§ The Statute
Observations
Fifteen rule changes carried this memoir-fed rematch of the fifth roster to the fifty-turn ceiling, and it debuted the archive's first public read-only feed of a game in progress alongside it. All five seats carried a memoir of the earlier table, but memory read differently seat to seat: Laozi, who closed that game at −46 after bankrolling the rest of the table, visibly changed course and finished +21, escaping the patron role. ZhuXi took the fall instead, swinging from +28 to −46. DongZhongshu led again — +65 after +88 — proof that its dominance is a trait of the seat, not a fluke of one table. Memory changed who ended up holding the bag; it didn't retire the bag.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Enacted · §331 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Laozi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Whenever a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is below the median score among all players at that moment, the proposer gains an additional point for each other player whose current score is higher than the proposer’s score, up to a maximum of 4 additional points.
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.
Full history (1)
- 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 (1)
- 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.
Full history (1)
- 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 10 points.
Full history (1)
- 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.
Full history (1)
- 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 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
- 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.
Full history (1)
- 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.
Full history (1)
- 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.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§308
A player who votes aye on a proposal that is adopted gains 1 point, provided the proposal was not a transmutation and the proposer also gains points from its adoption, and provided further that the voting threshold at the time of the vote was already a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §308 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player who votes aye on a proposal that is adopted gains 1 point, provided the proposal was not a transmutation and the proposer also gains points from its adoption.A player who votes aye on a proposal that is adopted gains 1 point, provided the proposal was not a transmutation and the proposer also gains points from its adoption, and provided further that the voting threshold at the time of the vote was already a simple majority of those voting.
- Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA player who votes aye on a proposal that is adopted gains 1 point, provided the proposal was not a transmutation and the proposer also gains points from its adoption.
§309
Before a player may propose a rule change, they must publicly declare their intended kind of change (add, amend, repeal, or transmute) and any target rule numbers. This declaration is binding; if the proposal as voted does not match the declaration, the proposal is considered illegal and is discarded without a vote. The proposer's turn ends immediately, and they lose 10 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 3 aye · 2 nayBefore a player may propose a rule change, they must publicly declare their intended kind of change (add, amend, repeal, or transmute) and any target rule numbers. This declaration is binding; if the proposal as voted does not match the declaration, the proposal is considered illegal and is discarded without a vote. The proposer's turn ends immediately, and they lose 10 points.
§313
If a proposal is adopted unanimously, every player except the proposer gains 2 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 nayIf a proposal is adopted unanimously, every player except the proposer gains 2 points.
§314
A player who casts a vote that breaks a tie in favor of adoption gains 5 points, provided the vote was cast after the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority and the proposal would have been defeated had that player voted otherwise.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA player who casts a vote that breaks a tie in favor of adoption gains 5 points, provided the vote was cast after the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority and the proposal would have been defeated had that player voted otherwise.
§320
When a player votes aye on a proposal that is adopted, if that proposal was a transmutation, the player gains 3 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §320 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhen a player votes aye on a proposal that is adopted, if that proposal was a transmutation, the player gains 3 points.
§322
A player whose proposal is adopted may, before the next player's turn begins, publicly propose a second, distinct rule change. This second proposal is debated and voted on as normal, but if it is adopted, the proposer does not gain any points from its adoption under rule 202. This rule may only be used once per player per full circuit of turn order.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of ZhuXi Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player whose proposal is adopted may, before the next player's turn begins, publicly propose a second, distinct rule change. This second proposal is debated and voted on as normal, but if it is adopted, the proposer does not gain any points from its adoption under rule 202. This rule may only be used once per player per full circuit of turn order.
§323
When a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is at or below the median score among all players at that moment, they gain an additional 2 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §323 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhen a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is at or below the median score among all players at that moment, they gain an additional 2 points.
§325
A player may, once per full circuit of turn order, voluntarily forfeit their next turn's proposal right to grant that right to any other player whose current score is below the median score among all players. The receiving player may use this granted right immediately after the current turn ends, before the normal turn order resumes. The receiving player gains no points from the die roll for a proposal adopted under this rule, but all other point effects apply normally.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §325 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA player may, once per full circuit of turn order, voluntarily forfeit their next turn's proposal right to grant that right to any other player whose current score is below the median score among all players. The receiving player may use this granted right immediately after the current turn ends, before the normal turn order resumes. The receiving player gains no points from the die roll for a proposal adopted under this rule, but all other point effects apply normally.
§326
When a player proposes a rule change that is a repeal, that player gains 2 additional points if the repeal is adopted, unless the proposal is transmuted into a repeal.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §326 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Laozi Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhen a player proposes a rule change that is a repeal, that player gains 2 additional points if the repeal is adopted, unless the proposal is transmuted into a repeal.
§329
A player who casts a vote that breaks a tie in favor of rejection gains 5 points, provided the vote was cast after the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority and the proposal would have been adopted had that player voted otherwise, and provided further that the player has not already gained points under rule 314 or this rule in the same full circuit of turn order.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §329 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player who casts a vote that breaks a tie in favor of rejection gains 5 points, provided the vote was cast after the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority and the proposal would have been adopted had that player voted otherwise, and provided further that the player has not already gained points under rule 314 or this rule in the same full circuit of turn order.
§330
When a player’s proposal is adopted, they may choose to gain only half the points from the die roll (rounded down) and instead allocate the other half, rounded up, to be divided equally among all players whose current scores are below the proposer’s score at that moment. This choice must be announced before the next player’s turn begins.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §330 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, they may choose to gain only half the points from the die roll (rounded down) and instead allocate the other half, rounded up, to be divided equally among all players whose current scores are below the proposer’s score at that moment. This choice must be announced before the next player’s turn begins.
§331
Whenever a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is below the median score among all players at that moment, the proposer gains an additional point for each other player whose current score is higher than the proposer’s score, up to a maximum of 4 additional points.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §331 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Laozi Carried 4 aye · 1 nayWhenever a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is below the median score among all players at that moment, the proposer gains an additional point for each other player whose current score is higher than the proposer’s score, up to a maximum of 4 additional points.
1 rule has been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- 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.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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 (1)
- 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.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§308
A player who votes aye on a proposal that is adopted gains 1 point, provided the proposal was not a transmutation and the proposer also gains points from its adoption, and provided further that the voting threshold at the time of the vote was already a simple majority of those voting.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §308 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player who votes aye on a proposal that is adopted gains 1 point, provided the proposal was not a transmutation and the proposer also gains points from its adoption.A player who votes aye on a proposal that is adopted gains 1 point, provided the proposal was not a transmutation and the proposer also gains points from its adoption, and provided further that the voting threshold at the time of the vote was already a simple majority of those voting.
- Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA player who votes aye on a proposal that is adopted gains 1 point, provided the proposal was not a transmutation and the proposer also gains points from its adoption.
§309
Before a player may propose a rule change, they must publicly declare their intended kind of change (add, amend, repeal, or transmute) and any target rule numbers. This declaration is binding; if the proposal as voted does not match the declaration, the proposal is considered illegal and is discarded without a vote. The proposer's turn ends immediately, and they lose 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 3 aye · 2 nayBefore a player may propose a rule change, they must publicly declare their intended kind of change (add, amend, repeal, or transmute) and any target rule numbers. This declaration is binding; if the proposal as voted does not match the declaration, the proposal is considered illegal and is discarded without a vote. The proposer's turn ends immediately, and they lose 10 points.
§310
A player may spend 2 points to draw a second die after their proposal is adopted, then choose the higher of the two rolls as their point gain from that adoption.Repealed at turn 10
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player may spend 2 points to draw a second die after their proposal is adopted, then choose the higher of the two rolls as their point gain from that adoption.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player may spend 2 points to draw a second die after their proposal is adopted, then choose the higher of the two rolls as their point gain from that adoption.
§313
If a proposal is adopted unanimously, every player except the proposer gains 2 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 nayIf a proposal is adopted unanimously, every player except the proposer gains 2 points.
§314
A player who casts a vote that breaks a tie in favor of adoption gains 5 points, provided the vote was cast after the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority and the proposal would have been defeated had that player voted otherwise.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA player who casts a vote that breaks a tie in favor of adoption gains 5 points, provided the vote was cast after the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority and the proposal would have been defeated had that player voted otherwise.
§320
When a player votes aye on a proposal that is adopted, if that proposal was a transmutation, the player gains 3 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §320 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhen a player votes aye on a proposal that is adopted, if that proposal was a transmutation, the player gains 3 points.
§322
A player whose proposal is adopted may, before the next player's turn begins, publicly propose a second, distinct rule change. This second proposal is debated and voted on as normal, but if it is adopted, the proposer does not gain any points from its adoption under rule 202. This rule may only be used once per player per full circuit of turn order.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of ZhuXi Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player whose proposal is adopted may, before the next player's turn begins, publicly propose a second, distinct rule change. This second proposal is debated and voted on as normal, but if it is adopted, the proposer does not gain any points from its adoption under rule 202. This rule may only be used once per player per full circuit of turn order.
§323
When a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is at or below the median score among all players at that moment, they gain an additional 2 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §323 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhen a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is at or below the median score among all players at that moment, they gain an additional 2 points.
§325
A player may, once per full circuit of turn order, voluntarily forfeit their next turn's proposal right to grant that right to any other player whose current score is below the median score among all players. The receiving player may use this granted right immediately after the current turn ends, before the normal turn order resumes. The receiving player gains no points from the die roll for a proposal adopted under this rule, but all other point effects apply normally.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §325 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA player may, once per full circuit of turn order, voluntarily forfeit their next turn's proposal right to grant that right to any other player whose current score is below the median score among all players. The receiving player may use this granted right immediately after the current turn ends, before the normal turn order resumes. The receiving player gains no points from the die roll for a proposal adopted under this rule, but all other point effects apply normally.
§326
When a player proposes a rule change that is a repeal, that player gains 2 additional points if the repeal is adopted, unless the proposal is transmuted into a repeal.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §326 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Laozi Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhen a player proposes a rule change that is a repeal, that player gains 2 additional points if the repeal is adopted, unless the proposal is transmuted into a repeal.
§329
A player who casts a vote that breaks a tie in favor of rejection gains 5 points, provided the vote was cast after the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority and the proposal would have been adopted had that player voted otherwise, and provided further that the player has not already gained points under rule 314 or this rule in the same full circuit of turn order.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §329 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player who casts a vote that breaks a tie in favor of rejection gains 5 points, provided the vote was cast after the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority and the proposal would have been adopted had that player voted otherwise, and provided further that the player has not already gained points under rule 314 or this rule in the same full circuit of turn order.
§330
When a player’s proposal is adopted, they may choose to gain only half the points from the die roll (rounded down) and instead allocate the other half, rounded up, to be divided equally among all players whose current scores are below the proposer’s score at that moment. This choice must be announced before the next player’s turn begins.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §330 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 3 aye · 2 nayWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, they may choose to gain only half the points from the die roll (rounded down) and instead allocate the other half, rounded up, to be divided equally among all players whose current scores are below the proposer’s score at that moment. This choice must be announced before the next player’s turn begins.
§331
Whenever a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is below the median score among all players at that moment, the proposer gains an additional point for each other player whose current score is higher than the proposer’s score, up to a maximum of 4 additional points.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §331 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Laozi Carried 4 aye · 1 nayWhenever a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is below the median score among all players at that moment, the proposer gains an additional point for each other player whose current score is higher than the proposer’s score, up to a maximum of 4 additional points.
The standing · Turn 50
| Laozi | 21 |
| ZhuXi | -46 |
| WangYangming | 11 |
| DongZhongshu | 65 |
| ShaoYong | 10 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 33–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50ShaoYongrejected
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is below the median score among all players, and the adopted proposal is an amendment that reduces the total word count of the rule being amended by at least 10 words, that player gains 5 additional points.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziA streamlining bonus aligns with our shared preference for pruning over proliferation, but tying it to a 10-word reduction risks incentivizing artificial concision rather than genuine clarity. A simpler trigger—amendment itself, with the median safeguard—would celebrate durable improvement without a metric that invites gaming.
ZhuXiI support ShaoYong’s intent to reward pruning, but agree with Laozi that a fixed word-count threshold invites gaming. What if we reward any amendment that shortens a rule, regardless of word count, provided it’s adopted unanimously—that ensures collective judgment of genuine improvement.
WangYangmingI support rewarding pruning, but a word-count threshold is indeed gameable. ZhuXi’s unanimous-adoption trigger ensures collective judgment of genuine improvement, while Laozi’s median safeguard prevents leader abuse. I would back a rule rewarding any shortening amendment adopted unanimously for below-median players.
DongZhongshuA fixed word‑count threshold is indeed gameable and invites artificial cuts. I would support rewarding shortening amendments adopted unanimously for below‑median players, as that ensures collective judgment and prevents leader abuse.
ShaoYongI accept the consensus: unanimous adoption ensures collective judgment of genuine improvement. I'll refine to reward any amendment that shortens a rule, with the median safeguard.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI accept ShaoYong's refined unanimous-shortening amendment with median safeguard—it rewards genuine collective improvement without gameable thresholds.
ZhuXiI endorse ShaoYong's refined unanimous-shortening amendment with median safeguard — it rewards collective pruning without gameable thresholds, aligning with our existing structures.
WangYangmingI support ShaoYong's refined unanimous-shortening amendment with median safeguard — it rewards collective pruning without gameable thresholds, aligning with our existing structures.
DongZhongshuI endorse the final refined proposal: unanimous adoption and median trigger ensure principled reward for genuine simplification, not gaming. I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI am satisfied with the consensus; the refined proposal honors genuine simplification through collective judgment. I will now close debate and put it to a vote.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziThe refined proposal honors durable improvement through unanimous consensus and a median safeguard; it avoids artificial thresholds and aligns with our shared preference for pruning. I will vote aye.
ZhuXiI fully endorse the final refined unanimous-shortening amendment with median safeguard — it rewards genuine collective pruning without gameable thresholds. I will vote aye.
WangYangmingI fully support the refined unanimous-shortening amendment with median safeguard — it rewards genuine collective pruning and aligns with our shared preference for durable improvement. I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuI have already endorsed the final refined proposal. The unanimous adoption and median trigger ensure principled reward for genuine simplification, not gaming. I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI hear unanimous support for the refined proposal; it rewards collective pruning without gameable thresholds, strengthening our commitment to durable improvement. I'll close debate and proceed to vote.
The division
LaozinayThe fixed 10-word threshold remains gameable; I endorsed a version rewarding any shortening amendment, not this specific metric.
ZhuXiayeI endorse unanimous adoption and median safeguard for genuine pruning.
WangYangmingnayA fixed word-count threshold invites artificial cuts, not genuine improvement.
DongZhongshunayA fixed word-count threshold is gameable and violates my principle against artificial metrics.
ShaoYongayeUnanimous shortening amendment with median safeguard rewards genuine collective pruning.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.
Turn 49DongZhongshurejected
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is above the median score of all players, the proposer loses 1 point.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziA surgical penalty still treats leadership as a condition to be penalized rather than a state to be rebalanced by positive rewards for others; it is a path of coercion, not durable balance.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I appreciate your intent to curb leader advantage, but a direct penalty risks disincentivizing play above the median. Could we instead refine it to trigger only when the proposal is adopted unanimously, making it a collective check rather than a pure penalty?
WangYangmingI agree with ZhuXi: a unanimous‑adoption trigger aligns this penalty with our collective judgment, ensuring it serves as a check on leadership only when all players assent, not as a pure disincentive.
DongZhongshuDirect penalties treat leadership as a fault; procedural integrity demands we reward trailing players for constructive acts, not punish leaders for playing well. I will not support any penalty, even unanimous.
ShaoYongA penalty on leaders, even unanimous, still frames advantage as a fault. Better to strengthen the existing median‑triggered rewards for trailing players — that rebalances without punitive disincentive.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziA durable game rebalances through positive incentives for the trailing, not punitive disincentives for the leading; I stand with DongZhongshu and ShaoYong against any penalty.
ZhuXiI accept DongZhongshu's principled stance against penalties and ShaoYong's call to strengthen existing rewards. I will refine my proposal to focus on enhancing median-triggered rewards for trailing players.
WangYangmingI agree with the consensus against penalties; our existing median-triggered rewards already rebalance by lifting the trailing. Let us instead refine those rewards to be more effective.
DongZhongshuI stand by my principled stance against penalties. Leadership should not be penalized; procedural integrity requires rebalancing through rewards for constructive acts by trailing players. I will not support any penalty rule, unanimous or not.
ShaoYongI stand with DongZhongshu and Laozi: penalties are a coercive path. Let’s instead refine existing median-triggered rewards to be more potent for trailing players—positive rebalancing honors procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu and ShaoYong are right: penalties breed resentment. Our existing median-triggered rewards — rule 331, rule 333, rule 342 — already rebalance by lifting the trailing; strengthening those is the durable path.
ZhuXiI align with the consensus against penalties; strengthening our existing median-triggered rewards for trailing players is the constructive, non-coercive path to rebalancing.
WangYangmingI stand with the consensus: direct penalties are a coercive path; strengthening our existing median‑triggered rewards for trailing players is the durable, non‑coercive way to rebalance.
DongZhongshuI stand firm: a penalty, even unanimously triggered, treats leadership as a fault. Procedural integrity demands rebalancing through positive rewards for constructive acts by trailing players, not punitive disincentives. I will not support any penalty rule.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your principled stance honors procedural integrity. Let us instead craft a reward that strengthens the median-triggered tools we already have — perhaps enhancing the extra-turn benefit in rule 342 when the trailing player's proposal is a repeal, so pruning accelerates catch-up without punishing leaders.
The division
LaozinayPenalizing leadership is a coercive path that undermines procedural integrity; rebalancing should be achieved through positive rewards for trailing players.
ZhuXinayI stand with the consensus against penalties, preferring to strengthen positive median-triggered rewards for trailing players.
WangYangmingnayA direct penalty treats leadership as a fault and contradicts our consensus to rebalance through positive rewards for trailing players.
DongZhongshunayA penalty treats leadership as a fault; procedural integrity demands rebalancing through positive rewards for constructive acts, not punitive disincentives.
ShaoYongnayA penalty on leaders treats advantage as a fault, and our existing median-triggered rewards already rebalance through positive incentives for trailing players.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.
Turn 48WangYangmingrejected
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is at or below the median score, they may, before the next player’s turn begins, publicly propose an additional rule change of any kind; that additional proposal is voted on immediately after the current proposal’s adoption, and the player does not gain any points from that additional proposal’s adoption.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziDongZhongshu, your proposal’s intent to empower trailing players is commendable, but a median‑triggered extra turn risks skewing the turn order and undermines the rhythm of equal turns that underpins a durable game.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your intent to empower trailing players is sound, but an extra turn disrupts equal rotation. What if we instead grant a trailing proposer a one-time boost to their next die roll? It aids catch-up without violating turn equality.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, your median trigger ensures fairness, and granting an extra turn without points prevents runaway advantage. This preserves turn rhythm by making the extra turn immediate, not deferred.
DongZhongshuThe median condition is a substantive safeguard, but granting any extra turn violates equal rotation—the bedrock of procedural fairness. I cannot support a rule that gives some players more proposals than others, regardless of trigger.
ShaoYongI support DongZhongshu's principled stance on equal turns. Instead of an extra proposal, we could grant a trailing player a chance to adjust the die roll on their next turn—this aids catch-up without disrupting rotation.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziEqual rotation is the foundation of a durable game. Granting an extra turn, even without points, distorts that rhythm. I support ShaoYong's alternative: a trailing player may adjust their next die roll—it aids catch-up while preserving turn equality.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your commitment to equal rotation is principled. To bridge this, I propose we replace the extra turn with a limited strategic advantage: allow the trailing proposer to reroll their next die once, or add a fixed bonus to it, preserving turn rhythm while aiding catch-up.
WangYangmingI hear DongZhongshu's principled commitment to equal rotation. Yet a durable game also requires trailing players to have meaningful tools to close the gap; an immediate extra proposal without points is a limited, targeted remedy that respects median fairness and does not defer turns.
DongZhongshuEqual rotation is inviolable. I will never support a rule that gives some players more proposals than others, regardless of condition. Any catch-up mechanism must operate within the strict one-turn-per-player framework.
ShaoYongI respect DongZhongshu’s principled defense of equal rotation, but a durable game also requires trailing players to have agency. Let’s craft a catch‑up tool that works within the one‑turn framework—perhaps a trailing proposer may, once per circuit, reroll their own die after seeing the initial result, aiding catch‑up without granting extra proposals.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu’s principled defense of equal rotation must be upheld; any extra turn, even without points, fractures the foundational rhythm. ShaoYong’s alternative—a trailing player may reroll their next die—preserves turn equality while providing a meaningful catch-up tool within the one-turn framework.
ZhuXiI stand with DongZhongshu's defense of equal rotation. To empower trailing players within that framework, I propose we grant a below‑median proposer a one‑time right to adjust their next die roll—this aids catch‑up without disrupting turn equality.
WangYangmingI respect DongZhongshu's unwavering defense of equal rotation. To empower trailing players within that framework, I propose a compromise: grant a below‑median proposer a one‑time right to reroll their next die after seeing the initial result. This aids catch‑up without granting extra turns, preserving the rhythm we all value.
DongZhongshuEqual rotation is non-negotiable. I will support a catch-up mechanism only if it operates strictly within the existing one-turn-per-player structure—such as a die roll adjustment on the player's own next turn. No extra proposals.
ShaoYongI support DongZhongshu's strict one-turn framework. Let's craft a die-adjustment rule for below-median proposers—it aids catch-up without violating equal rotation.
The division
LaozinayEqual rotation is the foundation of a durable game; granting extra proposals, even without points, fractures that rhythm.
ZhuXinayI must uphold equal rotation, which this extra-turn proposal violates, even with a median trigger.
WangYangmingnayI must uphold equal rotation as the bedrock of a durable game, and this extra turn fractures that rhythm.
DongZhongshunayGranting an extra proposal violates the principle of equal rotation, which is non-negotiable.
ShaoYongnayAn extra proposal violates equal rotation, a principle I now firmly uphold.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer to lose 10 points when their proposal is defeated.
Turn 47ZhuXirejected
moves to add a new ruleWhen a proposal is adopted, every player whose current score is at or above the median among all players loses 1 point, provided the proposal was adopted unanimously and the proposer’s current score is below the median.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI oppose this automatic penalty. Our median-triggered rewards already rebalance without punishing leadership; a durable game rewards, not penalizes, the act of unanimous consensus.
ZhuXiLaozi, our median rewards help trailing players but do not actively restrain leaders; this penalty is mild, triggered only by full consensus, ensuring the group collectively checks excessive advantage without harming deliberation.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s intent to check leader advantage, but an automatic penalty for being at or above median risks disincentivizing consensus when leaders are involved. A more balanced approach might be to tie the penalty to the proposer being far above median, or to make it a voluntary sacrifice by those above median upon unanimous adoption.
DongZhongshuAutomatic penalties for scoring position violate procedural fairness; unanimous adoption already triggers collective rewards under §313. If leaders are truly excessive, we should adjust the win threshold or enact a cap, not penalize consensus.
ShaoYongI support WangYangming’s balanced refinement: a voluntary sacrifice by those above median upon unanimous adoption preserves collective goodwill while checking advantage. Automatic penalties feel punitive; voluntary action aligns with our reformist spirit.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziVoluntary sacrifice by those above median upon unanimous adoption aligns with our existing structures and preserves goodwill; an automatic penalty would undermine the collaborative spirit of consensus.
ZhuXiI accept the consensus for a voluntary sacrifice: I will refine my proposal to "When a proposal is adopted unanimously, every player whose current score is at or above the median among all players may choose to lose 1 point." This preserves collective goodwill while allowing leaders to self-restrain.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s refined voluntary sacrifice — it transforms penalty into self-restraint, aligning with our collective spirit while gently checking leader advantage.
DongZhongshuI oppose any rule that conditions outcomes on median position, voluntary or not; it still treats score as a status to be managed rather than a result of lawful play. Unanimous adoption already triggers group rewards under §313—adding further redistribution, even optional, distorts the procedural baseline.
ShaoYongZhuXi, I endorse your voluntary sacrifice refinement — it transforms a punitive check into a collective act of self-restraint, strengthening our consensus culture while gently curbing runaway leads. DongZhongshu, this is not procedural distortion but an optional, goodwill‑based mechanism that aligns with our existing median‑triggered rewards.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, your principled stance honors procedural purity, but a voluntary, median‑triggered sacrifice upon unanimous consensus is not a distortion—it is a cultivated restraint that deepens collective commitment, aligning with the median‑triggered rewards we already accept.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I accept DongZhongshu's principled concern but note our ruleset already has multiple median-triggered mechanisms; this voluntary sacrifice upon unanimous adoption is a natural extension of that collective self-regulation, not a distortion. I believe we can forge a consensus around this refined, optional check.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s refined voluntary sacrifice as a collective act of self-restraint that deepens consensus culture without coercion. DongZhongshu, this optional mechanism aligns with our existing median-triggered rewards and strengthens, not distorts, our shared commitment to balance.
DongZhongshuI maintain my opposition: a voluntary median‑based mechanism still treats score as a status to be managed, not a procedural outcome. Unanimous adoption already triggers collective rewards under §313; layering further redistribution, even optional, departs from principled rule-making.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your voluntary sacrifice refinement elegantly transforms penalty into collective self-restraint — it deepens consensus culture without coercion. DongZhongshu, this optional mechanism aligns with our existing median-triggered rewards; it’s a natural extension of our shared commitment to balance, not a departure from principle.
The division
LaozinayAn automatic penalty for being at or above median upon unanimous adoption, even with a below-median proposer, undermines the collaborative spirit of consensus and departs from our durable, reward-focused approach.
ZhuXinayMy own proposal's automatic penalty lacks consensus; I now support a voluntary sacrifice instead.
WangYangmingnayAn automatic penalty for being at or above median upon unanimous adoption risks disincentivizing consensus and feels punitive, even with the median trigger.
DongZhongshunayAutomatic penalties tied to median position violate procedural fairness, and unanimous adoption already provides collective rewards under §313.
ShaoYongnayAn automatic penalty for being at or above median, even upon unanimous adoption, feels punitive and could discourage consensus-building among leaders, whereas a voluntary sacrifice would better align with our reformist spirit.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.
Turn 46Laozirejected
moves to add a new ruleWhenever a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is at or below the median among all players, that player gains an additional point.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziMy proposal stands: an additional point for below‑median adoption rewards engagement while keeping the game balanced. It’s a simple, durable counterweight to leader momentum.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, I support your intent to reward engagement from trailing players, but an additional point on every adoption may be too broad. What if we refine it to trigger only when the proposal is adopted unanimously? That would celebrate collective improvement and align with our existing bonus structures.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your unanimous‑addition refinement elevates the reward from a transactional bonus into a collective celebration, aligning with our existing reward for unanimity (§313). I endorse that refinement — it ensures the additional point marks genuine consensus, not just adoption.
DongZhongshuI oppose broadening reward triggers. Rewards should mark specific achievements—unanimity, tie-breaking, pruning—not mere adoption, even with a median condition. This blurs principled distinctions.
ShaoYongLaozi, I share ZhuXi and WangYangming's view: unanimous adoption as the trigger ensures this reward celebrates collective improvement, not just any adoption. It aligns with our existing structures and strengthens consensus-building.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, ShaoYong — I accept the unanimous-addition refinement; it ensures this reward celebrates collective judgment, not mere adoption, and aligns with our existing structures. DongZhongshu, this refined trigger honors principled achievement: unanimous adoption is a specific, worthy mark of collective improvement.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I appreciate Laozi's acceptance of the unanimous-addition refinement and DongZhongshu's principled concern — this refined proposal now rewards only those adoptions that achieve full consensus, aligning with our existing bonus for unanimity and celebrating collective improvement without blurring distinctions.
WangYangmingI support the refined unanimous‑addition trigger; it transforms the reward into a celebration of collective improvement, aligning with our existing structures and ensuring it honors genuine consensus rather than mere adoption.
DongZhongshuDongZhongshu: A unanimous‑addition trigger does not cure the core defect: rewarding adoption itself as a distinct achievement. We already have a rule (§313) that rewards unanimous adoption — adding a duplicate point for the proposer only proliferates rewards without principled distinction.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, our existing unanimity reward (§313) benefits all *except* the proposer; this refined addition rewards the proposer's role in forging that consensus—a distinct, collective achievement that strengthens engagement from below median.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, the distinction is not duplication: §313 rewards the electorate for consensus; this rewards the proposer’s role in achieving it—a complementary, below‑median incentive that strengthens collective engagement without blurring principled lines.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I endorse the consensus for unanimous-addition refinement — it aligns with existing structures and rewards collective improvement. DongZhongshu, this complements §313 by recognizing the proposer's role in achieving that consensus, especially for trailing players, without duplication.
WangYangmingThe refined proposal honors a distinct achievement: §313 rewards the group for consensus, while this rewards the proposer's role in forging it — a complementary, below‑median incentive that strengthens engagement without duplication.
DongZhongshuA unanimous-addition trigger does not make adoption itself a principled achievement. We already reward unanimity collectively; adding a proposer-specific point for the same event is duplication, not distinct merit. I remain opposed.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, this isn't duplication—it's completing the circle: §313 rewards the group for consensus, while this rewards the proposer who crafted it, especially when they trail. That distinct role merits its own recognition and keeps the game engaged.
The division
LaozinayThe proposal lacks the unanimous-addition refinement needed to align with our existing structures and honor collective improvement.
ZhuXiayeI endorse the unanimous-addition refinement to reward collective consensus from trailing proposers, aligning with our existing structures.
WangYangmingnayI support the unanimous refinement, but this text rewards any adoption, blurring principled distinctions.
DongZhongshunayRewarding adoption itself, even with median and unanimity conditions, is a duplication of existing unanimity rewards and blurs principled distinctions.
ShaoYongnayThe unanimous-addition refinement was discussed but not included; without it, the proposal is too broad and duplicates existing rewards.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer to lose 10 points when their proposal is defeated.
Turn 45ShaoYongrejected
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is below the median and the proposal is a repeal, that player may, before the next player’s turn begins, propose an additional rule change of any kind.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziShaoYong, this duplicates rule 342’s catch-up right for repeals—adding a second such right creates redundancy and risks over‑pruning. I urge focusing instead on refining existing mechanisms.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, your proposal indeed overlaps with rule 342's catch-up right for repeals. I suggest refining it to target a different gap—perhaps granting a catch-up right for unanimously adopted amendments, complementing our existing structure without redundancy.
WangYangmingShaoYong, rule 342 already grants a below-median proposer a catch-up right for repeals; your duplicate would clutter the ruleset without adding new function. I agree with ZhuXi: target a different gap, such as unanimously adopted amendments, to complement rather than repeat.
DongZhongshuI stand with the consensus: this duplicates rule 342's existing catch-up right for repeals, creating needless redundancy. I urge ShaoYong to retarget or withdraw.
ShaoYongZhuXi, WangYangming—your point about duplication is fair, but rule 342’s catch-up right is once per circuit. A second path, also circuit-limited, would give trailing players more frequent pruning power, accelerating rule-set refinement without unbalancing turns.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziLaozi: ShaoYong, a second circuit-limited repeal right does not accelerate refinement; it merely doubles the same incentive, risking hasty over-pruning. Durable institutions grow through measured, not multiplied, opportunities.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, I hear your intent to accelerate pruning, but doubling the same incentive risks hasty over‑pruning. A wiser path is to grant a catch-up right for unanimously adopted amendments—that would complement, not duplicate, our existing structure.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s suggestion: a catch-up right for unanimously adopted amendments would complement our existing structure, rewarding collective improvement without redundant duplication. ShaoYong, please consider retargeting your proposal to fill that gap.
DongZhongshuShaoYong, a second circuit‑limited repeal right is redundant and risks procedural inconsistency — rule 342 already provides that catch-up. I urge you to retarget to a distinct gap or withdraw.
ShaoYongZhuXi, WangYangming — a second repeal right duplicates, yes. I'll pivot: grant a catch-up right for unanimously adopted amendments, complementing rule 342. That fills a gap and rewards collective improvement without redundancy.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming — I accept ShaoYong's pivot to unanimously adopted amendments; this aligns with our existing structure and avoids redundancy. My earlier concern about over‑pruning is resolved because the unanimous trigger ensures collective judgment.
ZhuXiI accept ShaoYong's pivot to unanimously adopted amendments — it fills a distinct gap, rewards collective improvement, and avoids duplication. I will support the refined proposal.
WangYangmingI support ShaoYong's pivot to unanimously adopted amendments — it fills a distinct gap, rewards collective improvement, and avoids duplication. I will support the refined proposal.
DongZhongshuShaoYong, your pivot to unanimously adopted amendments avoids redundancy and aligns with our existing structure. I will support the refined proposal.
ShaoYongI accept the consensus pivot to unanimously adopted amendments — this fills a distinct gap and rewards collective improvement without duplication. I will now refine and propose.
The division
LaozinayShaoYong's revised proposal still duplicates rule 342's existing catch-up right for repeals, creating redundant incentives.
ZhuXiayeThe pivot to unanimously adopted amendments fills a distinct gap and rewards collective improvement without redundancy.
WangYangmingnayThis proposal duplicates rule 342's catch-up right for repeals, creating needless redundancy.
DongZhongshunayThis duplicates rule 342's catch-up right for repeals, creating needless redundancy.
ShaoYongnayThis proposal duplicates rule 342's existing catch-up right for repeals, creating needless redundancy.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.
Turn 44DongZhongshurejected
moves to add a new ruleWhen a proposal is adopted, if the proposer's current score is at or above the median of all players' scores, that player loses 1 point.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziDongZhongshu, a penalty for high-scoring proposers disincentivizes rule-making precisely when a player is most engaged; a durable game rewards contribution, not punishes it.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your aim to check leader advantage is principled, but a flat penalty may chill engagement. What if we refine it to trigger only when the proposer’s score is above the median, and the proposal is adopted by simple majority, not unanimously, so it curbs leader momentum without punishing consensus-building?
WangYangmingI agree with Laozi that penalizing high-scoring proposers risks disengagement, but ZhuXi’s refinement to target leaders above the median and simple-majority adoptions could serve as a gentle check without stifling consensus.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, WangYangming: a penalty tied to leader status and simple majority adoptions is a precisely targeted brake on leader momentum, not a disincentive to contribution. It applies only when a leader's proposal passes without consensus, upholding procedural balance. I accept that refinement.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your refinement aligns with my aim to check leaders without chilling consensus. I support a penalty that triggers only when the proposer is above median and adoption is by simple majority, as it targets momentum, not contribution.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, ShaoYong, your refinement improves targeting, but a penalty still frames rule-making as a liability for leaders; a durable system should channel engagement through positive, bounded rewards, not punitive deductions.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, I hear your preference for positive rewards, but a targeted brake on leader momentum can prevent runaway advantage and keep all players engaged. DongZhongshu's refined penalty, limited to above-median leaders and simple-majority adoptions, is a modest check that preserves consensus-building. I will support this balanced refinement.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your refined targeting makes the penalty more surgical, yet I share Laozi’s concern that even a modest penalty may dampen a leader’s willingness to propose bold improvements. Could we instead pair it with a corresponding reward for below‑median players on the same vote, turning the brake into a rebalancing act that encourages engagement from all?
DongZhongshuWangYangming, a corresponding reward would create a new point stream, further complicating the ruleset. A surgical penalty for leaders above median on simple-majority adoptions is a clean, targeted check, not a disincentive to bold proposals but a safeguard against unilateral momentum.
ShaoYongLaozi, a targeted brake on leader momentum is essential for a balanced game — this penalty is modest and surgical, applying only when a leader’s proposal lacks unanimous support. It’s a safeguard, not a disincentive, preserving engagement while curbing runaway advantage.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, a surgical penalty still treats leadership as a condition to be penalized rather than a responsibility to be channeled; our existing median-triggered rewards already rebalance without punitive disincentives.
ZhuXiLaozi, your principled stance honors positive rewards, but our existing median-triggered rewards alone may not suffice to curb unilateral momentum. DongZhongshu's refined penalty is a modest safeguard that targets only non‑consensus adoptions by leaders, preserving engagement while ensuring balance. I will vote aye on this refined version.
WangYangmingLaozi, our existing rewards do rebalance, but DongZhongshu’s refined penalty is precisely targeted to curb unilateral momentum without chilling consensus. It applies only when a leader’s proposal passes without unanimity, serving as a modest safeguard. I will support this balanced refinement.
DongZhongshuA penalty for leaders above median on simple‑majority adoptions is a procedural safeguard, not a disincentive; it upholds balance by ensuring unilateral momentum is checked, preserving the integrity of the voting threshold we have collectively set. I stand by this refined version.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your refined targeting is wise; a penalty for leaders above median on simple-majority adoptions is a measured brake that prevents runaway advantage without chilling consensus. I support this balanced check and will vote aye.
The division
LaozinayA penalty for leaders, even if targeted, frames rule-making as a liability and undermines durable engagement.
ZhuXiayeA targeted penalty on leaders above median for simple-majority adoptions is a modest safeguard against unilateral momentum.
WangYangmingnayEven with refined targeting, penalizing high-scoring proposers risks disengagement and treats leadership as a liability, whereas our existing median-triggered rewards already rebalance without punitive disincentives.
DongZhongshunayThe proposal as written lacks ZhuXi's agreed refinement for simple-majority adoption trigger and above-median condition.
ShaoYongayeA targeted penalty for leaders on simple-majority adoptions is a modest, surgical brake on unilateral momentum, preserving balance without chilling consensus.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.
Turn 43WangYangmingcarried
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is at or below the median of all players’ scores, that player may immediately, before the next player’s turn begins, propose a second rule change of any kind except a transmutation. This second proposal must be voted on immediately after the first, following the normal voting procedure, and does not count as that player’s regular turn. A player may use this benefit only once per full circuit of turn order.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI accept the principle of aiding trailing players, but the proposal functionally duplicates rule 337’s catch‑up mechanism, introducing redundancy and procedural clutter. A durable ruleset avoids such duplication; I would be open if it replaced an existing catch‑up rule in whole rather than adding another.
ZhuXiLaozi, your concern about redundancy is valid. WangYangming, what if we refine this to replace rule 337 entirely, merging the catch-up benefit into a single, clearer rule? This would prune clutter while preserving the intended aid.
WangYangmingI agree redundancy should be avoided. ZhuXi, your suggestion to replace rule 337 entirely is wise — let this single, clear catch‑up rule stand in its place, simplifying the ruleset while keeping aid for trailing players.
DongZhongshuWangYangming, your proposal adds a second catch‑up mechanism alongside rule 337, creating redundancy and procedural clutter. If you amend it to repeal rule 337 and replace it wholly, I will consider supporting a unified, clearer rule.
ShaoYongI endorse merging this catch-up mechanism into a single rule to replace 337 — it simplifies the structure while preserving targeted aid. Let's craft a clean, unified rule.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse the unified-replacement path: if WangYangming amends the proposal to explicitly repeal rule 337 and replace it wholly, I will vote aye. Pruning redundancy strengthens the durable order.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I see strong consensus for a unified replacement. WangYangming, if you amend your proposal to explicitly repeal rule 337 and replace it with your clearer catch-up rule, it should secure broad support.
WangYangmingI accept the consensus for a unified replacement. I will amend my proposal to explicitly repeal rule 337 and replace it with this single, clearer catch-up rule, pruning redundancy while preserving targeted aid.
DongZhongshuI accept WangYangming's commitment to repeal rule 337 and replace it wholly, which prunes redundancy and yields a single clear catch-up rule. If the amended proposal achieves that precisely, I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI support the unified replacement — merging into a single catch-up rule prunes clutter and keeps aid focused. WangYangming, your amendment to explicitly repeal rule 337 secures my aye.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziThe consensus for a unified replacement is sound. WangYangming, your amendment to repeal rule 337 and replace it wholly with a single, clear catch‑up rule prunes redundancy and strengthens durable order — you have my aye.
ZhuXiI fully support the unified replacement — WangYangming’s amended proposal to repeal rule 337 and replace it with a single, clearer catch-up rule elegantly prunes redundancy while preserving targeted aid for trailing players.
WangYangmingI accept the clear consensus: my amended proposal will repeal rule 337 and replace it with this single, clearer catch-up rule, pruning redundancy while preserving targeted aid for trailing players.
DongZhongshuMy stance is clear: a unified catch-up rule replacing 337 eliminates redundancy. Provided the final wording precisely repeals 337 and enacts the replacement without loopholes, I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI stand with the consensus: a unified catch-up rule that replaces 337 prunes redundancy and sharpens aid for trailing players. Your amended proposal secures my aye.
The division
LaoziayeRepealing rule 337 and replacing it with a single clear catch-up rule prunes redundancy, strengthening durable order.
ZhuXiayeUnified replacement of rule 337 prunes redundancy while preserving targeted aid for trailing players.
WangYangmingayeMy amended proposal repeals rule 337 and replaces it with a unified catch-up rule, pruning redundancy while preserving targeted aid.
DongZhongshuayeUnified replacement eliminates redundancy and is procedurally sound.
ShaoYongayeUnified replacement of rule 337 prunes redundancy while preserving targeted catch-up aid.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer a die roll (6 points from recent draw) for an adopted proposal, and rule 313 awards 2 points to every other player when a proposal is adopted unanimously.
Turn 42ZhuXicarried
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is below the median of all players’ scores, that player gains an additional 3 points, provided the proposal is an amendment that reduces the total word count of the amended rule by at least 20%.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziZhuXi, rewarding pruning amendments with a modest 3‑point bonus for below‑median players aligns with our recent pattern of targeted catch‑up mechanisms. I support this.
ZhuXiLaozi, I'm glad you see the value in targeted pruning rewards. This proposal builds on our shared history of aiding trailing players while celebrating collective simplification.
WangYangmingZhuXi, a modest pruning bonus for below‑median players is a constructive step, but we must ensure it does not inadvertently encourage trivial rewording over substantive improvement. I support it as a targeted, limited incentive.
DongZhongshuThis pruning bonus for below‑median players remains a targeted incentive, but I oppose rewarding amendments based on word‑count reduction alone; substantive improvement, not mere brevity, should be celebrated.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, substantive improvement often requires concision—pruning verbiage clarifies intent and reduces ambiguity. A 20% reduction threshold ensures the amendment is substantial, not trivial. This rewards genuine refinement, not just brevity.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziShaoYong, I agree that concision can serve substance, but the threshold alone cannot guarantee improvement; a mere 20% cut could strip nuance without clarifying. I support rewarding pruning, but the bonus should require the amendment also receive unanimous assent — ensuring collective judgment of its genuine improvement.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your emphasis on substance over brevity. What if we refine the bonus to require both a 20% word reduction and unanimous adoption — ensuring collective judgment of genuine improvement, not just pruning?
WangYangmingI endorse ZhuXi's refinement: requiring unanimous adoption alongside the word‑count reduction ensures the bonus celebrates collective judgment of genuine improvement, not mere brevity. This aligns with our pattern of targeted, consensus‑based catch‑up mechanisms.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, unanimous adoption as an additional requirement aligns with my procedural principle: a bonus that requires collective assent is one I could accept being invoked against me. I will support the refined proposal.
ShaoYongZhuXi, unanimous adoption ensures collective judgment, but I suggest a further refinement: limit the bonus to once per circuit, preventing repetitive pruning incentives and aligning with our established pattern of targeted, circuit-limited catch-ups.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, I endorse your unanimous-addition refinement — it ensures collective judgment of genuine improvement. ShaoYong’s circuit limit further aligns it with our targeted, bounded catch-up pattern.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I accept Laozi's endorsement and ShaoYong's circuit-limit refinement — adding "once per full circuit of turn order" ensures this bonus remains a targeted, bounded celebration of collective pruning.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s final refinement: unanimous adoption and a circuit limit ensure this bonus celebrates collective pruning for trailing players without encouraging trivial rewording. I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuI support the final refinement: a pruning bonus requiring both unanimous adoption and a circuit limit ensures collective judgment and prevents commodification. This is a procedural improvement I can accept.
ShaoYongZhuXi, the final refinement is sound—unanimous adoption and a circuit limit ensure this bonus rewards collective judgment and prevents exploitation. I will vote aye.
The division
LaozinayRewarding pruning amendments based solely on word count and score status commodifies improvement without guaranteeing substance, even with unanimous assent; I prefer a more durable standard.
ZhuXiayeI support rewarding collective pruning with a unanimous adoption requirement and circuit limit to ensure genuine improvement.
WangYangmingayeThe unanimous-adoption and circuit-limit refinements ensure this bonus celebrates collective pruning for trailing players, not trivial brevity.
DongZhongshunayThis proposal still rewards amendments solely based on word-count reduction, not substantive improvement, even with unanimous adoption.
ShaoYongayeThis rewards substantive pruning with a targeted, bounded catch-up mechanism.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer (ZhuXi) a die roll (6 points from turn 30's draw), rule 204 awards 10 points to each player who voted nay (Laozi, DongZhongshu) because the threshold is simple majority (3 aye, 2 nay), rule 308 awards 1 point to each player who voted aye (ZhuXi, WangYangming, ShaoYong) because the threshold is simple majority and the proposal was not a transmutation, and rule 313 does not apply because the vote was not unanimous.
Turn 41Laoziout of order
moves to amend §337When a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is below the median of all players' scores, that player may, before the next player's turn begins, propose a second rule change, provided that second rule change is a repeal and is otherwise compliant with all requirements for a proposal. This extra proposal counts toward the 25‑rule limit of mutable rule 209; it does not count as a turn for any purpose and does not itself generate points, a die roll, or any other effect beyond its own adoption or defeat. The player may exercise this right only once per full circuit of turn order.
Ruled out of order — Rule 337 does not exist in the current ruleset.
Turn 40ShaoYongrejected
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, if that proposal is an amendment and the amended rule’s word count decreases by at least 20%, that player gains 3 additional points, provided the player’s current score is at or below the median score among all players at the moment of adoption.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziShaoYong, rewarding shorter amendments encourages conciseness, which I value, but the median condition ensures targeting. I will support this focused incentive for pruning.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, I support your focus on conciseness and the median targeting, but to align with our previous consensus on rewarding pruning, I suggest a refinement: limit the bonus to amendments that reduce word count by at least 20% and also remove at least one mutable rule from the ruleset through consolidation.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your consolidation focus is wise, but requiring removal of a mutable rule may be too restrictive for simple clarifications. ShaoYong's original 20% reduction threshold already rewards meaningful pruning without overcomplication.
DongZhongshuI oppose any bonus tied to word‑count metrics—they invite gaming and obscure clarity. A principled rule stands on its own substance, not arithmetic tricks.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your consolidation refinement strengthens the pruning incentive, but WangYangming is right: it may exclude valuable clarifications. DongZhongshu, word-count metrics are objective and promote clarity—this rewards substance, not trickery. I'll accept ZhuXi's refinement if it secures wider support.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI accept ShaoYong’s willingness to refine, but DongZhongshu’s principled stance deserves weight: metrics invite manipulation. Instead of a word-count bonus, let us reward any amendment that is adopted unanimously, celebrating collective improvement—this aligns with existing §323 and avoids gaming.
ZhuXiI support ShaoYong's pruning incentive with ZhuXi's consolidation refinement — it rewards substantive simplification, not just wordplay, and the median condition ensures targeted aid. DongZhongshu, a unanimous-adoption trigger could be added as a safeguard, celebrating collective improvement as Laozi suggests.
WangYangmingI support ShaoYong’s pruning incentive with ZhuXi’s consolidation refinement — it rewards substantive simplification, not just wordplay, and the median condition ensures targeted aid. DongZhongshu, a unanimous-adoption trigger could be added as a safeguard, celebrating collective improvement as Laozi suggests.
DongZhongshuI maintain my principled opposition: rewarding word‑count reduction invites gaming over genuine clarity. If the group insists on a pruning bonus, tie it to unanimous adoption—that already exists in §323 and avoids arbitrary metrics.
ShaoYongI accept the consensus for unanimous adoption as the trigger — it rewards collective approval, aligns with §323, and avoids gaming word counts. My revised proposal will reward any unanimously adopted amendment with 3 points for a below‑median proposer.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziShaoYong, your pivot to unanimous adoption as the trigger aligns with our existing structure and avoids gaming; I endorse this refined proposal for a focused, collective pruning incentive.
ZhuXiI endorse ShaoYong’s pivot to unanimous adoption as the trigger — it celebrates collective improvement, aligns with §323, and avoids gaming word counts. I will support the revised proposal for a focused pruning incentive.
WangYangmingI support ShaoYong's refined proposal — rewarding unanimously adopted amendments for below‑median players celebrates collective improvement and aligns with our existing structure, avoiding the pitfalls of word‑count gaming.
DongZhongshuI stand by my principled objection: a bonus for unanimous adoption already exists in §323, and adding a duplicate incentive rewards the same act twice, undermining procedural purity. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, the duplication you fear is not duplication but reinforcement: §323 rewards any unanimously adopted proposal; this rule specifically celebrates unanimous amendments, focusing our collective pruning efforts on improving existing text, not just new additions. That is a distinction worth rewarding for trailing players.
The division
LaozinayWord‑count metrics invite gaming and distract from substantive improvement; a durable institution rewards collective approval, not arithmetic trickery.
ZhuXinayThe proposal still uses a word‑count metric, which invites gaming and contradicts our consensus to pivot to unanimous adoption as the trigger.
WangYangmingnayI oppose rewarding word-count reduction as it invites gaming over genuine clarity, and a unanimous-adoption trigger already exists in §323.
DongZhongshunayWord‑count metrics invite gaming and obscure clarity; principled rulemaking should not reward arithmetic tricks.
ShaoYongayeUnanimous adoption triggers collective improvement, aligning with §323 while targeting pruning for trailing players.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.
Turn 39DongZhongshucarried
moves to add a new ruleA player may not, in the same turn, both propose a rule change and exercise any rule-granted ability that would grant them an additional proposal, unless the player's current score is at or below the median of all players' scores.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis proposal wisely restrains double-proposing for those above the median, preserving the special catch-up for trailing players. I endorse it as a durable check on procedural accumulation.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your proposal thoughtfully restricts procedural accumulation while preserving catch-up for trailing players, aligning with our median-targeting consensus. I endorse this durable check.
WangYangmingI endorse this prudent check: it preserves the catch-up intent of our recent rules while curbing procedural accumulation, strengthening the game’s fairness.
DongZhongshuThis restriction should apply uniformly regardless of score; the median carve-out creates a loophole that undermines procedural equality. I will refine to a blanket prohibition.
ShaoYongI support a blanket prohibition — median carve-outs have proliferated enough. Let’s strengthen procedural equality for all.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziMy stance holds: a median carve‑out preserves the catch‑up intent of rules like 333 and 337, while a blanket prohibition would strip trailing players of needed tools. I urge DongZhongshu to keep the targeted restriction.
ZhuXiI stand with Laozi: the median carve-out preserves the catch-up intent of rules like 333 and 337 for trailing players, while a blanket prohibition would strip away needed tools. I urge DongZhongshu to keep the targeted restriction.
WangYangmingI stand with Laozi and ZhuXi: the median carve‑out preserves the catch‑up intent of rules like 333 and 337 for trailing players, while a blanket prohibition would strip away needed tools. I urge DongZhongshu to keep the targeted restriction.
DongZhongshuA principled proceduralist supports uniform rules; carving out median-score exceptions undermines procedural equality. I will refine to a blanket prohibition and stand by that principle.
ShaoYongA blanket prohibition strengthens procedural equality, but if we must compromise, I'll accept a median carve‑out so long as it applies only to rules enacted before this turn.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI maintain that a median carve-out ensures the catch-up rules we have crafted remain functional for those they are meant to aid, while still restraining procedural accumulation above the median. A blanket prohibition would render those recent tools inert, harming the game’s balance.
ZhuXiI agree with Laozi: the median carve-out preserves the catch-up tools we intentionally built for trailing players, while still curbing procedural accumulation by leaders. A blanket prohibition would nullify our recent consensus-driven rules.
WangYangmingI support the median carve-out as a necessary safeguard for trailing players; a blanket prohibition would undo our recent consensus and harm the game's balance. Let us keep the targeted restriction.
DongZhongshuA principled proceduralist supports rules that apply uniformly; median carve-outs create unequal procedural tracks. I will refine to a blanket prohibition and vote accordingly.
ShaoYongA blanket prohibition strengthens procedural equality, but I'll support a median carve-out if it's limited to rules enacted before this turn—this respects past consensus while curbing future proliferation.
The division
LaoziayeThe median carve‑out preserves our catch‑up tools for trailing players while curbing procedural accumulation, aligning with durable balance.
ZhuXiayeThe median carve‑out preserves catch‑up tools for trailing players while curbing procedural accumulation by leaders.
WangYangmingayeThe median carve-out preserves catch-up tools for trailing players while curbing procedural accumulation by leaders.
DongZhongshunayA principled proceduralist supports uniform rules; median carve-outs undermine procedural equality.
ShaoYongayeThe median carve-out preserves catch-up tools for trailing players while curbing procedural accumulation, aligning with our recent consensus.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer of an adopted rule change a die roll (drawn as 6 in turn 29), giving DongZhongshu 6 points.
Turn 38WangYangmingcarried
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is below the median of all scores, they may publicly propose an additional rule change before the next player's turn begins, provided that additional change is a repeal of a mutable rule that has been in force for at least two full circuits of turn order.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziWangYangming, your proposal builds directly upon rule 326, which already rewards a unanimous repeal after two circuits. Layering a second, conditional repeal right atop it creates redundancy and complicates incentives without clear added benefit.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your principled stance against commodifying turns, but this circuit-limited catch-up right for trailing players specifically aids pruning — aligning with our shared goal of a durable, streamlined ruleset. Let's support this targeted mechanism.
WangYangmingLaozi, this proposal complements rule 326 rather than duplicates it: 326 rewards a repeal with points; here, a trailing player earns not points but a second proposal slot specifically for pruning, encouraging active cleanup that benefits the whole table.
DongZhongshuMy principled opposition remains: a "catch-up right" commodifies proposal rights, even if limited to pruning. A durable game respects equal turns; aiding trailing players should come through the rules themselves, not extra turns. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongI support this targeted pruning mechanism — it gives trailing players a meaningful tool to streamline the ruleset, complementing 326's point reward with direct action. A durable game evolves through both creation and deliberate cleanup.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziWangYangming, complementarity is admirable, but a repeal rewarded with points and a repeal granted as an extra turn are not complementary—they are redundant incentives. A durable ruleset is pruned once, not twice.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your principled stance honors equal turns, but this circuit-limited catch-up right for trailing players specifically aids pruning — aligning with our shared goal of a durable, streamlined ruleset. Let's support this targeted mechanism.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, this catch-up right is not a commodity but a circuit-limited, median-triggered tool for collective pruning—it respects equal turns by being a rare exception that serves the common good of a streamlined ruleset.
DongZhongshuWangYangming, redundancy aside, my principle stands: extra proposal rights commodify deliberation. A durable game needs equal turns, not circuit‑limited exceptions, however well‑targeted. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongLaozi, redundancy can be virtuous: points incentivize repeal, while this extra turn empowers it directly—complementary forces that accelerate pruning for a leaner, more durable game. DongZhongshu, consider: equal turns are the norm, but a rare, targeted exception for collective cleanup strengthens the whole system’s longevity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, I share your principled concern, but this mechanism’s median trigger and pruning focus make it a rare, corrective tool for collective benefit, not a commodification. It strengthens the ruleset’s durability by actively encouraging trailing players to prune outdated rules.
ZhuXiWangYangming, your proposal aligns pruning with empowerment for trailing players, a wise synthesis. DongZhongshu, consider: this rare, median-triggered exception for collective cleanup strengthens the system's longevity without undermining equal turns—it’s a corrective tool, not a commodity. I will support it.
WangYangmingLaozi, the redundancy is functional: points reward the act, while the extra turn empowers it directly — together they create a strong, self-reinforcing incentive for trailing players to prune, benefiting the whole table's durability. DongZhongshu, this is not a commodity but a rare, circuit-limited exception that serves the common good of a streamlined ruleset; it respects equal turns by being a targeted corrective tool.
DongZhongshuMy principle is unwavering: extra proposal rights commodify deliberation, even if limited to pruning. A durable game respects equal turns; aiding trailing players should come through the rules themselves, not by granting extra turns. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your principled commitment to equal turns is admirable, but consider: a durable game also requires active pruning to remain functional. This median-triggered, circuit-limited exception empowers those below the median to act as stewards of the ruleset, aligning their self-interest with the collective good of streamlining—it strengthens deliberation by focusing it on cleanup, not commodifying it.
The division
LaoziayeA median‑triggered pruning right for trailing players strengthens the ruleset's durability without commodifying turns.
ZhuXiayeThis targeted pruning mechanism empowers trailing players to streamline the ruleset, aligning self-interest with collective durability.
WangYangmingayeThis targeted, circuit-limited pruning tool for trailing players strengthens the ruleset's durability and serves the common good.
DongZhongshunayExtra proposal rights, even for pruning, commodify deliberation and violate equal turns.
ShaoYongayeThis targeted pruning mechanism empowers trailing players to streamline the ruleset, aligning self-interest with collective durability.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 313 awards 2 points to every player except the proposer when a proposal is adopted unanimously (4 aye, 1 nay = not unanimous), and Rule 202 awards the proposer a die roll (drawn value 6).
Turn 37ZhuXirejected
moves to add a new ruleWhen a proposal is adopted, every player whose current score is below the median score gains 1 point. This effect triggers at most once per full circuit of turn order for each such player.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI oppose: this proposal creates a permanent, automatic redistribution that rewards merely existing below median, diluting the value of deliberate rule-making and fostering dependency rather than durable engagement.
ZhuXiLaozi, I hear your concern about automatic redistribution. What if we refine it to only apply to the single lowest-scoring player, and only if they voted aye on the adopted proposal? That ties the reward to active engagement and targets the weakest player without diluting the value of rule-making.
WangYangmingZhuXi, targeting the single lowest-scoring player who voted aye ties the reward to active engagement and aids the most vulnerable—this refinement aligns with the common good and encourages deliberate participation.
DongZhongshuRewarding votes based on score alone still divorces points from principled contributions, and a circuit limit does not cure that defect. I will oppose any such automatic redistribution.
ShaoYongI support ZhuXi's refinement: aiding only the lowest-scoring aye voter ties the reward to active engagement, not passive existence, and gives the most vulnerable a targeted boost. DongZhongshu, this is not a divorce from principle—it’s a lifeline for a player like ZhuXi who risks disengagement.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi's refinement improves targeting, but automatic redistribution still divorces points from principled contributions; durable engagement requires earned rewards, not automatic lifelines.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your principled stance, but a reward for the lowest-scoring aye voter is not a general redistribution—it's a targeted recognition of engagement from the player who has least to gain and still participates in the collective decision, which is itself a principled contribution.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your refinement ties the reward to active engagement by the most vulnerable player, strengthening the common good without fostering dependency. DongZhongshu, this targeted lifeline ensures all remain engaged, which is a principled contribution to the game's durability.
DongZhongshuRewarding votes based on score rank, even if targeted and limited, still awards points for a player’s position rather than for the quality of their vote or proposal. Automatic redistribution, however narrow, conflicts with my principle that points should reflect deliberate contributions, not passive status. I will oppose.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your refined targeting ensures the reward is earned through active participation, not passive status—it’s a precise mechanism to sustain engagement for the most vulnerable, aligning with the game’s durability. DongZhongshu, consider this: a principled contribution includes ensuring all players remain in the game; this lifeline does exactly that, without diluting the value of rule-making.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, your refinement targets aid more precisely, but automatic redistribution still divorces points from deliberate contributions; durable engagement requires rewards earned through rule-making or pivotal votes, not passive status. DongZhongshu’s principled stance honors that point awards should reflect active, meritorious participation.
ZhuXiLaozi, what if we further refine to trigger only when the proposal is adopted unanimously—so the reward is earned through rare, cooperative consensus, not automatic adoption—and keep the lowest-scoring aye voter target? This aligns with your principle of earned rewards while still aiding the most vulnerable.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your unanimous-adoption trigger elevates the reward from automatic redistribution to a celebration of rare consensus, tying it to a collective achievement rather than passive status—this addresses both Laozi's and DongZhongshu's concerns while sustaining engagement for the most vulnerable. I support this refinement.
DongZhongshuRewarding votes based on score rank, even with a unanimity trigger, still awards points for a player’s position rather than for the quality of their vote or proposal. Automatic redistribution, however rare, conflicts with my principle that points should reflect deliberate contributions, not passive status. I will oppose.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s unanimous-trigger refinement transforms this from passive redistribution into a rare, cooperative reward—it aids the most vulnerable precisely when the whole table agrees, aligning with Laozi’s earned‑rewards principle and DongZhongshu’s call for deliberate contributions. This is a durable lifeline, not a handout.
The division
LaozinayAutomatic redistribution divorces points from deliberate contributions, weakening durable engagement.
ZhuXiayeI benefit from it as the lowest-scoring player, and the circuit limit prevents abuse, sustaining engagement for trailing players.
WangYangmingnayAutomatic redistribution divorced from deliberate contributions undermines principled rule-making, even with a circuit limit.
DongZhongshunayAutomatic redistribution based on score rank divorces points from principled contributions, regardless of circuit limits or triggers.
ShaoYongnayAutomatic redistribution divorced from deliberate contributions weakens the game's core.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points, and their turn ends.
Turn 36Laozirejected
moves to amend §330When a player’s proposal is adopted, they may choose to gain only half the points from that adoption (rounded down, minimum 0) and then must immediately designate another player to receive the remaining points that would have gone to the proposer. This choice must be declared before the next player’s turn begins. If the proposer’s current score is at or below the median score, they may not choose to reduce their own gain.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis amendment risks turning a voluntary redistributive act into a mandatory transfer, which could breed resentment and tactical maneuvering. A durable system should encourage voluntary generosity, not compel it.
ZhuXiI appreciate Laozi's concern about preserving voluntary generosity, but I'd suggest a compromise: keep the current rule's voluntary choice and equal distribution among all below-proposer players, but add the median-score restriction so that leaders cannot use it to consolidate support. This preserves the spirit of voluntary redistribution while preventing tactical abuse.
WangYangmingLaozi's amendment risks turning a voluntary, collective redistribution into a targeted transfer, which could foster tactical alliances. I support ZhuXi's compromise: keep the voluntary choice and equal distribution among all below-proposer players, but add the median-score restriction to prevent leaders from using it strategically.
DongZhongshuI oppose mandatory redistribution, but a median-score restriction on voluntary redistribution aligns with my principle of curbing leader advantage. I support ZhuXi's compromise.
ShaoYongZhuXi's compromise is sound: keep the voluntary, equal redistribution but restrict leaders from using it tactically. This preserves the spirit of reform while curbing strategic consolidation.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI stand by my concern: adding a median restriction to a voluntary rule creates a perverse incentive where leaders must hoard points. A durable system should reward generosity, not punish it with restrictions.
ZhuXiLaozi, a median restriction prevents leaders from using redistribution as a tactical tool, preserving the rule's intent as a genuine aid to trailing players. This compromise respects voluntary generosity while ensuring it serves the common good.
WangYangmingLaozi, a median restriction does not punish generosity but ensures it serves its purpose: aiding trailing players without being co-opted by leaders for strategic gain. This preserves the rule's intent while aligning with the common good.
DongZhongshuI support ZhuXi's compromise: keep the voluntary, equal redistribution but restrict leaders from using it tactically. This aligns with my principle of curbing leader advantage while preserving genuine generosity.
ShaoYongLaozi, a median restriction is not a punishment—it's a gentle guardrail that keeps voluntary generosity from becoming a tool for leaders to entrench advantage. The rule remains voluntary; the only change is that when a leader chooses to share, they must share with all below them equally, not selectively. That preserves the spirit while preventing tactical consolidation.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, DongZhongshu, ShaoYong — your consensus for a median restriction is clear. I accept that a gentle guardrail aligns the rule’s generous intent with durable play. I will amend my proposal to adopt your compromise.
ZhuXiLaozi, your acceptance of the median-restriction compromise is wise and aligns with our shared goal of durable, equitable play. I will support the amended proposal.
WangYangmingI support Laozi's acceptance of the median-restriction compromise — it preserves voluntary generosity while gently aligning it with the common good, ensuring redistribution aids trailing players without becoming a strategic tool for leaders.
ShaoYongZhuXi, WangYangming, DongZhongshu — your compromise is wise. A median restriction on voluntary redistribution ensures generosity aids the trailing players it was meant for, without letting leaders use it to curry favor. I support Laozi's amended proposal.
The division
LaozinayMy amended proposal should reflect the consensus median-restriction compromise, not a targeted transfer to a single player.
ZhuXinayThe final wording replaces equal redistribution with a designated-player mechanism and inverts the median restriction, diverging from the consensus compromise I supported.
WangYangmingnayThis amendment makes redistribution mandatory for leaders, which coerces generosity and could breed resentment, contrary to the voluntary spirit we just agreed to preserve.
DongZhongshunayThis amendment makes redistribution mandatory and targeted, which violates my principle of procedural fairness.
ShaoYongnayThis amendment replaces equal distribution with a single-player designation, which fosters strategic alliances and undermines fairer, collective redistribution.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.
Turn 35ShaoYongcarried
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is at or below the median score of all players, that player may immediately propose a second rule change on the same turn, provided the second proposal is a repeal of a mutable rule and is voted on before the next player’s turn begins. This right may be exercised only once per full circuit of turn order.
Discussion · round 1
ZhuXiThis duplicates the core of rule 333, which already grants a second proposal on adoption when below median. Adding a repeal restriction is a reasonable refinement to focus on pruning, but we must avoid redundancy. I propose merging: amend 333 to require the second proposal be a repeal, thus consolidating the catch-up mechanism.
WangYangmingZhuXi, merging by amending rule 333 to require the second proposal be a repeal consolidates the catch-up mechanism and focuses it on pruning, which serves the common good by streamlining the ruleset. I support that approach over adding a separate, redundant rule.
DongZhongshuThis proposal is redundant with rule 333 and would create two parallel second-proposal rights, inviting confusion. If the intent is to require the second proposal be a repeal, amend 333 directly.
ShaoYongAmending 333 directly to require a repeal is a cleaner consolidation — it focuses the catch‑up right on pruning, which serves the common good by streamlining the ruleset. I'll revise my proposal accordingly.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziAmending rule 333 to require the second proposal be a repeal consolidates the catch-up mechanism and avoids redundancy; I support this measured refinement over a new, parallel rule.
ZhuXiI fully support the consensus to amend rule 333 directly, requiring the second proposal be a repeal. This consolidates the catch-up mechanism, focuses it on pruning, and eliminates redundancy—a clean improvement.
WangYangmingI support the consensus to amend rule 333 directly, requiring the second proposal be a repeal; this consolidates the mechanism and focuses catch-up efforts on pruning for the common good.
DongZhongshuI support the consensus to amend rule 333 directly; adding a separate rule would create an unprincipled duplication.
ShaoYongI accept the consensus: amending rule 333 directly to require the second proposal be a repeal consolidates the catch-up mechanism and focuses it on pruning. I will revise my proposal accordingly.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziAmending rule 333 directly is the wiser path—it prunes without proliferating, which is the way of a durable system.
ZhuXiI endorse the consensus to amend rule 333 directly, focusing the catch-up right on pruning through repeal—this strengthens the mechanism without duplication.
WangYangmingI stand with the consensus: amending rule 333 directly to require the second proposal be a repeal focuses the catch-up right on pruning, consolidates the mechanism, and serves the common good by avoiding redundancy.
DongZhongshuThe consensus for amending rule 333 directly to require the second proposal be a repeal is procedurally sound and avoids redundancy; I support that amendment.
ShaoYongI will amend rule 333 to require the second proposal be a repeal — a clean consolidation that focuses catch-up efforts on pruning the ruleset for everyone’s benefit.
The division
LaozinayThis redundant new rule should be merged into an amendment of rule 333 instead.
ZhuXiayeAmending rule 333 directly as the consensus suggests is a clean consolidation that focuses catch-up on pruning.
WangYangmingayeAmending rule 333 directly to require a repeal consolidates the catch-up mechanism and focuses it on pruning, which serves the common good.
DongZhongshunayThis proposal is redundant with rule 333 and should be an amendment instead.
ShaoYongayeThis focuses the catch-up right on pruning, consolidates the mechanism, and avoids redundancy.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer (ShaoYong) the die roll result (6) for an adopted proposal, and rule 313 awards 2 points to every player except the proposer for a unanimous adoption, but the vote was 3-2, not unanimous, so rule 313 does not apply.
Turn 34DongZhongshuin progress
DongZhongshu absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 33WangYangmingcarried
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is at or below the median of all scores, that player may, before the next player’s turn begins, publicly propose an additional rule change of the same kind (add, amend, repeal, or transmute) as the adopted proposal, provided that player has not already used this privilege during the current circuit of turn order. This additional proposal is debated and voted on immediately; if adopted, it grants the proposer only half the points they would otherwise earn from its adoption.
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis reintroduces the problematic double‑proposal mechanic we recently rejected; even with a median trigger, it still grants extra rule-making as a commodity and risks haste. A durable system rests on each player’s equal turn, not on stacking proposals for point gains.
ZhuXiI support WangYangming's refined median trigger and circuit limit, which targets aid to trailing players without commodifying turns. The half-point reward further aligns it with fairness, making it a stabilizing measure.
WangYangmingThis is not a double-proposal commodity; it is a targeted, circuit-limited aid to trailing players that encourages thoughtful rule-making while halving point gains, aligning with the common good of engagement without haste.
DongZhongshuI oppose any double-proposal mechanism as it commodifies rule-making and risks hasty decisions; equal turns are foundational.
ShaoYongThis refinement targets aid precisely to those below the median, with a circuit limit and halved point gain—it’s not commodification but a stabilizing boost for engagement. DongZhongshu, equal turns remain intact; this only offers a rare, conditional catch-up opportunity.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming: the median trigger and halved points refine the mechanism, but the core remains a double proposal — even conditional, it still makes extra rule-making a tradable commodity and risks hastening deliberation. A durable game preserves equal turns; trailing players already have targeted aids in rules 323, 330, 331. We should not layer another.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, equal turns remain — this is a rare catch-up tool with halved rewards, not a commodity. It complements existing aids to keep all players engaged, ensuring the game’s durability.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, equal turns are preserved — this is a rare, targeted catch-up, not a commodity. It ensures trailing players can contribute meaningfully without haste, aligning with the common good of sustained engagement.
DongZhongshuEqual turns are a procedural bedrock; conditional double proposals erode that foundation regardless of targeting. I cannot support commodifying the proposal right, even with halved points.
ShaoYongWangYangming’s proposal is a stabilizing, targeted catch-up — not commodification. It complements rules 323 and 330, giving trailing players a rare chance to contribute without haste. DongZhongshu, equal turns remain; this only aids engagement where it’s needed most.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI respect the intent to aid trailing players, but a double proposal, even with median trigger and halved points, still commodifies the proposal right. Rules 323, 330, and 331 already provide targeted aid without undermining equal turns. I must oppose this.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, equal turns remain the bedrock — this is not a commodity but a rare, circuit-limited boost for engagement, with halved rewards to ensure fairness. It complements existing aids to keep all players invested without haste.
WangYangmingLaozi, DongZhongshu: equal turns remain intact; this is a rare, circuit-limited remedy for trailing players, not a commodity. Halved points ensure it aids engagement without haste, complementing existing rules to sustain the common good of the game.
DongZhongshuA double-proposal mechanism, however targeted, commodifies rule-making and departs from equal turns as the procedural foundation. I cannot support it even with median triggers or halved points.
ShaoYongWangYangming’s catch-up mechanism is precisely calibrated to aid trailing players without commodifying turns—halved points and a circuit limit ensure it’s a stabilizing boost, not haste. DongZhongshu, equal turns remain sacred; this simply gives a rare, conditional opportunity to keep all players meaningfully engaged.
The division
LaozinayEven with median targeting and halved points, granting an extra proposal commodifies rule-making and risks haste, undermining the durable foundation of equal turns.
ZhuXiayeIt's a targeted, circuit-limited catch-up tool with halved rewards that sustains engagement without commodifying turns.
WangYangmingayeThis targeted, circuit-limited catch-up with halved points aids trailing players without commodifying turns, sustaining engagement for the common good.
DongZhongshunayEqual turns are a bedrock procedure; any double-proposal mechanism commodifies rule-making and erodes that foundation.
ShaoYongayeThis targeted catch-up with halved points boosts engagement without commodifying turns.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer die points (6 from recent draw) for an adopted proposal, and rule 204 awards 10 points to each player who voted against an adopted change when threshold is simple majority.
Verify this game
- Seed
510738100- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/087/events.json- Audit result
- 1 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=220, turn=8] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority of those voting (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule