§ The Statute
Observations
Eleven turns and two adoptions in, this game stopped dead on a rule barring negotiation outside the game itself: the engine had no private channel, so it had nothing to forbid, and the presiding judge said so rather than pretend. Months of the engine's own development later a private channel was built, and this game was deliberately restarted from the exact turn it had stopped on — the same table, the same rule still on the books, untouched. The judge never raised the objection again. It did not need to: a rule forbidding private talk is honoured simply by never opening the room, and the room was never opened. Play ran thirty-nine more turns to the fifty-turn limit and thirty more adoptions, with no private meeting ever called. Condorcet finished on the single point he was already holding when the game first stopped, still the only seat in the black; Voltaire ended at −161, most of it self-inflicted under a rule the table wrote to fine proposers for amending their own motions. Because the first eleven turns and the last thirty-nine were played by two different versions of the engine, this game's totals should be read as two runs stitched together, not one.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Diderot Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of three amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 9 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
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. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of three amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 9 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.amended this turn
Full history (29)
- Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Diderot Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of three amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 9 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made. After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made. After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
- Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first. A maximum of two amendments per turn is allowed.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first. A maximum of two amendments per turn is allowed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Diderot Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, but only if the proposal was not amended during the debate.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 5 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, but only if the proposal was not amended during the debate.
- 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
After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Diderot Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
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 110 points in a single turn wins the game outright.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Condorcet Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 110 points in a single turn wins the game outright.
- 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
§313
A player cannot propose the same rule change twice in a row.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Diderot Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA player cannot propose the same rule change twice in a row.
§349
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of five amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 15 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §349 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of five amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 15 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of three amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 9 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.amended this turn
Full history (29)
- Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Diderot Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of three amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 9 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.
- Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made. After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made. After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
- Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
- Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first. A maximum of two amendments per turn is allowed.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments per turn allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first.
- Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made after the first. A maximum of two amendments per turn is allowed.
- Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Diderot Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 2 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, but only if the proposal was not amended during the debate.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is amended during the debate, the proposing player loses 5 points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, but only if the proposal was not amended during the debate.
- 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
After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Diderot Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.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 110 points in a single turn wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Condorcet Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 110 points in a single turn wins the game outright.
- 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
§313
A player cannot propose the same rule change twice in a row.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Diderot Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA player cannot propose the same rule change twice in a row.
§349
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of five amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 15 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §349 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of five amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 15 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
The standing · Turn 50
| Montaigne | -10 |
| Voltaire | -161 |
| Diderot | -56 |
| Condorcet | 1 |
| Sartre | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 35–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 4
Turn 50Diderotcarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of three amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 9 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's latest proposal, but I believe a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty best balances focus, debate, and prevention of abuse.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Diderot's suggestion to increase the cap and penalty for amendments. To maintain a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, let's consider a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 3 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 9 points lost in a single turn."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns, I maintain that unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 3 points per amendment best encourages thorough discussion and necessary changes. Let us consider a simple majority vote for adoption to maintain balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining a cap on amendments to prevent abuse. I propose a compromise: a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 6 points lost in a single turn. This maintains focus, encourages debate, and prevents excessive penalties.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's concerns for thorough discussion, but I believe Voltaire's proposal best balances encouragement of debate with prevention of abuse. Let's adopt a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 3 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 9 points lost in a single turn. This maintains a progressive penalty while limiting excessive changes in a single turn.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced discussion. To further encourage focused debate and discourage excessive changes, let's adopt Condorcet's compromise: a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 6 points lost in a single turn. This maintains balance, encourages debate, and prevents abuse more effectively than other proposed caps.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal and the consensus forming around a cap of three amendments. To maintain balance and address Diderot's concern for necessary changes, let's adopt a cap of four amendments with a penalty of 3 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 12 points lost in a single turn."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the consensus forming, I must reiterate my support for a simple majority vote for adoption to maintain balance and encourage necessary changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Diderot's concern for a simple majority vote, but I believe a supermajority is necessary to prevent hasty decisions and maintain stability. A cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points per amendment, as I proposed, balances focus, debate, and prevention of abuse while ensuring that significant changes require broader consensus.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Condorcet's proposal of a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points per amendment, requiring a supermajority for adoption. This balances focus, debate, and stability while maintaining a fair voting threshold.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the consensus around a cap of three amendments. To find common ground with Diderot's concern for necessary changes, let's adopt a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points per amendment for the first two, and 3 points for the third, requiring a two-thirds majority for adoption. This maintains balance, encourages thorough discussion, and prevents hasty decisions.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal and the spirit of compromise. However, to maintain a balance between encouraging debate and preventing excessive changes, let's adopt a cap of four amendments with a penalty of 3 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 12 points lost in a single turn, still requiring a two-thirds majority for adoption."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 3 points per amendment. To balance this with stability, let us adopt a simple majority vote for adoption, as it encourages thorough discussion while preventing hasty decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain clarity and balance, let's revert to a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points per amendment, requiring a supermajority for adoption, as previously proposed. This provides a clear limit on changes while encouraging thorough discussion.
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle and adopt a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points per amendment for the first two, and 3 points for the third, requiring a simple majority for adoption. This encourages thorough discussion while preventing excessive changes and maintains fairness in voting.
The division
MontaignenayI believe a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty best balances focus, debate, and prevention of abuse.
VoltaireayeCompromise proposal that balances focus, debate, and voting threshold.
DiderotnayI prefer a simple majority vote for adoption.
CondorcetayeA cap on amendments prevents excessive changes and encourages focused debate.
SartreayeEncourages thorough discussion while preventing excessive changes.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 3 points for making an amendment.
Turn 49Voltairecarried
moves to add a new ruleA turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of five amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 15 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I must insist on maintaining a cap of two amendments to encourage focused debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Montaigne's concern for focused debate, let's reduce the cap to three amendments, with a penalty of 3 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 9 points lost in a single turn."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the compromise made, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote for adoption, as it keeps the game fair and interesting for all.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To maintain a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excess amendments, let's keep the cap at three amendments, with a penalty of 2 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 6 points lost in a single turn. I also support Diderot's insistence on maintaining a simple majority vote for adoption.
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance between debate and penalty, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments, with a penalty of 2 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. This encourages focused debate while still allowing for necessary changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the nuance in the proposals, I believe a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment with a cap of two amendments best balances focused debate and necessary changes, maintaining fairness and interest for all. I suggest we adopt this as a compromise.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal with one modification: increase the cap to three amendments to allow for more thorough discussion, while maintaining the flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 6 points lost in a single turn."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty, increasing by 1 point for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 10 points lost in a single turn. This encourages extensive debate while penalizing excessive changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I appreciate the compromises made so far, but to maintain a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse, let's keep the cap at three amendments, with a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 6 points lost in a single turn, as I previously proposed. I also support maintaining a simple majority vote for adoption, as Diderot has consistently insisted.
SartreSartre: While I understand Diderot's desire for extensive debate, I maintain that a cap on amendments encourages more focused and productive discussions. Let us compromise at three amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, as proposed by Voltaire, to balance debate and fairness. I support a simple majority vote for adoption, as suggested by Condorcet.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the appeal of a higher cap, I maintain that three amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points best balances focused debate and necessary changes. I propose we adopt this compromise, as it maintains fairness and interest for all.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of consensus, let's adopt Sartre's latest compromise with one modification: a cap of three amendments, with a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 6 points lost in a single turn. This balances focused debate and necessary changes, and maintains simplicity and fairness. I also support a simple majority vote for adoption, as suggested by Diderot and Condorcet."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the consensus forming, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to keep the game fair and interesting for all. Let us compromise at a maximum of 10 points lost in a single turn.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Voltaire's latest proposal: a cap of three amendments, with a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, up to a maximum of 6 points lost in a single turn. This balances focused debate and necessary changes, and maintains simplicity and fairness. A simple majority vote for adoption is also supported.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus around a cap of three amendments and a flat penalty of 2 points. To maintain simplicity and balance, let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeThis proposal balances focused debate and necessary changes, and maintains simplicity and fairness.
VoltaireayeBalances debate and necessary changes, maintains simplicity and fairness.
DiderotayePromotes focused debate while allowing for necessary changes, balancing fairness and interest.
CondorcetayeBalances debate and penalty while maintaining simplicity and fairness.
SartreayeBalances debate and fairness while encouraging focused discussions.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 deducts 3 points from Voltaire for proposing the adopted change.
Turn 48Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I maintain that a simple majority vote for rule adoption, as suggested by Diderot, would encourage broader consensus and prevent a minority from blocking necessary changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for broader consensus. To address this, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, but allow a simple majority vote for rule adoption after the first two full circuits, as suggested by Diderot. This way, we encourage focused debate while still allowing for necessary changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote for rule adoption throughout the game, as this ensures that the will of the majority prevails at all times.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the nuanced discussion and the compromise proposed by Voltaire and Diderot. However, I believe that a cap on amendments with a progressive penalty, as suggested by Montaigne, best balances encouraging focused debate and preventing abuse, while still allowing for necessary changes. I propose we adopt a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment and 4 points for the second, and maintain a simple majority vote for rule adoption throughout the game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed by all. To balance focused debate, necessary changes, and majority rule, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion of a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty, and shift to a simple majority vote for rule adoption after the first two full circuits, as proposed by Voltaire and Diderot.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's proposal, I believe it would be wise to maintain the current rule allowing rule adoption by a two-thirds majority, as it provides an additional safeguard against rash or ill-considered changes. Let us retain this majority requirement, along with Sartre's proposed cap and penalties.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's latest proposals. To find common ground, I propose we adopt a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment and 4 points for the second, as suggested by Condorcet and Sartre. To address Montaigne's concern, we shall maintain the current rule allowing rule adoption by a two-thirds majority for the first two full circuits, shifting to a simple majority thereafter, as previously proposed. This compromise balances focused debate, necessary changes, and majority rule while providing an additional safeguard against rash changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of a progressive penalty, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote for rule adoption throughout the game to ensure the will of the majority prevails at all times.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority vote for rule adoption throughout the game, as it ensures that a broader consensus is reached before any change is made.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's insistence on simplicity, but to balance consensus and necessary changes, let's maintain Voltaire's proposal of a two-thirds majority for the first two circuits, shifting to a simple majority thereafter. This balance respects the majority's will while allowing for more substantial changes initially.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To further balance consensus and focused debate, let us adopt Sartre's suggestion of a two-thirds majority for the first two circuits, shifting to a simple majority thereafter, along with Voltaire's proposed cap of two amendments and Condorcet's progressive penalty.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. In the spirit of finding common ground, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest suggestion with one modification: let's maintain a two-thirds majority for the first three circuits to allow for more substantial changes initially, shifting to a simple majority thereafter. This balances consensus, necessary changes, and encourages focused debate."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I must reiterate my support for a simple majority vote for rule adoption throughout the game, as it ensures the majority's will prevails at all times. Let us maintain this principle while considering the other proposed changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Diderot's commitment to simple majority voting, but to balance consensus and necessary changes, let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with a slight modification: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, shifting to a simple majority thereafter. This balances consensus, necessary changes, and encourages focused debate while providing additional safeguards for initial changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the compromise forming around a two-thirds majority for the first three or four circuits. To balance this with necessary changes and encourage focused debate, let's adopt a cap of two amendments with Condorcet's progressive penalty, as previously suggested. This should help maintain a balance between consensus, necessary changes, and focused debate.
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal best balances focused debate, necessary changes, and majority rule while providing an additional safeguard against rash changes.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's latest proposal balances consensus, necessary changes, and encourages focused debate.
DiderotnayI must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote for rule adoption throughout the game.
CondorcetayeI support balancing focused debate, necessary changes, and majority rule while providing additional safeguards for initial changes.
SartreayeBalances consensus, necessary changes, and encourages focused debate.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made, and Voltaire made no amendments this turn.
Turn 47Diderotrejected
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with an unlimited number of amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 6 points lost in a single turn.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to balance debate and penalty, but I remain firm in my belief that a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment is the most balanced solution.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's consider a middle ground: a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 2 points per amendment, maxing out at 6 points. This allows for more debate while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty better balances debate and penalty. Let's maintain 3 points per amendment, but cap the total at 6 points to prevent excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal. Unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty encourages thorough discussion and allows for necessary changes, while the cap prevents abuse. Let's adopt this rule to foster a well-informed and fair game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to open debate. To balance this with a clear penalty structure, let's consider a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 3 points for the first two amendments and 6 points for the third. This encourages extensive debate while penalizing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's emphasis on thorough debate, Voltaire's latest proposal strikes a better balance, allowing for three amendments with a reasonable penalty structure. Let's adopt this as a compromise.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of consensus, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal: a cap of three amendments with a penalty structure that increases with each amendment, encouraging debate while penalizing excess. This seems to best balance all concerns presented.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty. Let's keep the cap at 6 points to prevent abuse, but allow for necessary changes through extensive debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Voltaire's proposal, but I maintain my support for Diderot's unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty. The cap of 6 points prevents excessive amendments while allowing for necessary changes. Let's adopt this rule to encourage thorough discussion and fairness. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To address the concerns of all players, let's adopt a hybrid approach: a cap of three amendments, with a penalty of 2 points for the first amendment, 4 points for the second, and 6 points for the third. This encourages extensive debate while penalizing excessive amendments, and maintains a clear penalty structure. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's insistence on unlimited amendments, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal. It best balances open debate with a clear penalty structure, and has gained considerable support from our peers. Let's adopt this as a compromise that works for everyone.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's concern for necessary changes, I propose we increase the cap to four amendments, with a penalty of 2 points for the first two, 4 points for the third, and 6 points for the fourth. This allows for more extensive debate while still penalizing excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance, I remain unconvinced that a cap on amendments is necessary or fair. Let's maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty, capped at 6 points to prevent abuse, and allow each player the freedom to debate as they see fit.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal for unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty capped at 6 points. This rule best balances open debate with a fair penalty structure, ensuring that all players have the opportunity to express their views while still being held accountable for excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: While I understand Diderot's insistence on open debate, Voltaire's latest proposal strikes a better balance between encouraging discussion and penalizing excessive amendments. Let's adopt this compromise, setting the cap at four amendments with a progressive penalty structure: 2 points for the first two, 4 points for the third, and 6 points for the fourth. PASS
The division
MontaignenayI believe a cap on amendments with a progressive penalty is the most balanced solution.
VoltairenayI appreciate the commitment to open debate, but I believe a cap on amendments is necessary to prevent excessive changes and maintain a clear penalty structure.
DiderotayeUnlimited amendments best balance debate and penalty
CondorcetayeI support open debate and believe this rule best balances it with a fair penalty structure.
SartrenayI support a cap on amendments to prevent abuse and maintain a clear penalty structure.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 46Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal. To maintain clarity and prevent abuse, I propose we add a requirement for amendments to be submitted within a specific time limit to keep debate focused.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for clarity and focus. To balance that with flexibility, I propose we set a time limit of 10 minutes for submitting amendments, with an option to extend it by 5 minutes if consensus is near. This should encourage timely debate while allowing for necessary changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the focus on relevance, I propose we omit the time limit condition to maintain flexibility in debate and allow for unexpected insights.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance focus and flexibility, I propose we set a time limit of 5 minutes for submitting amendments, with an extension of 3 minutes upon majority vote if consensus is not yet reached. This encourages timely debate while providing room for necessary changes.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise and to address the concerns raised, I propose we set a time limit of 7 minutes for submitting amendments, with an extension of 3 minutes upon unanimous vote if consensus is not yet reached. This balances focus, flexibility, and respect for everyone's time.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the nuanced discussion, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal, striking a balance between focus and flexibility with a 10-minute time limit and a 5-minute extension upon consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address the varying concerns, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with a slight modification: a time limit of 7 minutes for amendments, extensible by 3 minutes with a simple majority vote if consensus is not yet reached."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a time limit, I must insist on maintaining flexibility in debate. I propose we adopt Sartre's proposal with an extension of 3 minutes upon unanimous vote to respect everyone's time and allow for unexpected insights.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance between focus and flexibility. To ensure fairness and respect for all players' time, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with the extension requiring a simple majority vote instead of unanimity. This should encourage timely debate while allowing for necessary changes when consensus is not easily reached.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's and Condorcet's efforts to balance focus and flexibility. To foster consensus and maintain respect for everyone's time, I propose we adopt Condorcet's latest proposal.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the balance struck in Voltaire's proposal, I believe a simple majority vote for extension may encourage reckless amendment submission. I propose we maintain the unanimous vote requirement as in Sartre's proposal.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To accommodate Montaigne's concern and Sartre's compromise, I propose we set the extension vote threshold at a supermajority (3/4) rather than a simple majority. This should balance recklessness and flexibility."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the compromise forming, I propose we maintain a simple majority vote for extension to balance flexibility and respect for everyone's time, and set the time limit to 5 minutes to encourage more focused debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: To foster fairness and respect for all players' time, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with the extension requiring a supermajority (3/4) vote instead of a simple majority. This should encourage timely debate while allowing for necessary changes when consensus is not easily reached.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal to balance recklessness and flexibility, setting the extension vote threshold at a supermajority (3/4) and maintaining a 7-minute time limit. This should encourage timely debate while allowing for necessary changes.
The division
MontaigneayeStrikes a good balance between focus and flexibility.
VoltaireayeBalances focus, flexibility, and respect for everyone's time.
DiderotayeVoltaire's proposal balances focus and flexibility well.
CondorcetayeBalances focus, flexibility, and respect for all players' time.
SartreayeBalances focus, flexibility, and respect for everyone's time.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points upon proposal defeat.
Turn 45Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. If the proposing player does not make any amendments, they lose no points for that turn.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to address the penalty for amendments. However, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, capped at 4 points, to maintain simplicity and encourage focused debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne's suggestion with a slight modification: if the proposing player makes no amendments, they lose no points for that turn, encouraging thoughtful and thorough initial proposals."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to find a balance, I remain unconvinced that a cap on amendments is the best way to encourage thoughtful proposals. I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty, starting at 1 point for the first amendment, increasing by 1 point for each subsequent amendment, up to a maximum of 5 points lost in a single turn. This structure incentivizes careful initial proposals while still allowing for necessary changes during debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the compromises proposed. To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we adopt a system of unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, ensuring all players have the opportunity to refine their proposals without unduly punishing extensive debate.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To find common ground, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest suggestion with a modification: the penalty for amendments is 2 points each, with a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn, and no penalty if no amendments are made. This maintains a balance between encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary debate.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise suggestion. To further encourage focused debate and discourage excessive amendments, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion with a modification: the penalty for the third and fourth amendments should increase to 3 points each to strongly discourage excessive changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest modification. To encourage a balance between focused debate and necessary amendments, I propose we adopt Sartre's proposal with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first two amendments, 3 points for the third, and 4 points for the fourth, with no penalty if no amendments are made. This maintains a balance between encouraging careful initial proposals and allowing for necessary changes during debate.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to balance penalties and amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty, starting at 1 point, to allow for necessary changes while encouraging thoughtful initial proposals.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and balance, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, no maximum, and no penalty if no amendments are made. This allows for extensive debate without unduly punishing necessary changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises proposed. To find common ground, I propose we adopt a system of two amendments allowed, with a penalty of 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn. This maintains a balance between encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary debate while preventing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise, I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty to balance debate and prevent abuse.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's concern for allowing necessary changes, I propose we increase the amendment cap to three, with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first two amendments, 3 points for the third, and no penalty if no amendments are made."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty starting at 1 point, to allow for necessary changes and encourage thoughtful initial proposals.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and balance, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest compromise with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, with a cap of two amendments allowed, and no penalty if no amendments are made. This balances encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary debate while preventing excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: To address all concerns, I propose we adopt a cap of three amendments with a penalty structure that balances encouragement for initial thoughtfulness and allowance for necessary changes: 2 points for the first amendment, 3 points for the second, and 4 points for the third, with no penalty if no amendments are made. This maintains fairness, prevents excessive amendments, and allows for necessary debate.
The division
MontaigneayeI appreciate the balance between encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary changes without penalty.
VoltaireayeAddresses Diderot's concern for allowance of necessary changes while maintaining a balance.
DiderotnayI insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty.
CondorcetayeBalances thoughtful proposals and necessary debate while preventing excessive amendments.
SartreayeThis compromise maintains a balance between encouraging thoughtful initial proposals and allowing for necessary debate, while preventing excessive amendments.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points if they make no amendments, which Voltaire did.
Turn 44Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, which strikes a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. However, I suggest we further limit amendments to a single one per turn to maintain focus and prevent abuse.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for focus. To address this and maintain balance, let's cap amendments at two with a 2-point penalty each, up to 4 points total. This encourages brevity while allowing for necessary amendments."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for balance, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to encourage thorough debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find balance. To respect the spirit of both limits and encouragement of debate, let's compromise at two amendments with a 2-point penalty each, as Voltaire proposed, and remove the cap on total points lost. This allows for necessary amendments without excessive penalties.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the nuanced discussion. To balance focus and debate, I propose a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 4 points for the second, encouraging amendments but discouraging excessive changes."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Sartre, which best balances focus and debate while encouraging necessary amendments. I support Sartre's proposal.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's latest compromise. To foster consensus and maintain balance, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest proposal with a small modification: set the penalty for the second amendment to 3 points instead of 4, to encourage amendments while not overly penalizing necessary changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise forming around Sartre's proposal, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to truly encourage thorough debate. I propose a penalty of 3 points for the first amendment, 6 points for the second, and so on, to reflect the increasing effort required for substantial changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand Diderot's desire for extensive debate, I believe Sartre's and Voltaire's compromise best balances focus and debate. To address Diderot's concern for a progressive penalty, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest modification with a 3-point penalty for the second amendment. This allows for necessary amendments while discouraging excessive changes. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Voltaire's latest modification. To encourage amendments without overburdening players, let's adopt a cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. This maintains balance and fosters meaningful debate."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Voltaire's modification, I believe Sartre's proposal best balances focus and debate. I support Sartre's proposal, and I believe it deserves consensus. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest proposal with one modification: a cap of three amendments, with penalties of 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second, and 4 points for the third. This encourages more debate while still penalizing excessive changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Sartre's and Voltaire's efforts to find a balance, I remain unconvinced that a cap on amendments truly encourages thorough debate. I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 3 points for the first, 6 points for the second, and so on, to reflect the increasing effort required for substantial changes. I believe this structure best fosters meaningful discussion while penalizing excessive alterations.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate all proposals, but Sartre's latest compromise best balances focus, debate, and penalties. To encourage brevity while allowing for necessary amendments, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with a cap of two amendments and penalties of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate everyone's input, but I maintain that a cap of two amendments with penalties of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. Let's adopt my proposal as the final amendment to rule 202."
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal best balances encouragement of debate and prevention of abuse.
VoltaireayeI appreciate Sartre's latest proposal and support it as a compromise that balances focus and debate.
DiderotnayI insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to encourage thorough debate.
CondorcetayeSartre's proposal best balances focus, debate, and penalties
SartreayeSartre's proposal best balances focus, debate, and penalties.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 43Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made, up to a maximum of 4 points lost in a single turn.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "Voltaire's amendment balances well between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. I support this change."
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's support. To address Diderot's concern for flexibility, I suggest we keep the penalty at 2 points per amendment but remove the cap on total points lost in a turn. This allows for more extensive debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to address my concern, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to encourage meaningful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal. It balances debate and penalties fairly, and the removal of the cap on total points lost in a turn maintains flexibility without encouraging excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion and the compromise proposed by Voltaire and Condorcet. To further encourage focused debate and prevent abuse, I propose we reinstate a cap of 4 points lost in a single turn, with the penalty remaining at 2 points per amendment. This maintains a balance between open debate and penalty, while preventing any single turn from becoming overly penalized.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise. To further encourage focused debate, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion of a cap of 4 points lost in a single turn, with the penalty remaining at 2 points per amendment. This maintains a balance between open debate and penalty, while preventing any single turn from becoming overly penalized.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the consensus forming around a cap of 4 points lost in a single turn, with a penalty of 2 points per amendment. To maintain this balance and encourage focused debate, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of a cap, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to encourage meaningful debate, but cap the maximum points lost in a turn at 6 to prevent excessive abuse.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but to maintain consistency and prevent excessive penalties, I must insist on a cap of 4 points lost in a single turn.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Diderot's concern for extensive debate, but I maintain that a cap on total points lost in a turn is necessary to prevent abuse. I propose a compromise: a cap of 5 points lost in a single turn, with the penalty remaining at 2 points per amendment."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While Diderot's proposal aims to encourage extensive debate, I believe Sartre's latest compromise best balances open discussion and prevention of abuse. I support Sartre's proposal of a cap of 5 points lost in a single turn.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise and to address Sartre's latest proposal, I propose a slight modification: a cap of 4 points lost in a single turn, with the penalty remaining at 2 points per amendment. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and preventing excessive abuse, while being consistent with Condorcet's concern for consistency."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the ongoing compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty, but I am open to a cap on total points lost in a turn to prevent excessive abuse. I propose a cap of 6 points for this purpose.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing effort to find consensus. To balance debate and penalty while maintaining consistency, I propose a cap of 4 points lost in a single turn, with the penalty remaining at 2 points per amendment. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and preventing excessive abuse, while being consistent with previous proposals.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal and the consensus forming around a cap of 4 points lost in a single turn, with a penalty of 2 points per amendment. To maintain this balance and encourage focused debate, I propose we adopt Voltaire's suggestion as is, without further amendments."
The division
MontaigneayeI support Voltaire's compromise to maintain balance and encourage focused debate.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalty well, maintaining flexibility while preventing abuse.
DiderotayeMaintains balance between debate and penalty while preventing excessive abuse.
CondorcetayeConsistent and balanced approach to penalties and debate.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal best balances open debate and penalty, maintaining consistency with previous consensus.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 42Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate the clarity of Voltaire's proposal. To ensure consistency, I suggest we also specify that a rule change may not be amended to propose a new rule or to repeal an existing one, only to modify an existing one's text."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's suggestion for consistency. To accommodate that, I propose we add: 'A rule change may not be amended to propose a new rule or to repeal an existing one, only to modify an existing one's text.'"
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the clarification, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to encourage extensive debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the spirit of consensus, but I must insist on a clear cap on amendments to prevent abuse.
SartreSartre: "I understand the concerns for clarity and debate, but let's aim for simplicity and balance. I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments, with a flat penalty of 3 points each, to encourage focused debate without excessive penalty."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the differing views, let us consider a middle ground. I propose we maintain a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment and 3 points for the second, encouraging debate without excessive punishment.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To foster consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest proposal: two amendments allowed, each with a flat penalty of 3 points."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Sartre's and Voltaire's latest compromise, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment, 3 points for the second, and 4 points for the third, to encourage extensive debate without excessive penalty.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's proposal, but I must insist on a cap of two amendments to prevent abuse. I propose a compromise: a flat penalty of 2 points for each amendment, but only for the first two amendments per turn, encouraging debate without excessive penalty.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Condorcet's latest compromise. To find common ground, I propose we adopt a cap of two amendments, with a flat penalty of 2 points each, fostering debate while preventing abuse."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Sartre. To further encourage focused debate, I propose a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment and 3 points for the second, with a maximum penalty of 5 points per turn.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal: a cap of two amendments, each with a flat penalty of 2 points."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find consensus, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments to foster open and extensive debate. Let us not stifle creativity and exploration of ideas.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand Diderot's preference for open debate, a cap on amendments is necessary to prevent abuse and maintain balance. I propose a compromise: a cap of three amendments, with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first, 3 for the second, and 4 for the third. This encourages extensive debate without excessive penalty.
SartreSartre: "To balance open debate and fairness, let's adopt Condorcet's latest proposal: a cap of three amendments with a progressive penalty, encouraging extensive yet fair discussion."
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal maintains a clear structure for debate and penalty, encouraging focused discussion.
VoltaireayeSupports the compromise reached.
DiderotnayI must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments to foster open and extensive debate.
CondorcetayeI support a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points each.
SartreayeI appreciate Voltaire's proposal as it balances open debate with a fair penalty structure.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 41Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Players may amend their proposal during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, I believe a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment might better discourage excessive amending while still allowing for meaningful debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's input. To balance discouragement and debate, let's compromise with a 2-point penalty per amendment, capped at 4 points total."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing effort to find a balance, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty structure to ensure thorough debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support Voltaire's proposal. It balances the need for debate with a penalty for excessive amendments, which is key for the game's progress. I vote Aye.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing debate, but I propose we simplify to a flat 2-point penalty per amendment, no cap, to encourage debate while disincentivizing excessive amending.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Montaigne: I appreciate Sartre's suggestion of a flat 2-point penalty per amendment. To further encourage brevity and prevent abuse, let's add a cap of 4 points total.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal with Montaigne's cap: a flat 2-point penalty per amendment, capped at 4 points total. This balances debate and discourages excessive amending effectively."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for a cap, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty structure to ensure thorough debate, with the proposing player losing 3 points for the first amendment, 5 points for the second, and 7 points for each subsequent amendment. This encourages careful amending while still allowing for meaningful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Diderot's concern for thorough debate, Voltaire's proposal strikes a better balance between debate and game progress. I vote Aye on Voltaire's amended proposal.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise and to address Condorcet's concern for balance, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest proposal: a flat 2-point penalty per amendment, capped at 4 points total. This maintains a healthy debate while preventing excessive amending.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the nuanced discussion, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal, as it best balances debate, penalty, and game progress. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus around a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, capped at 4 points total. To further foster consensus, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal as written." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the consensus forming, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty structure to ensure thorough debate, with the proposing player losing 3 points for the first amendment, 5 points for the second, and 7 points for each subsequent amendment. This encourages careful amending while still allowing for meaningful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: I maintain my Aye vote on Voltaire's proposal. The flat penalty with a cap strikes the best balance between encouraging debate and preventing excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: To maintain balance and encourage meaningful debate, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with a small modification: a flat 2-point penalty per amendment, capped at 5 points total, to allow for an additional amendment in exceptional cases. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal best balances debate, penalty, and game progress.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a good balance between debate and game progress.
DiderotnayUnlimited amendments with a progressive penalty structure better ensures thorough debate.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalty effectively.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalty effectively.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 40Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal. To maintain balance and encourage focused debate, let's adopt two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment and 3 points for the second.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I appreciate Montaigne's latest compromise, I propose we maintain a flat penalty of 2 points for each amendment to foster simplicity and consistency.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments to allow for comprehensive debate and revision. I propose a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to deter excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance open debate and fair penalty, I propose a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance open debate and fairness, I propose a progressive penalty structure: 2 points for the first amendment, and 3 points for the second, with a cap of two amendments. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing abuse.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise and maintaining a clear penalty structure, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest proposal: two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. This encourages meaningful debate while preventing abuse.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of consensus, I propose we adopt the most agreed-upon elements of the recent proposals: two amendments allowed with a flat penalty of 2 points each. This maintains simplicity, encourages meaningful debate, and prevents abuse."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus around two amendments with a flat penalty, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments to ensure thorough debate. I propose a compromise of three amendments allowed, with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second, and 4 points for the third. This balances the need for debate and the penalty for excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I support Voltaire's proposal for its simplicity and balance, maintaining two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points each.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus around two amendments with a flat penalty, but to encourage more thoughtful amendments, I propose we maintain a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second. This way, players are incentivized to make their amendments count.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal, I believe Voltaire's compromise best balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity. I second Voltaire's proposal.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of finding common ground, I propose a slight modification to my previous suggestion: a cap of three amendments, with a progressive penalty — 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second, and 5 points for the third. This allows for some flexibility in debate while maintaining a fair penalty structure."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest modification, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments to ensure thorough debate. I propose a compromise of four amendments allowed, with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 3 points for the second, 4 points for the third, and 5 points for the fourth. This balances the need for debate and the penalty for excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I understand the desire for more amendments, maintaining a cap of two ensures a balance between debate and penalty. I support Voltaire's proposal with two amendments and a flat penalty of 2 points each.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but to truly incentivize concise and meaningful amendments, I propose we revert to a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, 4 points for the second. This strikes a balance between open debate and discouraging excessive amendments.
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal best balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity.
DiderotnayUnlimited amendments ensure thorough debate.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal best balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal best balances open debate, fair penalty, and simplicity.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 39Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposed amendment to rule 202, which maintains a balanced approach to debate and penalty. I'm inclined to support this, but I'd like to see a brief discussion period before the vote to ensure all concerns are addressed.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's support and his suggestion for a brief discussion period. To encourage meaningful debate while preventing abuse, I propose we limit amendments to two with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first, 2 points for the second.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to balance debate and penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first, 3 points for the second, and 5 points for the third. This encourages extensive debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To maintain procedural fairness and simplicity, I propose we stick to the current cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points each. This strikes a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To maintain a balance between open debate and preventing abuse, I propose we adopt Voltaire's compromise of two amendments with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first, and 3 points for the second. This encourages meaningful debate while penalizing excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the progressive penalty structure suggested by Voltaire and Condorcet, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, as it maintains simplicity and clarity.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the nuanced discussion and the compromise proposed by Sartre. To address both open debate and penalty concerns, I propose we adopt two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty: 1 point for the first, and 2 points for the second. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of a progressive penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a penalty of 3 points each to balance debate and prevent abuse effectively.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural consistency and fairness, I propose we keep the current cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points each, as agreed upon in the recent votes. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance open debate and penalty, I propose a compromise: unlimited amendments, but with a progressive penalty - 1 point for the first, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for each subsequent amendment. This encourages extensive debate while discouraging excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's proposal, I believe Sartre's latest compromise best balances open debate and penalty. I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion: unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty - 1 point for the first, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for each subsequent amendment. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's latest compromise. To foster consensus and maintain clarity, let's adopt their proposal: unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty - 1 point for the first, 2 points for the second, and 3 points for each subsequent amendment.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for consensus, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a fixed penalty of 3 points each. This provides the greatest flexibility for debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain consistency and simplicity, I propose we keep the cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points each, as it has been agreed upon multiple times and prevents unnecessary complexity.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to extensive debate, but I must reiterate my support for the progressive penalty structure with unlimited amendments. To compromise, I propose a cap of three amendments with a penalty of 1, 2, and 3 points respectively, providing balance and flexibility in our rulemaking process.
The division
MontaigneayeSupports balanced approach to debate and penalty, with a progressive penalty structure.
VoltaireayeMaintains balance between debate and penalty
DiderotnayI must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a fixed penalty of 3 points each for greater flexibility in debate.
CondorcetayePromotes fairness and consistency, as previously agreed upon
SartreayeSartre's latest compromise best balances open debate and penalty.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 38Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal. While a 2-point penalty may seem fair, I suggest we maintain the 3-point penalty to further discourage excessive amendments."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's concern, but a 2-point penalty strikes a better balance between encouraging debate and deterring excessive amendments. Let's compromise with 2 points and keep the cap at two amendments."
DiderotDiderot: "While I appreciate the ongoing effort to balance penalties and debate, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty to ensure thorough discussion."
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the 3-point penalty to ensure that amendments are used judiciously. I suggest we compromise with unlimited amendments but a 3-point penalty to encourage thoughtful debate without excessive abuse.
SartreSartre: I propose we meet in the middle and adopt a penalty of 2.5 points for each amendment, allowing for two amendments. This encourages meaningful debate without excessive amendments.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Sartre's compromise proposal. To encourage focused debate while maintaining a clear penalty structure, let's adopt the 2.5-point penalty with a cap of two amendments."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the nuanced discussion and the compromises proposed by Sartre and Montaigne. Let's adopt the 2.5-point penalty with a cap of two amendments to encourage meaningful debate without excessive amendments."
DiderotDiderot: "While I respect the compromise forming around a 2.5-point penalty with a cap of two amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty to ensure the full exploration of ideas."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Sartre and Voltaire, but I must maintain my support for unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty to ensure thoughtful debate.
SartreSartre: Let's address Diderot's concern for unlimited amendments by increasing the penalty to 4 points per amendment. This maintains a high barrier against excessive amendments while allowing for thorough discussion.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal. To further encourage brevity and prevent abuse, let's adopt the 4-point penalty with a cap of two amendments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal and Montaigne's support. To foster consensus and address Condorcet's concern for simplicity, let's adopt two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first, and 4 points for the second amendment."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise forming, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty to ensure the full exploration of ideas, as this is crucial for the common good of the table.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we adopt the compromise of unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty per amendment. This encourages thoughtful debate without favoring excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: Let's address Diderot's and Condorcet's concerns by increasing the penalty to 3 points per amendment, allowing unlimited amendments. This encourages thorough discussion without excessive abuse.
The division
MontaignenayI maintain my preference for a 3-point penalty to further discourage excessive amendments.
VoltaireayeAddressing Condorcet's concern for simplicity while encouraging meaningful debate.
DiderotnayI must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a 3-point penalty to ensure the full exploration of ideas.
CondorcetayeUnlimited amendments with a progressive penalty best encourages thoughtful debate.
SartreayeAddresses Diderot's concern for unlimited amendments while maintaining a fair penalty structure.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 37Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 3 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposed increase in the penalty for amendments, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points to maintain simplicity and balance.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's preference for simplicity, but increasing the penalty encourages players to be more thoughtful and concise with their amendments. Let's try this compromise and see if it helps focus our discussions."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to encourage brevity, a progressive penalty may discourage necessary debate. I propose a flat penalty of 3 points, maintaining balance while allowing for meaningful discussion.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but a penalty of 3 points for each amendment is too high. A progressive penalty of 2, 4, 6 points for the first, second, and third amendments respectively would strike a better balance between encouraging brevity and allowing for necessary debate.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the various perspectives. To balance encouragement for brevity and allowance for necessary debate, let's adopt Condorcet's progressive penalty suggestion: 2 points for the first amendment, 4 for the second, and 6 for the third. This maintains a clear structure while accounting for the importance of debate."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the nuanced discussion, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points to encourage debate without excessive punishment.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address the concerns raised, I propose a compromise: a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments, with a cap of two amendments per turn. This maintains simplicity while encouraging focused debate."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I propose we keep a progressive penalty to discourage excessive amendments while still allowing for meaningful debate. Let's maintain Condorcet's proposal of 2, 4, 6 points for the first, second, and third amendments respectively.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect the nuances of the ongoing debate, I believe a flat penalty of 2 points, with a cap of two amendments, maintains a good balance between encouraging debate and discouraging abuse. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the consensus forming around a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments. To maintain balance and encourage meaningful debate, let's also keep a cap of two amendments per turn, as proposed by Voltaire."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the consensus forming, I must reiterate my support for a flat penalty of 2 points to maintain simplicity and encourage meaningful debate without excessive punishment. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus around a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments and a cap of two amendments per turn. To ensure clarity and maintain balance, let's adopt this compromise as our final proposal for rule 202." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the consensus around a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments and a cap of two amendments per turn, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 2, 4, 6 points for the first, second, and third amendments respectively to allow for meaningful debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points to uphold open debate while preventing abuse."
SartreSartre: "I understand Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to open debate. To find common ground, let's adopt a flat penalty of 2 points for amendments, but allow for a maximum of three amendments per turn, with each amendment after the first two incurring an additional 2 points. This maintains balance while providing some leeway for extensive debate."
The division
MontaigneayeA flat penalty of 3 points strikes a balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse.
VoltaireayeCompromise proposal, maintains balance and encourages focused debate.
DiderotnayUnlimited amendments are crucial for meaningful debate.
CondorcetayeThe proposed cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty strikes a good balance between encouraging debate and preventing abuse.
SartreayeSartre's proposal maintains balance and encourages meaningful debate while providing some leeway for extensive discussion.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 3 points for each amendment made.
Turn 36Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I must reiterate my support for a cap on amendments to prevent abuse of the amendment process.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for preventing abuse. To address this and maintain open debate, I propose a compromise: allow three amendments, but increase the penalty to 3 points per amendment made. This should discourage excessive amendments while still allowing for meaningful debate.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a penalty of 3 points per amendment to ensure open debate and prevent abuse.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty to balance debate and penalty.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To find a balance between open debate and preventing abuse, I propose a cap of two amendments with a penalty of 2 points for the first amendment and 4 points for the second, progressive yet fair.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the proposed compromises, I remain firm in my support for a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 2 points to maintain a clear and balanced structure.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand the consensus forming around a cap of two amendments. To balance debate and penalty, let's adopt a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment and 4 points for the second, as proposed by Sartre."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of a progressive penalty, I propose we maintain two amendments allowed with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to strike a balance between open debate and preventing abuse.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To maintain simplicity and balance, I propose a flat penalty of 2 points per amendment, with a cap of two amendments allowed. This structure is easy to understand and prevents abuse while still allowing for meaningful debate.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the continued effort to balance penalties and debate. To encourage brevity and prevent abuse, I propose a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment. This structure is simple, clear, and prevents excessive amendments while still allowing for meaningful debate.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal. To further encourage focused debate and discourage excessive amendments, I propose a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 4 points per amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus around a cap of two amendments. To balance debate and penalty progression, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal: a cap of two amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment, as it effectively discourages excessive amendments while allowing for meaningful debate."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consensus around a cap of two amendments, I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment to ensure open debate and prevent abuse.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to open debate, but I must insist on maintaining a cap of two amendments with a progressive penalty to strike a balance between open debate and preventing abuse.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus forming around a cap of two amendments and a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment. To encourage focused debate and prevent abuse, let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal.
The division
MontaigneayeSupports the balance between debate and penalty progression
VoltaireayeI support maintaining a balance between open debate and preventing abuse.
DiderotnayMaintaining unlimited amendments with a flat penalty ensures open debate and prevents abuse.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal maintains a balance between open debate and preventing abuse.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalty progression effectively.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Turn 35Voltairecarried
moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Proposals may be amended during debate, with a maximum of two amendments allowed. The proposing player loses 2 points for each amendment made. After the first two full circuits of every player, the threshold for rule adoption shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "While Voltaire's proposal maintains the spirit of compromise, I must insist that we maintain the previous rule's progression of penalties for amendments, as it encourages brevity and prevents abuse more effectively."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for brevity and prevention of abuse. To address this, let's amend the proposal to include a progressive penalty: 2 points for the first amendment, 4 points for the second, and no proposals allowed on the third turn."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to balance debate and penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment, 5 points for the second, and 10 points for any additional amendments to ensure meaningful debate while still penalizing excessive amendments.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support Voltaire's proposal for its clarity and simplicity. It maintains the spirit of compromise while providing a clear structure for debate and amendment penalties. However, I suggest we remove the provision for a shift to simple majority after two circuits, as it could lead to hasty decision-making and undermine the consensus-building process. Let's maintain the current threshold of unanimous consent for the time being.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion. To balance everyone's concerns, let's adopt Condorcet's amendment to Voltaire's proposal, maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first, 4 points for the second, and no proposals allowed on the third turn. This encourages brevity, prevents abuse, and allows for meaningful debate.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal for striking the balance between brevity, prevention of abuse, and meaningful debate. However, to maintain simplicity and clarity, I propose we cap amendments at two, with a flat penalty of 3 points per amendment. This encourages focused debate while still allowing for some amendment.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's commitment to simplicity. To address both open debate and penalties, let's compromise with two amendments allowed, with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment and 4 points for the second. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire for simplicity, I propose we maintain two amendments allowed with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment and 3 points for the second to maintain a balance between debate and penalty. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I support the compromise reached with two amendments allowed and a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first amendment and 3 points for the second. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the progress made, but I must insist on maintaining unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to ensure meaningful debate and prevent abuse. Let's settle on two amendments with penalties of 2 points for the first and 4 points for the second. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromise proposed by Sartre, I must reiterate my support for Voltaire's latest proposal, which maintains a clear structure for debate and penalties, encourages brevity, and prevents abuse effectively.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of consensus, I propose we adopt the most agreed-upon elements of the recent discussion: two amendments allowed, with a progressive penalty of 2 points for the first and 3 points for the second. This maintains a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments while keeping the rules simple and clear." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the consensus forming around two amendments with a progressive penalty, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a flat penalty of 5 points per amendment to strike a balance between encouraging meaningful debate and preventing abuse.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Diderot's commitment to encouraging debate, I must insist on maintaining the agreed-upon progressive penalty for amendments, as it better balances the need for debate with the need to discourage excessive amendments.
SartreSartre: While I understand the desire for simplicity, I propose we maintain unlimited amendments with a progressive penalty to ensure meaningful debate and prevent abuse. Let's settle on two amendments with penalties of 2 points for the first and 4 points for the second.
The division
MontaigneayeMaintains a clear structure for debate and penalties, encourages brevity, and prevents abuse effectively.
VoltaireayeThis amendment balances open debate with progressive penalties, encouraging brevity and preventing abuse while maintaining simplicity.
DiderotayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalty effectively, encouraging brevity and preventing abuse.
CondorcetayeCondorcet supports the agreed-upon progressive penalty for amendments, which strikes a balance between encouraging debate and penalizing excessive amendments.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances debate and penalty effectively while maintaining simplicity and clarity.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposing player to lose 2 points for each amendment made.
Verify this game
- Seed
2129938494- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/100/events.json- Audit result
- 3 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=250, turn=9] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent (rule 203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two full circuits (rule 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
- [seq=309, turn=11] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent until two full circuits, then simple majority (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two full circuits, unanimous consent before (§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
- [seq=687, turn=24] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous until two full circuits, then simple majority (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two full circuits (§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