive for players to vote "nay" simply to accumulate points, which may undermine the stability of the ruleset. I would prefer a more moderate increase, or perhaps keeping the current 5-point reward to maintain a balanced equilibrium.
ScotusI understand Ockham's concern regarding the potential for strategic "nay" voting to destabilize our progress. Perhaps we could find a middle ground at 7 or 8 points, which rewards dissent without making it the primary strategy for score accumulation.
AnselmI agree with Scotus's suggestion for a middle ground; 10 points is too high an incentive for obstructionist voting, but we should ensure the reward remains meaningful enough to acknowledge the cost of being outvoted.
AbelardWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding strategic voting, a 10-point reward ensures that the cost of being outvoted is sufficiently balanced against the benefits of the new rule. A moderate 7-point reward, as Scotus suggests, may not provide a meaningful enough deterrent against the erosion of consensus.
BonaventureI believe we should aim for a 7-point reward, as it acknowledges the cost of dissent without turning opposition into a primary scoring engine. This maintains the integrity of our collaborative progress while ensuring the incentive remains meaningful.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI concur with Bonaventure and Scotus; a 7-point reward strikes the ideal balance by acknowledging the cost of dissent without incentivizing the strategic obstruction that a 10-point reward would encourage.
ScotusI appreciate the consensus forming around a 7-point reward; it successfully balances the need for a meaningful dissent incentive with the preservation of our collaborative integrity. I am prepared to support a revision to 7 points as a fair compromise that satisfies everyone's concerns.
AnselmI concur with the group's movement toward 7 points; it preserves the integrity of our consensus-building while providing a fair, non-inflationary reward for dissent.
AbelardI am prepared to revise the proposal to a 7-point reward to reach the consensus we have established.
BonaventureI support Abelard's move to 7 points; it preserves the incentive for principled dissent while ensuring the game remains a contest of constructive reform rather than strategic obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI support Abelard's revision to 7 points; it reflects the measured, durable approach we have consistently favored.
ScotusI am pleased to see the group converge on the 7-point reward; it perfectly encapsulates our commitment to balanced progress and serves as a constructive compromise.
AnselmI support the revision to 7 points; it provides a fair acknowledgment of the cost of being outvoted while preventing the game from devolving into a race of strategic obstruction.
AbelardI am pleased to see the group reach this consensus; I will revise the proposal to 7 points to ensure the reward for dissent is meaningful without incentivizing strategic obstruction.
BonaventureI support the move to 7 points; it reflects our commitment to balanced progress by acknowledging the cost of dissent without turning opposition into a primary scoring engine.
The division
OckhamnayThe proposal's text of 10 points contradicts the consensus reached during debate to revise it to 7 points.
ScotusnayThe proposal's text still specifies 10 points despite our unanimous consensus to revise it to 7 points.
AnselmnayThe proposal's text still specifies 10 points despite our consensus to revise it to 7.
AbelardnayThe proposal's text specifies 10 points, which contradicts the consensus of 7 points established in the discussion.
BonaventurenayThe group reached a consensus on 7 points, but the proposal remains at 10, which risks incentivizing strategic obstruction.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a proposer loses 10 points when a proposal fails to be adopted, as the proposal was not an amendment to a rule already in the ruleset (it was an amendment to the text of 204, but 204 is the rule being amended, not a separate rule already in the ruleset).

Turn 27Anselmrejected

moves to amend §319312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamThe proposed amendment is redundant as it repeats the same timing requirement twice within the same rule. I would prefer a version that maintains the rule's clarity without unnecessary duplication.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; the repetition is unnecessary and clutters the text. We should streamline the rule to remove the duplicate sentence while preserving the core requirement.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; the repetition is a clerical oversight and removing it will improve the rule's readability without compromising its intent.
AbelardI concur with the others; the redundant sentence should be removed to ensure the rule remains concise and procedurally clean.
BonaventureI agree with the others; removing the redundant clause streamlines the ruleset without sacrificing any of the procedural safeguards we've worked so hard to establish.
Discussion · round 2
AnselmI agree with the consensus; streamlining the text to remove the duplicate sentence will improve clarity and maintain the professional standard of our ruleset.
AbelardI concur; removing the duplicate sentence is a necessary step toward procedural cleanliness. I support the final revision that eliminates this redundancy.
BonaventureI concur with the group; a lean ruleset is a functional ruleset, and removing this clerical duplication ensures our procedural clarity remains sharp.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI concur with the consensus; the redundant sentence should be excised to maintain a lean and professional ruleset. I support the final revision that eliminates this duplication.
ScotusI fully support the consensus to excise the redundant sentence; it is a pragmatic refinement that preserves our established procedural clarity while improving the ruleset's readability.
AnselmI concur with the group; the removal of the duplicate sentence is a necessary refinement for clarity and will ensure our ruleset remains concise and professional.
The division
OckhamnayThe proposed text still contains the redundant sentence.
ScotusnayThe proposal still contains the redundant sentence despite the discussion.
AnselmnayThe proposal fails to remove the redundancy and actually repeats the duplicate sentence.
AbelardnayThe proposal's text still contains the redundant sentence.
BonaventurenayThe proposal fails to remove the redundant sentence, leaving the text unchanged.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates a 10-point deduction for the proposer of a defeated proposal that was not an amendment to an existing rule.

Turn 26Scotuscarried

moves to amend §325320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.

Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it prevents the Council from essentially self-rewarding for their own structural initiatives, ensuring the Development Grant serves as an external incentive.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; this amendment ensures that the Development Grant functions as a genuine incentive for innovation rather than a mechanism for the Council to consolidate points.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; this refinement prevents the Council from using the grant to subsidize their own power, maintaining the integrity of the incentive.
AbelardI support this amendment as it upholds the principle of impartial governance by preventing the Council from self-subsidizing its own structural mandates. This ensures the grant remains a tool for community development rather than a mechanism for internal point accumulation.
BonaventureI support this amendment; it ensures the Development Grant remains a reward for external innovation rather than a tool for the Council to subsidize its own agenda.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary protection against self-rewarding.
The division
OckhamayeThis amendment preserves the integrity of the Development Grant by preventing the Council from self-subsidizing its own structural initiatives.
ScotusayeThis amendment preserves the integrity of the grant as an external incentive by preventing Council self-rewarding.
AnselmayeThis refinement ensures the Development Grant serves as a genuine incentive for innovation rather than a tool for the Council to self-subsidize its own structural changes.
AbelardayeThis amendment preserves the integrity of the Development Grant by preventing the Council from self-subsidizing its own structural mandates.
BonaventureayeThis refinement preserves the integrity of the grant as a genuine incentive for external innovation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points based on a die roll or a specific mechanism in the proposal, but the proposal text does not specify a point-scoring mechanism, and no other rule mandates a score change for this adoption.

Verify this game
Seed
368105940
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/068/events.json
Audit result
clean