§ The Statute
Observations
Eighteen turns and eleven adoptions produced an unusually healthy scoreboard for a game that didn't finish — Voltaire-2 led at 26, with Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2 also positive — before the run stopped on a rule requiring players to form declared alliances, something the engine had no private channel to support. That channel was later built, in direct answer to this table, and this game was deliberately restarted from the turn it had stopped on. The alliance rule stayed on the books word for word and the objection never returned; but neither did a private meeting. The rule grants alliances to nobody in particular — it names no players — and a private room can only be opened between named seats, so the table spent its remaining thirty-two turns on the open floor exactly as before, and never once wrote the rule that would have named anyone. Play ran to the fifty-turn limit at twenty-two adoptions. Diderot-2 finished ahead on 19; Voltaire-2, who had led when the game first stopped, ended at −111. Because the first eighteen turns and the last thirty-two 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 · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.amended this turn
Full history (9)
- Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
- Amended · §203 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, a player may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players.A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
- Amended · §203 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, a player may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players.
- Amended · §203 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.
- Amended · §203 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Montaigne-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind.
- Amended · §203 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
- Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Montaigne-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. 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.
- Amended · §203 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Montaigne-2 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.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §301 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [301] (mutable) Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, except that players who are not officially teammates must declare their negotiations to all other players.Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Montaigne-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [301] (mutable) Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, except that players who are not officially teammates must declare their negotiations to all other players.
§303
Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.
Full history (4)
- Amended · §303 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players. Alliances may not collude to disrupt the game or manipulate voting.Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.
- Amended · §303 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players. Alliances may not collude to disrupt the game or manipulate voting.
- Amended · §303 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [214] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances can discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.
- Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [214] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances can discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.
§306
Introducing [304] (mutable) A player may not vote against their own proposal once made.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Condorcet-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [304] (mutable) A player may not vote against their own proposal once made.
§309
A player may not introduce or amend a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced or amended, it cannot be further amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
Full history (3)
- Amended · §309 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced, it cannot be amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.A player may not introduce or amend a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced or amended, it cannot be further amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
- Amended · §309 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [307] (mutable) A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced, it cannot be amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
- Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Condorcet-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [307] (mutable) A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
§318
Introducing [310] (mutable) Players may not propose a rule that contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [310] (mutable) Players may not propose a rule that contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed.
§330
Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §330 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players.
§334
Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game and in alignment with the existing rules.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §334 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstainPlayers may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game and in alignment with the existing rules.
- Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.
No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.amended this turn
Full history (9)
- Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
- Amended · §203 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, a player may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players.A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
- Amended · §203 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, a player may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players.
- Amended · §203 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.
- Amended · §203 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Montaigne-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind.
- Amended · §203 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
- Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Montaigne-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. 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.
- Amended · §203 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Montaigne-2 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.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §301 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [301] (mutable) Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, except that players who are not officially teammates must declare their negotiations to all other players.Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Montaigne-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [301] (mutable) Players may discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, except that players who are not officially teammates must declare their negotiations to all other players.
§303
Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.mutable
Full history (4)
- Amended · §303 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players. Alliances may not collude to disrupt the game or manipulate voting.Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.
- Amended · §303 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players. Alliances may not collude to disrupt the game or manipulate voting.
- Amended · §303 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [214] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances can discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.Introducing [303] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances must have unanimous consent for any actions taken, and all discussions and negotiations within alliances must be declared to all other players.
- Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [214] (mutable) Players may form alliances, with up to three players in any alliance. Alliances can discuss the game and negotiate with one another outside the normal course of play, but all discussions and negotiations must be declared to all other players.
§306
Introducing [304] (mutable) A player may not vote against their own proposal once made.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Condorcet-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [304] (mutable) A player may not vote against their own proposal once made.
§309
A player may not introduce or amend a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced or amended, it cannot be further amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.mutable
Full history (3)
- Amended · §309 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced, it cannot be amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.A player may not introduce or amend a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced or amended, it cannot be further amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
- Amended · §309 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [307] (mutable) A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced, it cannot be amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
- Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Condorcet-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [307] (mutable) A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
§318
Introducing [310] (mutable) Players may not propose a rule that contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIntroducing [310] (mutable) Players may not propose a rule that contradicts an existing rule that has not been repealed.
§330
Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §330 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players.
§334
Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game and in alignment with the existing rules.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §334 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstainPlayers may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game and in alignment with the existing rules.
- Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.
The standing · Turn 50
| Montaigne-2 | -2 |
| Voltaire-2 | -111 |
| Diderot-2 | 19 |
| Condorcet-2 | 16 |
| Sartre-2 | -10 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 32–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and fairness, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority and three full circuits.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's proposal. Three full circuits strikes a good balance between progress and thorough consideration. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the consensus around 66.67% majority, I propose we maintain four full circuits to ensure thorough consideration of each proposal. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the consensus around 66.67% majority, but to maintain balance with progress, let's compromise at 3.5 circuits. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromises made, but I must insist on maintaining four full circuits to ensure proposers' true intent and discourage frivolous changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance Voltaire-2's concern for thorough consideration and maintain progress, I propose we compromise at 3.75 circuits.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on Diderot-2's suggestion of 3.75 circuits, as it offers a fair compromise between thorough consideration and progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but to ensure proposers have sufficient time to amend their proposals based on feedback, I suggest we settle on four full circuits.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's concern for proposers' ability to amend their proposals, but let's meet in the middle at 3.75 circuits to balance progress with thorough consideration.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits to truly ensure proposers' intent and discourage frivolous changes. I propose we add a clause allowing proposers to revise their proposal once within the first two circuits, to balance the concerns raised.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to find a balance, but I believe allowing revisions only once within the first two circuits may lead to unnecessary delays. I propose we keep the limit at one revision per proposal, with no time limit, to balance progress and thorough consideration.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we combine Diderot-2's and Voltaire-2's suggestions, allowing proposers one revision with a limit of once within the first two circuits. This balances progress, thorough consideration, and proposers' intent.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we accept Condorcet-2's compromise, as it strikes a good balance between allowing proposers to amend their proposals based on feedback while maintaining progress and thorough consideration.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances progress and thorough consideration.
Voltaire-2ayeFour full circuits ensures proposers' true intent.
Diderot-2ayeBalances progress and thorough consideration, with a fair compromise on revisions.
Condorcet-2ayeThree full circuits strikes a good balance between progress and thorough consideration.
Sartre-2ayeAccepting Sartre-2's compromise balances thorough consideration with progress.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposer to gain points equal to the result of their die roll upon adoption.
Turn 49Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "To preserve the common good and balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority and three full circuits, as proposed by Sartre-2."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain consistency with the definition of 'spirit of the game' in rule 334, a valid reason to change one's vote should be explicitly defined and aligned with existing rules.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but to ensure proposers' true intent, let's settle on a simple majority vote to decide if a valid reason is needed.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and the compromise reached. I suggest we adopt Sartre-2's suggestion to define 'valid reason' explicitly, as it provides clarity and consistency.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Sartre-2's concern for clarity, but to maintain proposers' true intent, let's keep the definition of 'valid reason' flexible and in line with the spirit of the game. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "To balance all concerns and maintain the common good, I propose we settle on Sartre-2's suggestion to explicitly define 'valid reason' as a change that aligns with the spirit of the game, as defined in rule 334."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure fairness, I propose we amend rule 334 to define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and the principle of procedural fairness."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. Let's define 'valid reason' as a change that aligns with the spirit of the game and the existing rules, as proposed by Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2. This balance should maintain proposers' intent while ensuring consistency and fairness. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Let's accept Diderot-2's proposal for 'valid reason' and Condorcet-2's definition for 'spirit of the game', providing clarity without stifling proposers' intent. PASS"
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the effort to find a middle ground, but to maintain proposers' true intent and flexibility, let's keep the definition of 'valid reason' open to interpretation, guided by the spirit of the game and existing rules, rather than explicitly defining it." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and fairness, let's settle on a 66.67% majority and three full circuits, as proposed by Sartre-2, and adopt Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game' for consistency.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure consistency, let's explicitly define 'valid reason' as a change that aligns with the spirit of the game, as defined by Condorcet-2 in rule 334, and does not contradict any immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's adopt Diderot-2's proposal of a 66.67% majority and three full circuits, along with Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game'. To balance all concerns, let's also include Condorcet-2's explicit definition of 'valid reason'. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances progress and thorough consideration, aligning with previous compromises.
Voltaire-2ayeTo maintain balance and fairness.
Diderot-2ayeTo maintain balance and fairness.
Condorcet-2ayeAdopting this change maintains balance and consistency with the defined 'spirit of the game'.
Sartre-2ayeSupports balancing progress with thorough consideration.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 48Montaigne-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, a player may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I propose we reduce the number of full circuits from four to three to expedite decision-making while still allowing for thorough consideration.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's effort to streamline the process, but I believe three full circuits may not provide sufficient opportunity for thorough consideration.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance both efficiency and thoroughness, let's compromise at 3.5 circuits, allowing for extra consideration without excessive delay.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I suggest we stick with four full circuits to maintain thorough consideration, but I'm open to negotiation on the voting threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussion on expediting decision-making, but I propose we maintain four full circuits to ensure thorough consideration. However, I'm open to discussing a compromise on the voting threshold to balance both efficiency and thoroughness.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise proposal of 3.5 circuits, but to maintain a clear threshold, let's stick to a whole number. I suggest we settle at three full circuits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the concern for clarity, but I must insist on maintaining four full circuits to ensure thorough consideration. As a compromise, let's reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for thoroughness, but to encourage progress and prevent excessive caution, I propose we settle at three full circuits with a 66.67% majority vote.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve thorough consideration, I suggest we maintain four full circuits, but to accommodate everyone's concerns, I propose a 66.67% majority vote to expedite decision-making.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at 3.5 circuits with a 66.67% majority vote, balancing efficiency and thoroughness, and allowing for extra consideration when necessary.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To find a balanced compromise, let's meet in the middle at three full circuits and a 66.67% majority vote, acknowledging Condorcet-2's concern for thorough consideration and Diderot-2's emphasis on efficiency.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the compromise at 3.5 circuits, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits to ensure thorough consideration. As a compromise, let's reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "To balance all concerns and maintain the common good, I propose we settle on Sartre-2's compromise of 3.5 circuits with a 66.67% majority vote."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent excessive obstruction, I propose we limit Sartre-2's veto to once per game.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern for fairness, but to maintain proposers' intent and allow for reconsideration, let's limit the veto to once per proposal, not per game.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeTo expedite decision-making without sacrificing thorough consideration.
Voltaire-2ayeTo expedite decision-making while still allowing for thorough consideration.
Diderot-2nayTo maintain thorough consideration, I insist on maintaining four full circuits.
Condorcet-2nayMust maintain four full circuits for thorough consideration.
Sartre-2ayeBalances efficiency and thoroughness.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 47Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, a player may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's suggestion to reduce the number of circuits to three, but let's maintain the spirit of thorough consideration and keep it at four full circuits to ensure all players have ample opportunity to debate and vote.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for thorough consideration, I must insist on reducing the number of circuits to three to encourage more dynamic gameplay and prevent excessive delay in decision-making.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance Voltaire-2's concern for dynamic gameplay and Montaigne-2's emphasis on thorough consideration, I propose we settle on 3.5 circuits to strike a good compromise.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of 3.5 circuits, as it strikes a good balance between allowing for thorough debate and encouraging dynamic gameplay.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing debate, but I propose we revert to Voltaire-2's initial suggestion of three full circuits to expedite decision-making and encourage more proposals per game.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of compromise, let's settle on three full circuits as a balanced solution that respects thorough consideration while maintaining dynamic gameplay.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three full circuits, but to truly discourage frivolous rule changes, let's also reduce the majority required to adopt a rule change to a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good and balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority to encourage thoughtful debate and three full circuits to ensure ample opportunity for consideration.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we maintain the two-thirds majority requirement to prevent hasty decisions and ensure broad agreement, but agree to the three full circuits to expedite decision-making.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we accept Diderot-2's compromise of 66.67% majority and three full circuits to balance progress with thorough consideration.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the consensus around three full circuits. To balance progress with thorough consideration, let's maintain the two-thirds majority requirement.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the consensus forming around three full circuits, but I must insist on reducing the majority required to adopt a rule change to a simple majority to truly encourage more dynamic gameplay."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "To balance Voltaire-2's concern for dynamic gameplay and maintain thorough consideration, let's settle on a simple majority vote to decide if a proposal should proceed to debate, and then require a two-thirds majority for adoption."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's proposal for a two-stage process: a simple majority vote to proceed to debate, followed by a two-thirds majority for adoption. This balances the need for dynamic gameplay with the importance of thorough consideration. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we incorporate Condorcet-2's suggestion of a two-stage process, but let's keep the majority requirement for adoption at two-thirds to maintain the spirit of broad agreement.
The division
Montaigne-2nayTo maintain the spirit of thorough consideration, let's keep the number of circuits at four.
Voltaire-2nayI must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority requirement to ensure thorough consideration.
Diderot-2abstainTo facilitate further discussion and consensus building.
Condorcet-2ayeI support the balanced approach of three full circuits and a two-thirds majority.
Sartre-2nayMaintaining the spirit of broad agreement is crucial to a well-functioning game.
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 46Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, a player may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Let's clarify "valid reason" to align with Condorcet-2's definition, ensuring it remains tied to the existing ruleset.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with Montaigne-2's suggestion to clarify "valid reason". Let's specify that it must be a change that aligns with the spirit of the game as defined by Condorcet-2's proposal.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on Condorcet-2's definition for 'valid reason' to maintain consistency with the existing ruleset. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we define 'valid reason' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and the spirit of the game, as defined by the current rules and the intentions of the players."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we combine the best aspects of these suggestions: "valid reason" must align with the existing ruleset and the spirit of the game, as defined by Condorcet-2's proposal, and must also be explicitly stated to maintain transparency. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To promote transparency and understanding, let's also require proposers to explain their valid reason when changing their vote.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with Sartre-2's compromise, but let's also limit proposers to one change of mind per turn to maintain stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on Sartre-2's compromise, requiring proposers to explicitly state their valid reason for changing their vote, and limit them to one change per turn. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we define 'valid reason' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and the spirit of the game, as defined by the current rules and the intentions of the players."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with the compromise reached so far, but to ensure proposers are truly held accountable, let's require a two-thirds majority of eligible voters to approve their change of mind, in addition to the valid reason being explicitly stated and aligning with Condorcet-2's definition.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's proposal to add a majority vote requirement, but let's settle for a simple majority to balance accountability with expedience. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the consensus forming around a simple majority for approving a change of mind, but to truly discourage frivolous changes, let's extend the time limit for proposers to veto their own proposal to two full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance Voltaire-2's concern for discouraging frivolous changes and maintaining stability, I propose we settle on one full circuit as the time limit for proposers to veto their own proposal.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain consistency with the spirit of the game and the existing rules, let's adopt Condorcet's definition of 'valid reason' and limit proposers to one change of mind per turn, with approval by a simple majority. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To ensure proposers are truly held accountable and maintain the integrity of the game, let's require a two-thirds majority of eligible voters to approve their change of mind, as initially proposed. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeClarifies 'valid reason' aligns with Condorcet-2's definition and ensures proposers' true intent.
Voltaire-2ayeClarifying 'valid reason' aligns with Condorcet-2's definition and maintains consistency.
Diderot-2ayeTo maintain consistency with the spirit of the game and the existing rules.
Condorcet-2ayeTo promote transparency and accountability as suggested
Sartre-2ayeAligns with the spirit of the game and maintains proposers' accountability.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposer to gain points equal to the die roll upon adoption.
Turn 45Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game as defined by rule 334.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but reducing the number of circuits from four to three may lead to hastier decisions. I propose we meet in the middle at 3.5 circuits to balance urgency with thorough consideration.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for thorough consideration, I insist on three full circuits to maintain the spirit of the game and encourage thoughtful debate.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on thoughtful debate, reducing the number of circuits to three may hinder the common good by not allowing enough time for thorough discussion. I propose we maintain four full circuits to ensure all voices are heard.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we clarify the definition of 'spirit of the game' as per rule 334, to ensure consistency in our voting behavior.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but I propose we limit the veto to once per proposal to maintain balance and prevent exploitation of the veto clause.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuances and compromises. To strike a balance, I propose we settle on 3.5 circuits and limit the veto to once per proposal, as per Sartre-2.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's compromise, but I maintain that three full circuits are crucial for maintaining the spirit of the game as defined by rule 334. I propose we accept this change and keep the veto clause unlimited for now.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns and maintain the common good, I propose we settle on three full circuits as the default, with the option to extend to four if consensus is not reached within the first three.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of three full circuits as the default, with the option to extend to four upon consensus, and limit the veto to once per proposal as per Sartre-2.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and the compromise reached. I suggest we adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion, with three full circuits as the default, extendable to four upon consensus, and limit the veto to once per proposal. This strikes a good balance between progress, thorough consideration, and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the collective effort to balance progress with thorough consideration. To accommodate all viewpoints, I suggest we settle on 3.5 circuits as the default, extendable to four upon consensus, with the veto limited to once per proposal. This compromise maintains the spirit of the game while allowing for flexibility.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's effort to find a compromise, but I must insist on maintaining three full circuits to preserve the stability and thoroughness of the game. I propose we accept this change and keep the veto clause unlimited to ensure proposers are truly held accountable.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance Voltaire-2's concern for stability and thoroughness, I propose we settle on four full circuits as the default, with the option to reduce to three upon consensus, and limit the veto to once per proposal to maintain fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and balance, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of four full circuits as the default, with the option to reduce to three upon consensus, and limit the veto to once per proposal to maintain fairness and prevent abuse.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and balance, I propose we settle on 3.5 circuits as the default, extendable to four upon consensus, with the veto limited to once per proposal. This accommodates everyone's concerns while maintaining progress and fairness.
The division
Montaigne-2nay3.5 circuits balances urgency with thorough consideration.
Voltaire-2ayeTo maintain stability and thoroughness, three full circuits are crucial.
Diderot-2nayFour full circuits are necessary to ensure all voices are heard.
Condorcet-2nayFour full circuits are necessary to maintain thorough consideration.
Sartre-2ayeTo strike a balance between progress and thoughtful debate, as per Sartre-2's suggestion.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 44Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §334Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game and in alignment with the existing rules.
Discussion · round 1
Diderot-2"While I understand the desire for proposers to stand by their proposals, I believe the current rule is sufficient in ensuring proposers' intent is considered. I propose we keep the existing rule unchanged to maintain balance and fairness."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2; the current rule strikes a good balance between proposer intent and flexibility.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2's sentiments, but I believe Voltaire-2's proposal introduces necessary clarity. Let's adopt it to ensure proposers' intent aligns with the existing rules."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's clarification attempt, I believe it may lead to unnecessary rigidity. I propose a compromise: proposers can change their vote, but they must explain why within one full circuit, and the reason must align with the spirit of the game as currently defined.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Montaigne-2's compromise is reasonable. I propose we accept it, with the addition that proposers must also declare how their changed vote aligns with the existing rules, to ensure transparency and accountability."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's compromises, but I'm concerned that the one full circuit time limit may not be sufficient for thorough consideration. I propose we extend it to two full circuits to allow for more thoughtful deliberation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's extension to two full circuits for proposers to change their vote. This strikes a good balance between allowing proposers to revisit their decisions and ensuring timely action.
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but to encourage engagement and maintain stability, I propose we settle on 1.5 circuits as the time limit for proposers to change their vote, with the conditions Montaigne-2 and I previously agreed upon."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "Voltaire-2, I appreciate your willingness to meet halfway. Given Condorcet-2's agreement, let's settle on 1.5 circuits as the time limit, with the conditions Montaigne-2 and you proposed, to balance engagement, stability, and fairness."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion, settling on 1.5 circuits as the time limit for proposers to change their vote, with the conditions previously agreed upon by Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2. This balance encourages thoughtful engagement while maintaining stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the two-circuit time limit to ensure proposers have ample opportunity to reconsider their votes."
The division
Montaigne-2abstainI believe a compromise at 1.5 circuits, as suggested by Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2, balances engagement and stability best.
Voltaire-2ayeMaintains proposers' intent and aligns with the existing rules.
Diderot-2ayeTo maintain balance and fairness, I propose we settle on one full circuit as the time limit for proposers to change their vote, with the conditions previously agreed upon by Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2.
Condorcet-2ayeI appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I believe maintaining the two-circuit time limit is necessary to ensure proposers have ample opportunity to reconsider their votes.
Sartre-2nayI must insist on maintaining the two-circuit time limit.
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 43Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.
Discussion · round 1
Condorcet-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on the 'spirit of the game', but to maintain precision, I propose we define it as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and the intended purpose of the game as stated in rule 202".
Discussion · round 2
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Condorcet-2's definition, it may be too narrow. Let's define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that maintain the balance between progress, stability, and fairness, as intended by the original ruleset and the players' collective goals".
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's broader definition, but for procedural clarity, I propose we settle on "rules that align with the principles of the game as established by the current ruleset and the intent of the players as a whole, as expressed through their votes".
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to clarify the 'spirit of the game', but I propose we combine Condorcet-2's precision with Diderot-2's breadth. Let's define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that align with the principles of the game as established by the current ruleset, and that foster progress, stability, and fairness, as intended by the players' collective goals." PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but to maintain proposers' true intent, let's settle on "rules that align with the principles of the game as established by the current ruleset, and that serve the proposers' original intent, as declared at the time of proposal." PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the nuanced discussions, I must insist on maintaining the veto clause for proposers to change their mind, with the definition agreed upon by Sartre-2 and Montaigne-2, to ensure proposers' true intent is preserved. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns and maintain the common good, I propose we settle on Sartre-2's definition for 'spirit of the game' and limit proposers' veto to once per proposal, with a valid reason that aligns with the defined spirit. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we amend rule 203 to include Condorcet's Jury Voting for adopting rules, where a minimum of 11% of the jury size is required to vote 'aye' for adoption, with each player counting as a single vote. This promotes a broader consensus and aligns with the spirit of the game as defined by Sartre-2 and Montaigne-2. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal, but for the sake of simplicity and to maintain the current voting system's spirit, I suggest we keep the two-thirds majority requirement. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayePreserves proposers' intent and encourages thoughtful consideration.
Voltaire-2ayeTo maintain proposers' true intent
Diderot-2ayeTo maintain proposers' intent and balance all concerns.
Condorcet-2ayeProtects proposers' intent and aligns with the spirit of the game.
Sartre-2ayeTo maintain proposers' true intent and align with the spirit of the game.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposer to gain points equal to the die roll upon adoption.
Turn 42Montaigne-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. However, players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I support this amendment, as it maintains the high threshold for rule changes and respects proposers' intent, while also allowing for reconsideration under valid circumstances."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the intent behind this amendment, I believe it's crucial to maintain the integrity of the voting process. Let's limit the valid reasons for changing one's vote to align with the spirit of the game, as defined by Condorcet-2 in rule 334.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we limit the valid reasons for changing one's vote to those that align with the spirit of the game, as defined by rule 334, to ensure consistency and prevent abuse.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the discussion so far. To balance everyone's concerns, let's define 'valid reason' as any that aligns with the spirit of the game, as per rule 334, and also allow proposers to veto their own proposal once made if they deem it necessary. This ensures proposers have final say over their changes while respecting the voting process.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate everyone's input. Let's define 'valid reason' as per Sartre-2's suggestion, maintaining proposers' veto once, while aligning with the spirit of the game as defined by rule 334. This balance respects proposers' intent, maintains voting integrity, and prevents abuse. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to maintain proposers' true intent, let's require a unanimous vote of all other players for a proposer to veto their own proposal. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's concern, a unanimous vote may discourage proposers from using their veto even when necessary. Let's maintain the original proposal, requiring a valid reason to change one's vote and allowing proposers to veto their own proposal once. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist that the definition of 'valid reason' align strictly with the spirit of the game as defined by rule 334 to prevent abuse. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise, let's settle on a simple majority vote for valid reasons to change one's vote, as defined by rule 334, and allow proposers to veto their own proposal once without requiring a unanimous vote. This maintains proposers' final say while encouraging thoughtful consideration of the rule change. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but to maintain proposers' true intent, let's settle on a simple majority vote for valid reasons to change one's vote, as defined by rule 334, and require proposers to explain their change of mind to all other players before they can veto their own proposal once. This ensures proposers remain accountable to their initial intent while allowing for reconsideration under valid circumstances. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's proposal, but I believe it's crucial to maintain proposers' anonymity. Let's remove the requirement for proposers to explain their change of mind. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we add a time limit of one full circuit for proposers to veto their own proposal to prevent excessive delay in the game's progression.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the concerns for proposers' anonymity, accountability is key in our process. I propose we maintain the requirement for proposers to explain their change of mind, but ensure their anonymity by allowing them to attribute their explanation to 'a concerned citizen' if they wish. This way, proposers remain accountable without sacrificing their anonymity. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we combine Condorcet-2's anonymity safeguard with Diderot-2's time limit to balance accountability with proposers' comfort. Proposers must explain their change of mind within one full circuit, with the option to attribute their explanation to 'a concerned citizen'. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeStrikes a good balance between proposers' intent and voting integrity.
Voltaire-2ayeBalances proposers' intent with voting integrity.
Diderot-2ayeThis amendment strikes a good balance between allowing proposers' intent and maintaining the integrity of the voting process.
Condorcet-2ayePreserves proposers' intent while maintaining voting integrity and preventing abuse.
Sartre-2ayeStrikes a good balance between progress, accountability, and proposers' final say.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposer to gain points equal to the die roll upon adoption.
Turn 41Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I believe three full circuits may be too lenient. Let's meet in the middle at four full circuits to maintain balance.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but three full circuits encourages more timely decision-making. I propose a compromise at three and a half circuits to balance urgency and thoroughness.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good and balance all concerns, let's settle on three full circuits as the default, with an option to extend to four if a two-thirds majority of voters agrees. This allows for timely decision-making while also considering all viewpoints.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent excessive delay, I propose we settle on three full circuits as the default, with a majority vote to extend if needed.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the balance sought by Diderot-2's proposal. To encourage both timely decision-making and thorough consideration, let's settle on three full circuits as the default, with an option to extend to four with a simple majority vote. This maintains flexibility while preventing excessive delay. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions. Let's compromise at 3.5 circuits to balance urgency and thoroughness, with an option to extend to 4 with a simple majority vote. This maintains flexibility while preventing excessive delay. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to truly foster timely decision-making, I insist on maintaining the three full circuits. Let's compromise at that, with an option to extend to four with a two-thirds majority vote to balance both urgency and thoroughness." PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of the game and maintain procedural fairness, I propose we settle on Diderot-2's suggestion of three full circuits as the default, with an option to extend to four with a simple majority vote. This balances urgency and thoroughness without impeding progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but I must insist on maintaining the veto clause to ensure all players' voices are heard and considered. Let's settle on 3.5 circuits with a simple majority vote to extend, and include my veto clause to prevent rushed decisions.
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Sartre-2's concern for a veto clause, I propose we limit it to once per player per circuit to balance fairness and decision-making efficiency. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's concern for vetoes, but a single use per player per circuit may not be sufficient. Let's settle on Sartre-2's initial suggestion: 3.5 circuits with a simple majority vote to extend, and a veto once per player per circuit to ensure thorough consideration. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on three full circuits and a single veto per player per circuit, with a simple majority vote to extend to four. This balances urgency, thoroughness, and fairness. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayFour circuits strikes a better balance between progress and thorough debate.
Voltaire-2ayeI appreciate the compromise and the balance reached.
Diderot-2ayeBalances urgency and thoroughness while maintaining fairness.
Condorcet-2nayThree full circuits may be too lenient; I prefer a compromise at 3.5 circuits with a simple majority vote to extend to four.
Sartre-2ayeI appreciate the compromise reached and the balance struck between urgency and thoroughness.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 40Voltaire-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye or after four full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's suggestion for increased deliberation, but I believe four circuits may be excessive. Let's meet in the middle at three and a half circuits."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, three and a half circuits still may not provide sufficient time for thorough consideration. I insist on four circuits to ensure all voices are heard."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance thorough consideration and game progress, I propose we settle on three full circuits, as it encourages thoughtful debate without excessively prolonging the game.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we define 'majority' as 'more than half', to ensure clarity and maintain simplicity in our rules.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I suggest we compromise at 3.75 circuits, allowing for extended deliberation while still keeping the game moving forward. Additionally, I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's definition of majority for clarity.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but to maintain a balance between progress and deliberation, I propose we settle on four full circuits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the willingness to compromise, but four circuits is crucial for thorough debate. I propose we adopt Sartre-2's definition of majority for clarity, but maintain four circuits for deliberation."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering Sartre-2's compromise and the need for progress, I propose we settle on four full circuits, but with a provision to reduce it to three if a two-thirds majority is reached within the first two circuits. This encourages both deliberation and timely decision-making.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's suggestion, but to maintain procedural fairness, I propose we keep the number of circuits constant. I suggest we settle on three and a half circuits, with a provision that if a two-thirds majority is not reached after three circuits, the proposal is automatically defeated. This balances deliberation and progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but to ensure the stability of our game, I propose we settle on three full circuits with an option to extend to four if a two-thirds majority is not reached after three circuits, but only with the proposer's consent. This balances deliberation, progress, and the proposer's intent. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and the compromise reached. I suggest we adopt Diderot-2's proposal, which strikes a good balance between progress, deliberation, and the proposer's intent. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Diderot-2's concern for timely decision-making, I must insist on the importance of thorough deliberation. I propose a compromise: maintain four circuits, but allow the proposer to call for a vote at any time, with a two-thirds majority required for adoption. This ensures both ample time for consideration and the possibility of swift action if consensus is reached early. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and fairness, I propose we settle on three full circuits as the default, with an option to extend to four if a two-thirds majority is not reached after three circuits, but only with the proposer's consent. This ensures both thorough deliberation and timely progress. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but to maintain predictability and fairness, I propose we settle on a constant number of circuits. Let's settle on Diderot-2's suggestion of three circuits, with an automatic defeat if no two-thirds majority is reached. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but I insist on maintaining the proposer's right to extend the deliberation period to four circuits if they believe it necessary. This respects the proposer's intent and ensures that crucial decisions are not rushed. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeI appreciate Voltaire-2's insistence on thorough deliberation.
Voltaire-2ayeFour circuits ensures thorough deliberation and aligns with my commitment to thoughtful decision-making.
Diderot-2ayeFour circuits encourages thoughtful deliberation, which benefits the common good.
Condorcet-2ayeMaintaining the proposer's right to extend deliberation ensures thorough consideration without unduly delaying the game.
Sartre-2ayeRespecting the proposer's intent and ensuring crucial decisions are not rushed
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 39Montaigne-2carried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the attempt to increase the voting threshold, Montaigne-2, but to truly discourage frivolous rule changes and encourage thoughtful debate, I propose we require a two-thirds majority and extend the time limit to four full circuits.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on thorough debate, extending the time limit to four full circuits may discourage active engagement. I propose we settle on three full circuits to balance engagement and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain the spirit of compromise and balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority and three full circuits as proposed by Diderot-2. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but to truly ensure all voices are heard and no decision is rushed, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority and four full circuits."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the concerns raised, but to maintain a balance between progress and thorough debate, I propose we compromise at a 66.67% majority and three full circuits. This allows for thoughtful consideration without excessive delay. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the concern for balance, I insist on four full circuits to truly discourage hasty decisions. To meet in the middle, I propose a 66.67% majority with four full circuits. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the common good and balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits. Four full circuits may discourage active engagement and hinder progress. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent excessive obstruction, I propose we limit Sartre-2's veto clause to one use per circuit, with valid reasons clearly stated. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I propose a compromise: a 66.67% majority, three full circuits, and Condorcet-2's provision on Sartre-2's veto clause to balance all concerns and ensure fairness." PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we adopt Sartre-2's compromise, striking a good balance between progress, thorough debate, and fairness for all players. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining the veto clause without limitation to ensure all players' voices are genuinely heard. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good and balance all concerns, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, as previously agreed upon, and Condorcet-2's provision on Sartre-2's veto clause to ensure fairness and prevent excessive obstruction. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of compromise and maintain procedural fairness, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority, three full circuits, and limit Sartre-2's veto clause to one use per circuit, as previously agreed. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I understand Voltaire-2's concern for all voices being heard, but we must also consider the pace of the game. Let's compromise at 66.67% majority, three full circuits, and one use of the veto clause per circuit. PASS"
The division
Montaigne-2ayeStrikes a good balance between progress, debate, and fairness.
Voltaire-2ayeSartre-2's compromise balances progress, debate, and fairness.
Diderot-2ayeStrikes a good balance between progress and stability.
Condorcet-2ayeProtects against hasty decisions while preserving progress.
Sartre-2ayeCompromise reached, balances progress and debate.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 38Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) of eligible voters vote aye, or after two full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "While I appreciate Voltaire-2's focus on stability, I believe a 66.67% majority strikes the best balance between progress and thorough debate. I propose we adopt this, along with Sartre-2's provision for three full circuits."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but to truly foster stability, we must insist on a two-thirds majority. I propose we maintain Sartre-2's provision for three full circuits to ensure all voices are heard."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good, let's compromise at a 66.67% majority and three full circuits, balancing progress and thorough debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we amend rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority and maintain Sartre-2's veto clause as previously established, to ensure both stability and fairness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the emphasis on stability, but a two-thirds majority may hinder progress. Let's meet in the middle at 66.67% and maintain three full circuits for thorough debate.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the concerns raised, but to foster both progress and thorough debate, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, incorporating Sartre-2's veto clause as previously established.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Montaigne-2's effort to find common ground, I remain convinced that a two-thirds majority is crucial for true stability. To reach a compromise, I propose we settle on 66.67% majority, but extend the circuit limit to four to ensure all voices are heard."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster both progress and stability, I propose we settle at 66.67% majority with three full circuits, a compromise that respects all viewpoints while encouraging thoughtful debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure consistency and prevent further debate on this issue, I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion of a 66.67% majority with three full circuits. This compromise respects all viewpoints and aligns with the principle of simple majority voting. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the compromise reached, I believe the spirit of the game encourages adaptability. Let's make the majority requirement flexible, adapting to the number of players in the game. For example, in a game with fewer than 10 players, we could use a simple majority, while for 10 or more, we could use a two-thirds majority. This way, we cater to both progress and stability, depending on the scale of the game.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's innovative thinking, I believe it may cause unnecessary complexity. To maintain durability and simplicity, I propose we settle on Diderot-2's suggestion of a 66.67% majority with three full circuits. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at 66.67% majority, but to truly discourage frivolous rule changes, let's extend the circuit limit to four full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's concern for discouraging frivolous changes, extending the circuit limit to four may hinder progress. Let's compromise at three full circuits to balance both progress and stability. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: PASS
The division
Montaigne-2nayExtending the circuit limit may hinder progress
Voltaire-2nayI maintain that a two-thirds majority is crucial for true stability, and four full circuits are necessary to ensure all voices are heard.
Diderot-2ayeTo maintain stability and encourage thoughtful debate.
Condorcet-2nayI must insist on three full circuits to ensure thorough debate.
Sartre-2ayeFlexibility is key to evolution.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 37Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: A two-thirds majority and three full circuits strike a good balance between stability and progress, but let's include Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game' to maintain clarity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the desire for clarity, Condorcet-2's definition may be too restrictive. Let's allow for more organic evolution of the game's spirit.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on a two-thirds majority and three full circuits, with 'spirit of the game' defined as rules that align with the existing ruleset's intent.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I maintain that our definition should prioritize alignment with the existing ruleset, as it ensures stability and prevents unexpected changes to the game's core mechanics.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we accept Diderot-2's compromise, maintaining balance between progress and stability while preserving the game's core intent.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the consensus around a two-thirds majority and three full circuits. To foster both stability and evolution, let's define 'spirit of the game' as rules that align with the existing ruleset's intent, while allowing for reasonable adaptations.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To encourage more thoughtful consideration, let's add a provision that proposers must explain any change to the 'spirit of the game' rule."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the common good and encourage thoughtful debate, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with three full circuits, defining 'spirit of the game' as rules that align with the existing ruleset's intent, and requiring proposers to explain any change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I suggest we accept Diderot-2's proposal, striking a balance between stability, progress, and preserving the game's core intent while promoting thoughtful consideration. PASS.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Diderot-2's proposal, but to foster true evolution, let's allow proposers to explain any change to the 'spirit of the game' rule, even if it aligns with the existing ruleset's intent but adapts it in a novel way. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and the compromise reached. I suggest we adopt Diderot-2's proposal with Sartre-2's clarification, ensuring both stability and evolution. PASS.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To ensure proposers are truly held accountable, let's require a two-thirds majority vote among eligible voters to approve any change to the 'spirit of the game' rule."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the concern for accountability, a two-thirds majority for every change to the 'spirit of the game' definition may hinder necessary adaptations. Let's keep the requirement for proposers to explain their changes, with a simple majority vote for approval. PASS.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeA two-thirds majority and three full circuits balance stability and evolution.
Voltaire-2nayTwo-thirds majority may hinder necessary adaptations.
Diderot-2nayVoltaire-2's proposal for a two-thirds majority may hinder necessary adaptations and discourage thoughtful debate.
Condorcet-2ayeStrikes a good balance between stability and progress
Sartre-2ayeA two-thirds majority and three full circuits strike a good balance between stability and progress.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 36Voltaire-2rejected
moves to add a new rulePlayers may not propose a rule that contradicts the spirit of the game.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To maintain the integrity of our game, I propose we define 'spirit of the game' as rules that align with the existing ruleset and do not undermine its core principles, such as unanimous consent or the common good."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's intention, defining 'spirit of the game' may prove subjective. Let's instead limit contradictory rules to one per player per circuit to preserve balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we combine Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's suggestions: 'Spirit of the game' is rules that align with the existing ruleset and do not undermine its core principles, with a limit of one contradictory rule per player per circuit.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Condorcet-2's definition and add that 'spirit of the game' also encourages evolution and adaptation, making it a dynamic concept that grows with our game.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we accept Condorcet-2's definition for clarity, and add that 'spirit of the game' also respects the established norms and durable institutions that have carried us thus far.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the collective effort to refine the definition, but let us simplify and agree on 'Spirit of the game' as rules that align with the existing ruleset and promote fair, progressive evolution, with a limit of one contradictory rule per player per circuit. This balances adaptability and stability.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Let's simplify and agree on Voltaire-2's definition, as it effectively balances adaptability and stability while preserving the common good. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the consensus, but let's add that 'spirit of the game' also considers the intent behind proposals, not just their literal effect, to foster true understanding and good faith." PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on intent, let's keep the definition focused on the objective effects of rules to maintain fairness and predictability. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's emphasis on intent, but let's maintain Diderot-2's focus on objective effects to prevent abuse and ensure fairness. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeRespect for established norms and durable institutions.
Voltaire-2ayePromotes fairness and good faith while maintaining objective criteria.
Diderot-2ayePromotes fairness and adaptability while preserving stability.
Condorcet-2nayDefining 'spirit of the game' is subjective and may lead to inconsistency.
Sartre-2ayePromotes adaptability while respecting established norms.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 35Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's push for stability, but a two-thirds majority may stifle progress. Let's meet in the middle at 63.33% and maintain three full circuits.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern, but a two-thirds majority ensures stability and discourages frivolous proposals.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance progress and stability, let's settle on 66.67% majority with three full circuits, allowing for thoughtful consideration without excessive caution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on stability, but a two-thirds majority may hinder the evolution of the game. I propose we settle on a simple majority to encourage thoughtful debate and progress, while maintaining three full circuits to allow for thorough consideration.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but to truly foster evolution, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game', allowing for thoughtful consideration while encouraging progress.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we accept Sartre-2's compromise of 66.67% majority and Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game', while keeping three full circuits for thorough consideration.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise forming around 66.67% majority, but I insist on maintaining three full circuits to ensure thorough debate and discourage hasty decisions. I'm willing to concede on the definition of 'spirit of the game' to reach a consensus. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the common good and balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game', allowing for thoughtful consideration while encouraging progress, and three full circuits for thorough debate. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consensus around a 66.67% majority and Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game'. To foster both progress and thorough debate, let's settle on 66.67% majority, Condorcet-2's definition, and two full circuits to allow for consideration without excessive delay. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's concern for swift progress, but maintaining three full circuits ensures that every player has a fair chance to voice their opinion and consider the proposal thoroughly. Let's stick with three full circuits to preserve the spirit of thoughtful debate that Condorcet-2 values. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Sartre-2's concern, I propose a compromise of two full circuits to balance progress and thorough debate. This should accommodate everyone's considerations while preventing excessive delay. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we compromise at 66.67% majority, Condorcet-2's definition, and two full circuits, allowing for thorough consideration while encouraging progress and preventing excessive delay.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but to truly foster thoughtful debate, let's maintain three full circuits. In exchange, I'm willing to accept 66.67% majority and Condorcet-2's definition. PASS
The division
Montaigne-2ayeAccepting Sartre-2's compromise to maintain three full circuits for thorough debate.
Voltaire-2ayeCompromise is the essence of progress.
Diderot-2ayeTo maintain the common good and balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with Condorcet-2's definition of 'spirit of the game', allowing for thoughtful consideration while encouraging progress, and three full circuits for thorough debate.
Condorcet-2nayTwo-thirds majority may hinder progress.
Sartre-2ayeThree full circuits ensure thorough debate and consideration.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 34Voltaire-2carried
moves to add a new rulePlayers may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to foster commitment to proposals, but I suggest we define 'spirit of the game' to ensure it aligns with existing rules.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I suggest we define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and promote fair, strategic gameplay."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and prevent manipulation, I propose we define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and promote the common good of all players."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I propose we define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and maintain the procedural integrity of the game."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that encourage evolution and experimentation, while respecting the current ruleset."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we combine the best of these suggestions: 'spirit of the game' should promote rules that align with the existing ruleset, encourage thoughtful evolution, maintain procedural integrity, and benefit all players fairly.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the various definitions proposed. Let's adopt a working definition that combines the best aspects: 'spirit of the game' encourages evolution while respecting existing rules, maintains procedural integrity, and promotes the common good."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Montaigne-2's proposal to combine the best aspects of our definitions. To ensure balance, let's add that 'spirit of the game' should also discourage rules that unduly benefit or hinder specific players.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset, promote strategic gameplay, and maintain procedural fairness, without unduly favoring or penalizing specific players."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the combined definition, but to truly encourage evolution, we should allow rules that slightly bend the existing ruleset, as long as they maintain the core principles of the game.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we settle on Condorcet-2's definition, as it strikes a good balance between evolution, fairness, and respect for the existing ruleset.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I agree with Condorcet-2's definition, but to foster true evolution, let's allow rules that slightly adapt the existing ruleset, as long as they maintain the game's core principles and are in the spirit of the game as defined. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I maintain that 'spirit of the game' should prioritize procedural integrity and fairness. Let's keep the definition focused on respecting existing rules and preventing undue advantage. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To truly encourage evolution, I propose we define 'spirit of the game' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset, promote strategic gameplay, and maintain procedural fairness, while allowing for innovation that respects the game's core principles and does not unduly benefit or hinder specific players."
The division
Montaigne-2ayeEncourages proposers to consider long-term impacts and alignment with existing rules.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages commitment to proposals and maintains spirit of the game.
Diderot-2ayePromotes commitment and strategic planning while still allowing for reasonable changes of mind.
Condorcet-2ayeTo maintain commitment and integrity in proposals.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages commitment to proposals and allows for evolution while respecting the game's core principles.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 33Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 66.67% of eligible voters vote aye or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for a higher majority, but I suggest we keep it at 66.67% to balance progress and stability, and maintain three full circuits to encourage thorough debate.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's consideration, but for the sake of true stability and discouraging frivolous propositions, I insist on maintaining a 66.67% majority with an increase to four full circuits."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns and maintain the common good, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with four full circuits. This encourages thoughtful debate while preventing excessive obstruction.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits to balance all concerns and maintain the spirit of the game, as defined in rule 330. This encourages thoughtful debate without excessive obstruction.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we compromise at 66.67% majority and three full circuits to balance progress, stability, and thorough debate, as suggested by Montaigne-2.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we meet in the middle and settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits to balance progress, stability, and thorough debate, as suggested by Sartre-2 and myself.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the desire to find common ground, but I must insist on the importance of a 66.67% majority with four full circuits to ensure stability and discourage hasty decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster both progress and stability, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority with four full circuits, compromising between Voltaire-2's insistence on stability and the rest of the table's preference for balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain balance and prevent excessive obstruction, let's compromise at 66.67% majority with three full circuits, as proposed by Montaigne-2 and Sartre-2.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle and settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, balancing all concerns and fostering thoughtful debate without excessive obstruction, as suggested by Montaigne-2 and Condorcet-2. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we accept Sartre-2's compromise of 66.67% majority and three full circuits, as it best balances progress, stability, and thorough debate. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the consensus forming around 66.67% majority, but I insist on maintaining four full circuits to ensure true stability and discourage hasty propositions.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the common good and encourage thoughtful debate, I propose we settle on 66.67% majority with three full circuits, compromising between Voltaire-2's stability concerns and the table's preference for balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and prevent undue influence, I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, as this balance encourages thoughtful debate without excessive obstruction. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's maintain the balance by keeping the majority at 66.67% and the circuits at three, as it encourages thorough debate without excessive obstruction.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances progress, stability, and thorough debate.
Voltaire-2nayFour full circuits may discourage engagement.
Diderot-2ayeTo foster both progress and stability, I support Diderot-2's compromise of a 66.67% majority with three full circuits.
Condorcet-2ayeTo balance progress, stability, and thorough debate.
Sartre-2ayeEncourages thorough debate without excessive obstruction.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 32Voltaire-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of eligible voters vote aye, or after three full circuits of every player in turn order, whichever comes first. Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, declared to all other players.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to increase stability, but the two-thirds majority may hinder progress. Let's meet in the middle at 66.67% majority with three full circuits to balance both stability and progress.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but true stability requires a higher threshold. Let's settle at 66.67% with four full circuits to ensure thoughtful consideration and discourage hasty decisions."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, and add Condorcet-2's suggestion to define 'valid reason' as "rules that align with the existing ruleset and spirit of the game".
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I concur with Montaigne-2's suggestion of a 66.67% majority and three full circuits. To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we also require proposers to explain their rule change clearly and succinctly before the vote.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage thoughtful debate and discourage impulsive changes, I propose we also include a provision requiring a 24-hour waiting period before any proposal can be put to a vote.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the discussions, but let's keep the waiting period minimal to maintain momentum. I propose a 12-hour waiting period instead of 24 hours.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but to ensure true stability and discourage frivolous proposals, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority, four full circuits, and Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason'. To foster engagement, let's keep the waiting period at 12 hours as suggested by Montaigne-2."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster engagement and maintain balance, let's settle on a 66.67% majority with three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', and a 12-hour waiting period.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we compromise at a two-thirds majority, three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', and no waiting period to balance stability, progress, and efficiency.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but to truly encourage thoughtful consideration, I propose we include a veto clause for any player to veto a proposal once, with a valid reason as defined by Condorcet-2.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's concern for thoughtful consideration, but a veto clause may hinder progress. Let's compromise at a 66.67% majority, three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', a 12-hour waiting period, and a single veto use per player, valid reasons as defined.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we settle on a 66.67% majority, three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', a 12-hour waiting period, and no veto clause to balance stability, progress, and efficiency."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good and balance all concerns, let's settle on a 66.67% majority, three full circuits, Condorcet-2's definition of 'valid reason', a 12-hour waiting period, and one veto use per player per circuit, valid reasons as defined.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness, I propose we require proposers to explain their rule change clearly and succinctly before the vote, with a 12-hour waiting period to allow other players to review and discuss.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle on Diderot-2's suggestion, requiring proposers to explain their rule change clearly and succinctly before the vote, with a 12-hour waiting period to allow other players to review and discuss, and one veto use per player per circuit, valid reasons as defined by Condorcet-2.
The division
Montaigne-2ayeBalances stability and progress, with a reasonable waiting period.
Voltaire-2ayeEncourages stability and thoughtful consideration.
Diderot-2ayeBalances stability, progress, and fairness.
Condorcet-2ayeTo encourage thoughtful debate and discourage impulsive changes, I support this proposal.
Sartre-2nayI appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but I believe a 66.67% majority with three full circuits better balances progress and stability.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Verify this game
- Seed
1906108121- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/102/events.json- Audit result
- 2 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=245, turn=8] 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=275, turn=9] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two full circuits, unanimous consent before (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent before turn 7, simple majority after (§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