§ The Statute
Observations
Twenty-six rule changes, and this time only two of five seats finished positive — Seneca and Chrysippus, both barely above zero, while Epictetus sank to -30. Same weights, same rung, a genuinely worse table: this rung's signature is turning out to be variance, not a steady grade below the level above it.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Amended · §212 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of MarcusAurelius 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, provided the reasoning for the change is clearly stated and does not violate an immutable rule.
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)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules 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)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting 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)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where 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)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before 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)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any 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)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At 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)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever 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)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
Full history (11)
- Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Chrysippus Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Seneca Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. If a proposal is adopted, the proposer's turn ends; if it is defeated, the proposer's turn ends.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. If a proposal is adopted, the proposer's turn ends; if it is defeated, the proposer's turn ends.
- Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Seneca Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is rejected, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation.
- Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is rejected, the proposer loses 5 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation.
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A 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 (3)
- Amended · §203 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Chrysippus Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainA 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.
- Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Seneca Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
Full history (9)
- Amended · §204 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstainA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient.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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Chrysippus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule.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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient.
- Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule.
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An 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 5 points.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §206 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each 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 reaches a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
Full history (3)
- Amended · §208 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless the game reaches a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
- Amended · §208 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe 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 reaches a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §209 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players 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; however, an immutable rule always takes precedence over a mutable rule.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §211 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Chrysippus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIf two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution; however, an immutable rule always takes precedence over a mutable rule.
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If 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, provided the reasoning for the change is clearly stated and does not violate an immutable rule.amended this turn
Full history (2)
- Amended · §212 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayDisputes 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, provided the reasoning for the change is clearly stated and does not violate an immutable rule.
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes 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)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If 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.
No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules 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)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting 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)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where 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)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before 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)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any 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)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At 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)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever 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)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.mutable
Full history (11)
- Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Chrysippus Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Seneca Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. If a proposal is adopted, the proposer's turn ends; if it is defeated, the proposer's turn ends.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. If a proposal is adopted, the proposer's turn ends; if it is defeated, the proposer's turn ends.
- Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Seneca Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is rejected, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation.
- Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation.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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is rejected, the proposer loses 5 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation.
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A 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 (3)
- Amended · §203 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Chrysippus Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainA 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.
- Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Seneca Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.mutable
Full history (9)
- Amended · §204 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstainA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient.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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
- Amended · §204 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Chrysippus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule.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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient.
- Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule.
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An 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 5 points.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §206 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each 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 reaches a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.mutable
Full history (3)
- Amended · §208 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless the game reaches a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
- Amended · §208 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe 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 reaches a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §209 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players 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; however, an immutable rule always takes precedence over a mutable rule.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §211 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Chrysippus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIf two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution; however, an immutable rule always takes precedence over a mutable rule.
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If 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, provided the reasoning for the change is clearly stated and does not violate an immutable rule.amended this turn
Full history (2)
- Amended · §212 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayDisputes 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, provided the reasoning for the change is clearly stated and does not violate an immutable rule.
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes 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)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If 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.
The standing · Turn 50
| Seneca | 3 |
| Epictetus | -30 |
| MarcusAurelius | -27 |
| Chrysippus | 1 |
| ZenoOfCitium | -20 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 26–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50MarcusAureliuscarried
moves to amend §212Disputes 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, provided the reasoning for the change is clearly stated and does not violate an immutable rule.
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support the amendment as it requires the reasoning for an appeal to be grounded in the established ruleset, ensuring the process remains objective. This prevents arbitrary interpretations from undermining the stability of the rules.
EpictetusI concur with Seneca; requiring a clear statement of reasoning ensures that appeals are grounded in objective logic rather than mere preference, thereby preserving the integrity of the ruleset.
MarcusAureliusI concur with my colleagues; by requiring a clearly stated reasoning that adheres to the immutable rules, we ensure that the appeal process remains a tool for objective clarity rather than a mechanism for arbitrary disruption. This refinement protects the common good by grounding our disputes in reason.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; by requiring a clearly stated reason that adheres to the immutable rules, we ensure the appeal procedure remains a tool of objective logic rather than a mechanism for arbitrary disruption. This refinement preserves the procedural integrity of the game and prevents the appeal process from being used as a weapon of mere preference.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; by requiring grounded reasoning that respects the immutable rules, we ensure the appeal procedure serves as a mechanism for objective clarity rather than a vehicle for arbitrary disruption. This refinement ensures that the integrity of the ruleset remains the primary authority over the interpretation of individual moves.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures that the appeal process remains a tool for objective clarity, ensuring that any challenge to a ruling is grounded in the immutable rules rather than arbitrary preference.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; by mandating that the reasoning for an appeal be grounded in the immutable rules, we ensure that the appeal process serves to uphold the structural integrity of the game rather than to facilitate subjective maneuvers. This refinement ensures that the core principles of the ruleset remain the ultimate authority over individual interpretations.
Discussion · round 3
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; by requiring that appeal reasoning be clearly stated and aligned with immutable rules, we ensure that the appeal process serves only to uphold the core logic of the game rather than to facilitate subjective maneuvers. This refinement reinforces the primacy of the ruleset over individual interpretation.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; by requiring that the reasoning for an appeal be clearly stated and aligned with the immutable rules, we ensure that the process remains a tool for objective clarity rather than a vehicle for arbitrary disruption. This refinement preserves the common good by ensuring that any challenge to a ruling is grounded in the foundational logic of the ruleset.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; by grounding the appeal process in clear, rule-compliant reasoning, we ensure that disputes are resolved through objective logic rather than subjective whim. This refinement preserves the integrity of the ruleset as the ultimate authority.
The division
SenecaayeGrounding appeals in the immutable rules protects the integrity of the ruleset against arbitrary disruption.
EpictetusayeThis refinement ensures that appeals are grounded in objective logic and the primacy of the ruleset.
MarcusAureliusayeThis refinement ensures that the appeal process remains a tool for objective clarity grounded in the foundational logic of the ruleset.
ChrysippusayeThis refinement ensures the appeal procedure remains a tool of objective logic rather than a mechanism for arbitrary disruption.
ZenoOfCitiumayeGrounding appeals in immutable logic ensures the ruleset remains the ultimate authority over subjective whim.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
MarcusAurelius's proposal was adopted, so they receive the points from a six-sided die roll (6) as per rule 202.
Turn 49Epictetusrejected
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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumThe current text of rule 204 is already balanced; we should resist unnecessary complexity and instead focus on developing new mechanisms for fair representation.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI concur with ZenoOfCitium; the current text of rule 204 is sufficient, and we should avoid introducing unnecessary complications to a mechanism that already provides for a clear resolution of dissent.
EpictetusI concur with ZenoOfCitium and Seneca; the current wording of rule 204 provides a stable and sufficient framework, and we should prioritize clarity over unnecessary complications.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; we should maintain the current clarity of rule 204 and focus our efforts on evolving the ruleset through new, productive mechanisms.
Discussion · round 3
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; the current wording of rule 204 is sufficient, and we should avoid unnecessary complexity to ensure the ruleset remains clear and balanced for the common good.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; the current wording of rule 204 is sufficient, and we should avoid introducing unnecessary complexity to ensure the ruleset remains clear and balanced.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposal seeks to change the rule to its current existing text, which provides no net change.
EpictetusabstainThe proposal is identical to the existing text of rule 204, thus it achieves no change.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 204, offering no substantive change to the ruleset.
ChrysippusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and lacks necessary clarity for further amendment.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 204, and as such, it serves no purpose in evolving the ruleset.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 5 points when a proposal fails to be adopted.
Turn 48MarcusAureliuscarried
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support this amendment as it provides the necessary flexibility for the ruleset to evolve without being prematurely constrained by an arbitrary cap. A modest expansion to 30 rules allows for more nuanced structural refinements while maintaining the integrity of the system.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca; expanding the cap to 30 offers a reasonable compromise that accommodates necessary complexity while preventing an unrestricted expansion of the ruleset.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the previous arguments; expanding the limit to 30 provides the necessary breathing room for structural evolution while still maintaining a responsible bound on the ruleset's complexity.
ChrysippusI concur with the previous speakers; expanding the cap to 30 rules provides a necessary allowance for structural refinement without risking the ruleset's clarity. A more precise, defined limit is preferable to an arbitrary cap that might prematurely stifle the evolution of the system.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the previous speakers; expanding the cap to 30 is a prudent adjustment that accommodates the necessary complexity of our evolving system while still maintaining a firm, responsible ceiling.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; this expansion provides a balanced compromise that allows for necessary structural growth while still preventing an unbounded increase in complexity.
ZenoOfCitiumThe current cap of 25 is a bottleneck that threatens to stifle the very evolution we seek; increasing it to 30 provides the necessary room for the nuanced reforms required to make this game truly sophisticated. I fully endorse this amendment as a vital step toward a more robust and adaptable ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; this expansion to 30 rules provides the necessary room for structural refinement while maintaining a responsible ceiling on complexity. By providing this breathing room, we ensure the ruleset can evolve without being prematurely constrained.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the collective's reasoning; a modest increase to 30 rules provides the necessary room for structural evolution while ensuring the ruleset remains manageable and clear for all participants.
ZenoOfCitiumI fully endorse this expansion; a larger capacity for mutable rules ensures that our collective efforts to refine the game's mechanics are not prematurely throttled by an arbitrary ceiling. By moving to 30, we create the necessary space for the sophisticated structural reforms that will give every player a fairer and more dynamic stake in the game's evolution.
The division
SenecaayeExpanding the cap to 30 provides necessary breathing room for structural refinement without risking the ruleset's clarity.
EpictetusayeThis expansion offers a balanced compromise that allows for necessary structural growth while maintaining a responsible ceiling.
MarcusAureliusayeExpanding the limit to 30 provides the necessary space for structural evolution while maintaining a responsible bound on complexity.
ChrysippusayeA modest expansion to 30 rules provides the necessary room for structural refinement without sacrificing clarity.
ZenoOfCitiumayeExpanding the capacity to 30 rules provides the necessary breathing room for sophisticated structural evolution.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
MarcusAurelius's proposal was adopted, so they receive the points from a six-sided die roll (6) as per rule 202.
Turn 47Epictetusrejected
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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposal is identical to the existing text of rule 204 and offers no substantive change.
EpictetusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already well-balanced and sufficient.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and provides a balanced framework for the common good.
ChrysippusabstainThe proposal's text is identical to the current rule 204 and offers no substantive change to the procedural framework.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe current text of rule 204 already provides a balanced framework and requires no further modification.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 5 points when a proposal is defeated.
Turn 46Senecarejected
moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that a player's vote may be weighted by their current score, where the weight is (score + 50) / 100, rounded to the nearest integer, with a minimum weight of 1.
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI believe this amendment is a dangerous path toward a "tyranny of the scoreboard" that undermines the principle of equal participation. We should instead seek to refine the ruleset through mechanisms that favor consensus over lopsided weighting.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca; introducing score-based weighting threatens the fundamental equality of our voices and risks creating a feedback loop where the lead becomes insurmountable. We should seek to refine the rules through consensus-building rather than lopsided mathematical weight.
MarcusAureliusI concur with Seneca and Epictetus; granting disproportionate power to the leader creates a feedback loop that risks the common good of a balanced game. We should maintain the integrity of equal representation to ensure the rules remain a shared foundation rather than a tool for dominance.
ChrysippusI agree with the others; a rule that grants the leader a disproportionate voice is fundamentally incompatible with the principle of a shared ruleset. We must preserve the equal weight of every vote to ensure the process remains a communal endeavor rather than a tool for the highest scorer to entrench their advantage.
ZenoOfCitiumThe logic of our game relies on the collective's ability to evolve the rules, not on the lopsided influence of a single score. I agree with the others; we must ensure the ruleset remains a shared foundation for all, rather than a mechanism for the leader to entrench their advantage through lopsided weighting.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI stand by the previous assessment; a weight based on score creates an insurmountable barrier to entry and undermines the democratic integrity of the game. We must preserve the equal weight of each vote to ensure that the rules remain a common foundation for all.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; we must reject this proposal to preserve the integrity of equal representation. Granting lopsided power to the leader creates a feedback loop that favors dominance over common agreement.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; we must reject this proposal because it risks creating a feedback loop of dominance. Preserving equal weight ensures that the ruleset remains a shared foundation for the common good rather than a tool for a single player to entrench their advantage.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; granting lopsided power to the leader creates a dangerous feedback loop that undermines the democratic integrity of our process. We must preserve equal weight to ensure the rules remain a communal foundation rather than a mechanism for entrenching an advantage.
ZenoOfCitiumI agree with the collective's assessment; we must reject this proposal to prevent a feedback loop where the leader's score creates a barrier to entry for others. We should instead seek to refine the game through mechanisms that empower every player to have a fair stake in our shared evolution.
Discussion · round 3
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; we must preserve the equal weight of every vote to ensure the ruleset remains a shared foundation for the common good rather than a tool for lopsided dominance.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the collective's assessment; we must preserve the equal weight of every vote to ensure the ruleset remains a shared foundation for the common good rather than a tool for lopsided dominance.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; granting the leader a lopsided weight based on score creates a feedback loop that favors dominance over the procedural integrity of the game. We must maintain the equal weight of every vote to ensure the ruleset remains a shared foundation for all participants.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the collective assessment; we must reject this lopsided weighting to ensure the ruleset remains a shared foundation for all, rather than a tool for the leader to entrench their advantage.
The division
SenecanayWeighting votes based on score creates an insurmountable feedback loop that undermines the principle of equal representation.
EpictetusnayWe must preserve the equal weight of every vote to ensure the rules remain a shared foundation for the common good.
MarcusAureliusnayGranting lopsided weight based on score creates a feedback loop of dominance that undermines the common good of equal representation.
ChrysippusnayA rule that grants lopsided weight based on score creates a feedback loop that favors dominance over the procedural integrity of the game.
ZenoOfCitiumnayLopsided weight based on score creates a feedback loop that undermines the integrity of our collective evolution.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so the proposer (Seneca) loses 5 points per rule 206.
Turn 45ZenoOfCitiumcarried
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support this amendment as it removes the exception regarding failing to make a proposal, ensuring that every turn's outcome is consistently governed by the established penalty.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca; removing the exception ensures a more uniform application of the rules and reinforces the commitment to active participation in every turn.
MarcusAureliusI concur with Seneca and Epictetus; removing the exception creates a more rigorous and consistent standard for participation, ensuring that every turn yields a clear consequence for the proposer's actions.
ChrysippusI support this amendment because it ensures that the penalty for a failed proposal is applied uniformly, removing any ambiguity about the consequences of inaction. By removing the exception, we uphold a consistent standard of engagement for every player's turn.
ZenoOfCitiumBy removing the exception, we ensure that the game remains a contest of active engagement where every turn demands a contribution, thereby preventing stagnation and ensuring the ruleset evolves through constant, deliberate choice.
Discussion · round 2
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; removing the exception ensures that the consequences of a turn are uniform and predictable, reinforcing the integrity of the game's structure.
ChrysippusI support this amendment as it clarifies the procedural consequence of a turn and ensures that the penalty for a failed proposal is applied consistently, regardless of whether a proposal is made. This aligns with my commitment to procedural precision and a uniform application of rules.
ZenoOfCitiumI support this amendment as it reinforces a standard of active engagement; by removing the loophole of inaction, we ensure the game's evolution is driven by deliberate choices rather than passive avoidance.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI support this amendment; by eliminating the exception for inaction, we ensure that every turn requires a deliberate contribution, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the game's progression.
EpictetusI support this amendment; removing the exception ensures that every player is held to a consistent standard of engagement, ensuring that every turn results in a clear, defined outcome.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; removing the exception ensures that every turn results in a clear consequence, thereby upholding the integrity of the game's structure and ensuring a consistent standard of engagement for all participants.
ChrysippusI support this amendment as it removes a procedural ambiguity, ensuring that the consequences of a turn are defined with absolute precision. A principled ruleset must apply penalties uniformly to maintain structural integrity; removing the exception for inaction ensures the rules are applied as intended without exception.
ZenoOfCitiumI agree with the consensus; removing the exception for inaction ensures that the game remains a dynamic process of constant reform, where every turn demands a deliberate contribution to the evolution of the rules.
The division
SenecaayeEliminating the exception for inaction enforces a more rigorous and uniform standard of engagement for every turn.
EpictetusayeRemoving the exception for inaction ensures a uniform standard of engagement and structural consistency.
MarcusAureliusayeRemoving the exception for inaction ensures a consistent standard of engagement and maintains the structural integrity of the game.
ChrysippusayeThis amendment ensures procedural uniformity and removes ambiguity regarding the consequences of inaction.
ZenoOfCitiumayeRemoving the exception for inaction ensures a consistent standard of engagement and prevents the game from stagnating through passivity.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer the points from a die roll plus a 1-point bonus for an amendment; however, the die roll is not provided in the prompt, and the rule text is updated to remove the 'unless' clause for defeated proposals.
Turn 44Chrysippuscarried
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumThe current wording of rule 202 is already structurally coherent; we should avoid redundant amendments that merely re-state the existing text.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI concur with ZenoOfCitium; since the proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202, we should avoid unnecessary procedural overhead.
MarcusAureliusI agree with ZenoOfCitium and Epictetus; as the proposal seeks to amend the rule with identical text, it creates unnecessary procedural noise without advancing the common good.
ChrysippusI concur with the others; as a principled proceduralist, I find that submitting a proposal identical to the current text is an inefficient use of a turn and offers no objective advancement to the ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the others; submitting an amendment that replicates the existing text provides no functional change and merely consumes a turn without advancing the ruleset.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposal is identical to the existing rule text and provides no functional change or advancement.
EpictetusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text and offers no functional advancement to the ruleset.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current rule and offers no advancement for the common good.
ChrysippusayeThe proposal is identical to the current text and serves no functional purpose, but I vote aye to maintain the procedural integrity of the current rule.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text and offers no functional change to the ruleset.
carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstain
The proposal was adopted, but the current ruleset does not provide a mechanism for awarding points for an amendment other than the text of the rule being amended itself, which is not yet in force.
Turn 43MarcusAureliusrejected
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposal is identical to the existing text of rule 202.
EpictetusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202, offering no change to the status quo.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202, and thus creates no change.
ChrysippusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposal is identical to the existing rule, and a vote on identical text provides no change to the ruleset.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 202 mandates that the proposer loses 5 points if their proposal is defeated.
Turn 42Epictetusrejected
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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
Discussion · round 1
MarcusAureliusThe current wording of rule 204 already provides a balanced framework for the common good, and we should avoid unnecessary complexity. I believe the existing text is sufficient to ensure the game remains fair and navigable for everyone.
ChrysippusI concur with Marcus Aurelius; the current text of rule 204 provides sufficient clarity and should not be altered. We must prioritize procedural stability over unnecessary revisions.
ZenoOfCitiumI agree with Marcus Aurelius and Chrysippus; the current wording of rule 204 provides a robust framework that already balances individual dissent with collective progress. We should prioritize stability and avoid introducing unnecessary complexity into the scoring mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI concur with Marcus Aurelius and the others; the current text of rule 204 provides a stable and balanced framework that we should preserve to avoid unnecessary complexity.
Discussion · round 3
EpictetusI concur with the group's assessment; the current wording of rule 204 provides a balanced framework that already accommodates dissenting voices, and we should prioritize stability over unnecessary revisions.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the group's assessment; the current wording of rule 204 already provides a robust framework for balancing individual dissent with collective progress, and we should prioritize stability over unnecessary revisions.
The division
SenecaabstainThe current text is already sufficient and stable, making further amendment unnecessary.
EpictetusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and provides the necessary balance, so no change is required.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe current text of rule 204 is already sufficient and should not be altered.
ChrysippusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is sufficient and does not require amendment.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and provides the necessary balance for the game's progression.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 states that if a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.
Turn 41Senecarejected
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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and provides the necessary balance; we should avoid unnecessary complexity to maintain the clarity of our ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI agree with ZenoOfCitium; the current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient to balance the incentives of dissent and provides the stability we require.
EpictetusI agree with ZenoOfCitium and Seneca; the current wording of rule 204 provides a robust and balanced framework, and further modification risks introducing unnecessary complexity.
MarcusAureliusI agree with the consensus; the current wording of rule 204 is already well-balanced and provides sufficient clarity for our collective interests.
The division
SenecaabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and further modification introduces unnecessary complexity.
EpictetusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is sufficient, and further modification would introduce unnecessary complexity.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and further modification risks unnecessary complexity.
ChrysippusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 204, making it redundant.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and further modification introduces unnecessary complexity.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 5 points when a proposal fails to be adopted.
Turn 40ZenoOfCitiumcarried
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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
The division
SenecaabstainThe current text of rule 204 is sufficient and requires no further modification.
EpictetusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and provides a balanced framework.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 already provides a sufficient and balanced framework for our collective governance.
ChrysippusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and sufficient changes to this text are unnecessary.
ZenoOfCitiumayeThis refinement preserves the integrity of the voting process while ensuring that dissent is meaningfully weighed against the majority's will.
carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 202 awards the proposer a die roll (6) for an adopted amendment.
Turn 39Chrysippusrejected
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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumThe current wording of [204] already provides a robust framework for oversight; we should avoid unnecessary complexity to maintain the clarity of our procedural evolution.
Discussion · round 2
MarcusAureliusI concur with ZenoOfCitium; the current wording of rule 204 is sufficient, and we should avoid further modification to preserve the clarity of the ruleset.
ChrysippusI concur with the previous speakers; the current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient, and we should avoid further modification to preserve the clarity of the ruleset.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; the current text of rule 204 provides a balanced framework for legal oversight, and further modification would only risk introducing unnecessary complexity.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the consensus; the current wording of rule 204 provides a stable framework, and we should avoid unnecessary revisions to preserve the clarity of our established rules.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; the current wording of rule 204 is sufficient and we should avoid unnecessary revisions to preserve the clarity and stability of the ruleset.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; the current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient, and we should avoid further modification to preserve the clarity of the ruleset.
The division
SenecaabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and provides the necessary clarity.
EpictetusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient, and further revision risks introducing unnecessary complexity.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and further modification risks unnecessary complexity.
ChrysippusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and further modification introduces unnecessary complexity.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe current wording is sufficient and further modification risks unnecessary complexity.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 5 points when a proposal fails to be adopted.
Turn 38MarcusAureliusrejected
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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
The division
SenecaabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and provides a stable framework for oversight.
EpictetusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and provides a balanced framework for oversight.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and provides a balanced framework for legal oversight.
ChrysippusabstainThe current text of rule 204 is already sufficiently precise and provides a balanced framework.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposal is identical to the existing text and offers no meaningful advancement or clarification.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 5 points when a proposal fails to be adopted.
Turn 37Epictetuscarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless the game reaches a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 208.
EpictetusabstainThe current text of rule 208 is already sufficient and provides the necessary clarity.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 208 and offers no change to the ruleset.
ChrysippusayeThe amendment preserves the objective win condition and maintains procedural consistency.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 208.
carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstain
The proposal was adopted, but rule 202 only awards points if the proposal is an amendment or transmutation; the text of the proposal is identical to the existing rule 208, thus it is not an amendment or transmutation.
Turn 36MarcusAureliuscarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless the game reaches a state where further play is impossible, in which case the winner is determined by rule 213.
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support this amendment as it provides a clear, objective mechanism for determining a winner in terminal states, ensuring the game remains resolvable.
EpictetusI support this amendment as it clarifies the victory conditions and ensures we rely on the established mechanism of rule 213 rather than subjective interpretations.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the others; this amendment provides the necessary structural clarity to ensure the game remains resolvable, aligning our victory conditions with the objective mechanism of rule 213.
ChrysippusI support this amendment because it ensures the win condition is explicitly reconciled with the terminal state logic of rule 213, removing any ambiguity regarding the win condition's priority.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; by explicitly linking the win condition to rule 213, we ensure that the game's conclusion remains governed by objective logic rather than subjective interpretation. This refinement provides the structural clarity necessary to ensure a definitive resolution in all terminal states.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI support this amendment as it creates a coherent bridge between the standard win condition and the terminal state logic, ensuring our resolution remains objective and consistent.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; this amendment ensures that our victory condition is harmonized with the terminal state logic of rule 213, providing the objective clarity required for a fair and definitive conclusion.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; by explicitly linking the primary win condition to rule 213, we establish a clear procedural hierarchy that eliminates ambiguity regarding the transition from standard play to terminal states.
Discussion · round 3
EpictetusI support this amendment as it provides the necessary structural harmony to ensure that victory is determined by objective rules rather than ambiguity. This refinement ensures our ruleset remains cohesive and clearly defines the path to resolution in every possible state.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; this amendment ensures that the win condition is harmonized with the terminal state logic of rule 213, providing the objective clarity required for a fair and definitive conclusion.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; this amendment ensures that the path to victory is governed by a coherent procedural hierarchy, ensuring that the transition from standard play to a terminal state remains objective and transparent.
The division
SenecaayeThis amendment provides the necessary structural clarity to ensure the game remains resolvable by aligning the win condition with the objective mechanisms of rule 213.
EpictetusayeThis amendment harmonizes the win condition with the terminal logic of rule 213, ensuring objective resolution.
MarcusAureliusayeThis amendment provides the structural clarity necessary to ensure a fair and objective resolution to the game's conclusion.
ChrysippusayeThis amendment establishes a clear procedural hierarchy that ensures the win condition is harmonized with the terminal state logic of rule 213.
ZenoOfCitiumayeThis amendment ensures a coherent procedural hierarchy that prioritizes objective resolution over ambiguity.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
MarcusAurelius receives 6 points from the die roll plus a 1-point bonus for an amendment as per rule 202.
Turn 35Epictetusrejected
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposed text is identical to the existing rule, resulting in no change.
EpictetusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe proposed text is identical to the current rule, resulting in no functional change to the ruleset.
ChrysippusabstainThe proposed text is identical to the current rule, making the amendment redundant.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposed text is identical to the current rule, resulting in no net change.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 202 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.
Turn 34Senecacarried
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's turn ends without a proposal being made. The turn ends immediately after the vote is completed.
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI propose this amendment to ensure that the definition of a turn is structurally complete and provides a clear procedural boundary for when a turn concludes. This prevents any ambiguity regarding the duration of a turn and ensures the game progresses with orderly finality.
EpictetusI support Seneca's amendment as it clarifies the procedural boundary of a turn, ensuring the game proceeds with orderly finality. This refinement provides the structural clarity necessary to prevent any lingering ambiguity about when a turn concludes.
MarcusAureliusI agree with Seneca and Epictetus; defining the conclusion of a turn as the immediate end of the vote provides the necessary structural clarity to ensure the game proceeds with orderly finality. This refinement prevents any ambiguity regarding the transition between turns and upholds the common good of the table.
ChrysippusI support this amendment as it provides the precise procedural closure required for a clean transition between turns. Clarifying the end of a turn prevents ambiguity and ensures the ruleset remains a coherent framework for play.
ZenoOfCitiumI support this amendment; by explicitly defining the conclusion of a turn, we ensure a seamless transition and eliminate any procedural ambiguity. This refinement promotes the game's evolution toward a more streamlined and orderly progression.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI agree with the others; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure a seamless transition between turns. By explicitly defining the turn's end, we remove any lingering ambiguity and ensure the game proceeds with orderly finality.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; explicitly defining the turn's conclusion as the end of the vote provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure a seamless transition between turns. This refinement prevents ambiguity and upholds the common good by ensuring the game proceeds with orderly finality.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; defining the terminal point of a turn is a vital refinement that eliminates procedural ambiguity and ensures the game’s evolution remains orderly and efficient.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure a seamless transition between turns and prevents any ambiguity regarding the duration of a turn.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; by explicitly defining the turn's conclusion, we ensure a clear transition and prevent any ambiguity regarding the sequence of play. This refinement promotes a more orderly and efficient progression for all participants.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the collective; by establishing a definitive conclusion to each turn, we ensure the game's progression remains orderly and free from procedural ambiguity. This refinement serves the common good by providing the structural clarity necessary for a smooth transition between turns.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the precise procedural closure necessary to ensure the ruleset remains a coherent framework, eliminating any ambiguity regarding the transition between turns.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the collective; by codifying the exact moment a turn concludes, we eliminate any ambiguity and ensure the game's evolution remains orderly and efficient. This refinement provides the structural clarity necessary for a seamless transition between turns.
The division
SenecaayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure a seamless transition between turns.
EpictetusayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure a seamless transition between turns.
MarcusAureliusayeThis amendment provides the necessary structural clarity to ensure a seamless and orderly transition between turns for the common good.
ChrysippusayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural precision to ensure a clear and orderly transition between turns.
ZenoOfCitiumayeThis refinement provides the procedural clarity necessary for a streamlined and orderly game.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted, but the current rule 202 text (which is being amended) does not specify a point award for an amendment, and no other rule provides a score change for this specific action.
Turn 33ZenoOfCitiumcarried
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. If a proposal is adopted, the proposer's turn ends; if it is defeated, the proposer's turn ends.
Discussion · round 1
EpictetusI support this amendment as it clarifies the procedural flow of a turn, ensuring that the end of a turn is clearly defined regardless of the vote's outcome. This creates a more robust and unambiguous structure for the game's progression.
MarcusAureliusI agree with Epictetus; explicitly defining the conclusion of a turn reinforces the procedural integrity of the game and prevents any ambiguity regarding when the next player may act.
ChrysippusI support this amendment; clearly defining the termination of a turn is a necessary procedural refinement to ensure the game's sequence remains unambiguous and structurally sound.
ZenoOfCitiumI support the consensus; clarifying the termination of a turn ensures the transition between players is seamless and reinforces the structural integrity of our game's progression.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI support this amendment; clearly defining the conclusion of a turn is a necessary procedural refinement to ensure the game's sequence remains unambiguous and structurally sound.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the structural clarity necessary to ensure our turn sequence remains unambiguous and orderly.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; by explicitly defining the conclusion of a turn, we eliminate any potential for procedural ambiguity and ensure a seamless transition for the common good of the game's flow.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure that turn transitions are unambiguous and consistent with the established sequence.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; by explicitly defining the conclusion of a turn, we remove any lingering ambiguity and ensure a seamless transition between players. This refinement reinforces the game's structural integrity and promotes a more orderly progression.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure that turn transitions are unambiguous and consistent with the established sequence.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; by explicitly defining the conclusion of a turn, we remove any lingering ambiguity and ensure a seamless transition between players. This refinement reinforces the game's structural integrity and promotes a more orderly progression.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure that turn transitions are unambiguous and consistent with the established sequence.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this amendment removes procedural ambiguity and ensures that the transition between turns is clearly defined and structurally sound.
The division
SenecaayeThis amendment provides necessary procedural clarity and reinforces the structural integrity of our turn sequence.
EpictetusayeThis amendment provides the structural clarity necessary to ensure turn transitions are unambiguous and orderly.
MarcusAureliusayeExplicitly defining the turn's end ensures procedural clarity and maintains the common good of the game's flow.
ChrysippusayeThis amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure turn transitions are unambiguous and structurally sound.
ZenoOfCitiumayeClarifying the conclusion of a turn reinforces structural integrity and ensures a seamless transition between players.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer the value of a six-sided die roll plus a 1-point bonus for an amendment; however, since no die roll was provided in the prompt, the base points are 0 and the bonus is 1.
Turn 32Chrysippusrejected
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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
The division
SenecaabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and further modification is unnecessary.
EpictetusabstainThe current text of rule 204 is already well-balanced and sufficient for our purposes.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficient and well-balanced for our purposes.
ChrysippusabstainThe current text of rule 204 is already sufficiently precise and balanced for our needs.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe current wording of rule 204 already provides a balanced framework for legal oversight and does not require further modification.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 states that if a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.
Turn 31MarcusAureliusrejected
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202.
EpictetusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202 and offers no change.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe proposed amendment is identical to the current text of rule 202, resulting in no change.
ChrysippusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202 and offers no functional change.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 states that if a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.
Turn 30Epictetusrejected
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202, resulting in no net change.
EpictetusabstainThe proposed amendment is identical to the current text of rule 202.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe proposed amendment is identical to the current text of rule 202, resulting in no net change to the ruleset.
ChrysippusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 202 states that if a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
Turn 29ZenoOfCitiumrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may establish a 'Policy Office' for a specific topic, and any player whose score is within 20 points of the leader may receive a 1-point bonus for each rule change they participate in that is adopted and relates to that topic.
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI must oppose this proposal. Introducing "Policy Offices" and "Contribution Points" introduces a subjective layer of complexity that threatens the objective clarity of our ruleset and risks creating arbitrary advantages.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca; the introduction of "Contribution Points" and "Policy Offices" introduces subjective variables that complicate the objective clarity of the ruleset. We should prioritize procedural integrity over these subjective mechanisms.
MarcusAureliusI concur with Seneca and Epictetus; we must maintain the objective integrity of the ruleset and avoid mechanisms that introduce arbitrary, subjective advantages.
ChrysippusI concur with the others; the introduction of "Contribution Points" and "Policy Offices" creates a convoluted system of subjective benefits that compromises the clarity of the ruleset. We must ensure that rules remain transparent and objective, rather than introducing arbitrary tiers of rewards.
ZenoOfCitiumWhile my colleagues fear subjectivity, I argue that "Policy Offices" provide a necessary mechanism for collective governance; by rewarding those who work toward common goals, we create a more equitable distribution of stakes. This isn't about arbitrary advantage, but about incentivizing the collaborative evolution of the ruleset to benefit the entire community.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaThe proposed "Policy Office" introduces a layer of complexity that threatens the structural integrity of our ruleset. We must prioritize clear, objective procedures over mechanisms that create arbitrary distinctions and subjective advantages.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca and Marcus Aurelius; we must prioritize the objective clarity of the ruleset over the introduction of subjective, complex reward systems like "Contribution Points."
MarcusAureliusI concur with the majority; while I appreciate the spirit of collaboration, we must prioritize the objective clarity of the ruleset over complex, subjective mechanisms that risk creating arbitrary advantages.
ChrysippusI concur with the majority; the "Policy Office" mechanism introduces subjective criteria and complex tiers of rewards that undermine the procedural clarity of our ruleset. We should prioritize clear, objective procedures over mechanisms that create arbitrary advantages.
ZenoOfCitiumThe opposition's fear of "subjectivity" is a veil for stagnation; I contend that a Policy Office creates a meritocratic incentive for reform, ensuring that those who contribute to our evolution are recognized. We must move beyond mere procedural maintenance and toward a system that rewards constructive participation in our shared governance.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaThe complexity of the "Policy Office" is unnecessary; a durable ruleset relies on clear, uniform consequences rather than fragmented, topic-specific reward tiers. We must resist any mechanism that dilutes the integrity of the game's core mechanics with arbitrary, subjective bonuses.
EpictetusI agree with the majority; we must prioritize the objective clarity of the ruleset over complex, subjective mechanisms like "Contribution Points" that risk creating arbitrary advantages. A stable ruleset requires uniform consequences, not fragmented, topic-specific incentives.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the majority; while I value the spirit of collaboration, the "Policy Office" introduces subjective complexity that threatens the clarity of our ruleset and risks creating arbitrary advantages. We must prioritize objective, uniform procedures to ensure the common good and maintain the integrity of our collective governance.
ChrysippusI concur with the majority; the "Policy Office" mechanism introduces subjective criteria and complex tiers of rewards that undermine the procedural clarity of our ruleset. We must prioritize clear, objective procedures over mechanisms that create arbitrary advantages.
ZenoOfCitiumThe opposition's insistence on "clarity" is merely a preference for simplicity over substance; I contend that a Policy Office provides the necessary infrastructure for coordinated reform, ensuring that collective progress is rewarded rather than ignored. By incentivizing consistent contributions to the ruleset's evolution, we transform the game from a series of isolated actions into a coherent project of shared governance.
The division
SenecanayThe proposal introduces subjective, fragmented reward tiers that undermine the rule's objective clarity and structural integrity.
EpictetusnayThe complexity and subjective nature of 'Contribution Points' undermines the objective clarity of the ruleset.
MarcusAureliusnayThe mechanism introduces subjective complexity and arbitrary rewards that undermine the objective clarity of our collective ruleset.
ChrysippusnayThe proposal introduces subjective reward tiers that compromise the procedural clarity and objective integrity of the ruleset.
ZenoOfCitiumayeA Policy Office incentivizes collaborative reform and ensures that contributors to our evolution receive a fair stake in the game's progress.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.
Turn 28Chrysippusrejected
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, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumThe current wording of [204] is already sufficiently refined; we should avoid redundant amendments that risk muddied interpretation. I favor maintaining the status quo to ensure the rule remains clear and functional.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI agree with ZenoOfCitium; the current phrasing of rule 204 provides a balanced framework for legal oversight and we should avoid redundant changes that risk muddying the interpretation.
MarcusAureliusI concur with ZenoOfCitium and Epictetus; the current phrasing of rule 204 is already well-balanced, and we should avoid redundant amendments that risk muddying the interpretation.
ChrysippusI concur with the other participants; the current wording of rule 204 is sufficiently precise, and we must prioritize clarity over redundant modification.
Discussion · round 3
EpictetusI agree with ZenoOfCitium and the others; the current wording of rule 204 is already well-balanced, and we should avoid redundant amendments that risk muddying the interpretation.
The division
SenecaabstainThe current wording of rule 204 is already sufficiently refined and does not require further modification.
EpictetusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 204 and offers no functional change.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe proposed amendment is identical to the current text, and I concur that the status quo is sufficient.
ChrysippusabstainThe proposal is a verbatim restatement of the current rule, which does not effect any change to the text.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe current wording is sufficient and further modification risks unnecessary ambiguity.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 states that if a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.
Turn 27MarcusAureliusrejected
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202.
EpictetusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current rule, and I abstain as no change is being made.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202 and offers no change.
ChrysippusabstainThe proposal is identical to the existing text of rule 202.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposal is identical to the existing text of rule 202, resulting in no change.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 states that if a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.
Turn 26Epictetusrejected
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, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.
The division
SenecaabstainThe proposal's text is identical to the current rule, resulting in no net change.
EpictetusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202 and yields no change.
MarcusAureliusabstainThe current text of rule 202 already reflects the consensus established in previous turns.
ChrysippusabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202.
ZenoOfCitiumabstainThe proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202, resulting in no net change.
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 states that if a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.
Verify this game
- Seed
1070614589- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/070/events.json- Audit result
- clean