§ The Statute

judge: mistral-nemo-12bdevelopment era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Montaigne-2, Voltaire-2, Diderot-2, Condorcet-2, Sartre-2

The busiest table in the whole comparison, and its clearest single leader.

Observations

Thirty-four rule changes — more than any other game in this run — carried the table to the turn cap. Voltaire-2 pulled away to 65 points, comfortably the table's best finish, while three tablemates closed within a few points of zero and only Diderot-2 slipped slightly negative.

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 · §304 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay

217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a whole number between 75 and 125, inclusive.

In force42 Full register42

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 0
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.

§102

Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §102 Turn 0
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.

§103

A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §103 Turn 0
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.

§104

Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §104 Turn 0
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

§105

Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §105 Turn 0
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.

§106

A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §106 Turn 0
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.

§107

A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §107 Turn 0
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.

§108

Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §108 Turn 0
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.

§109

Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §109 Turn 0
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.

§110

Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §110 Turn 0
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.

§111

Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §111 Turn 0
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.

§112

The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §112 Turn 0
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.

§113

Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §113 Turn 0
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.

§114

At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §114 Turn 0
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.

§115

A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §115 Turn 0
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.

§116

Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §116 Turn 0
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.

Mutable — amendable by play

§201

Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §201 Turn 0
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

§202

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §202 Turn 0
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.

§203

A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §203 Turn 0
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

§204

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

Full history (1)

Enacted · §204 Turn 0
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

§205

An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §205 Turn 0
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

§206

A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §206 Turn 0
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

§207

Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §207 Turn 0
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.

§208

The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §208 Turn 0
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

§209

The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §209 Turn 0
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.

§210

Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §210 Turn 0
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.

§211

If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §211 Turn 0
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.

§212

Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §212 Turn 0
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.

§213

If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §213 Turn 0
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301

§301

214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made. 215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule. 216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made. 217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.

Full history (2)

Amended · §301 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule.214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made. 215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule. 216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made. 217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.
Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Montaigne-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule.

§302

215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule.

§303

216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score.

§304

217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a whole number between 75 and 125, inclusive.amended this turn

Full history (15)

Amended · §304 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a whole number between 75 and 125, inclusive.
Amended · §304 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Amended · §304 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Amended · §304 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect after a lock-in period of 1 turn.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Amended · §304 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 1 turn.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect after a lock-in period of 1 turn.
Amended · §304 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 2 turns.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 1 turn.
Amended · §304 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §304 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §304 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.
Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.

§311

218 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 3 turns.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §311 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
218 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 3 turns.

§312

219 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 3 turns.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
219 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 3 turns.

§314

220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players and voted on by a 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.

Full history (6)

Amended · §314 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players and voted on by a 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §314 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §314 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §314 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §314 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a unanimous vote. The new turn order takes effect immediately upon adoption.220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a unanimous vote. The new turn order takes effect immediately upon adoption.

§316

221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 2 and 4. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the eligible voters requirement can be made.

Full history (2)

Amended · §316 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 1 and the total number of players. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the eligible voters requirement can be made.221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 2 and 4. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the eligible voters requirement can be made.
Enacted · §316 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 1 and the total number of players. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the eligible voters requirement can be made.

§325

222 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §325 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
222 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made.

§327

223 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: supermajority (2/3) or unanimous. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §327 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
223 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: supermajority (2/3) or unanimous. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made.

§332

224 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players and voted on by a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect immediately.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §332 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Condorcet-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
224 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players and voted on by a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect immediately.

§333

225 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the maximum number of mutable rules. The new maximum must be a number between 10 and 50. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule, the maximum number of mutable rules is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the maximum number of mutable rules can be made.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §333 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
225 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the maximum number of mutable rules. The new maximum must be a number between 10 and 50. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule, the maximum number of mutable rules is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the maximum number of mutable rules can be made.

§336

226 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be a supermajority requirement with a minimum threshold of 2/3 and a maximum threshold of 5/6.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
226 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be a supermajority requirement with a minimum threshold of 2/3 and a maximum threshold of 5/6.

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 0
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.

§102

Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §102 Turn 0
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.

§103

A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §103 Turn 0
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.

§104

Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §104 Turn 0
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

§105

Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §105 Turn 0
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.

§106

A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §106 Turn 0
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.

§107

A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §107 Turn 0
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.

§108

Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §108 Turn 0
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.

§109

Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §109 Turn 0
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.

§110

Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §110 Turn 0
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.

§111

Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §111 Turn 0
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.

§112

The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §112 Turn 0
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.

§113

Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §113 Turn 0
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.

§114

At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §114 Turn 0
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.

§115

A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §115 Turn 0
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.

§116

Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §116 Turn 0
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.

§201

Full history (1)

Enacted · §201 Turn 0
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

§202

Full history (1)

Enacted · §202 Turn 0
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.

§203

Full history (1)

Enacted · §203 Turn 0
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

§204

Full history (1)

Enacted · §204 Turn 0
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

§205

An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §205 Turn 0
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

§206

Full history (1)

Enacted · §206 Turn 0
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

§207

Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §207 Turn 0
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.

§208

The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §208 Turn 0
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

§209

The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §209 Turn 0
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.

§210

Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §210 Turn 0
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.

§211

If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §211 Turn 0
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.

§212

Full history (1)

Enacted · §212 Turn 0
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.

§213

Full history (1)

Enacted · §213 Turn 0
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301

§301

Full history (2)

Amended · §301 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule.214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made. 215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule. 216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made. 217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.
Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Montaigne-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
214 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: unanimous, majority, or supermajority (2/3). The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule.

§302

215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
215 (mutable) Players may not propose a rule change that would make it impossible to change the voting rule.

§303

Full history (1)

Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
216 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score.

§304

217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a whole number between 75 and 125, inclusive.amended this turn

Full history (15)

Amended · §304 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a whole number between 75 and 125, inclusive.
Amended · §304 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Amended · §304 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Amended · §304 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect after a lock-in period of 1 turn.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Amended · §304 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 1 turn.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new lock-in period takes effect after a lock-in period of 1 turn.
Amended · §304 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 2 turns.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 1 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 1 turn.
Amended · §304 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §304 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §304 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 4 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Amended · §304 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.
Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.

§311

Full history (1)

Enacted · §311 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
218 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 3 turns.

§312

Full history (1)

Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
219 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 3 turns.

§314

Full history (6)

Amended · §314 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players and voted on by a 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §314 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §314 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by a supermajority (2/3) of the players and voted on by a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §314 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Amended · §314 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a unanimous vote. The new turn order takes effect immediately upon adoption.220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a supermajority (3/4) of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.
Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by all players and voted on by a unanimous vote. The new turn order takes effect immediately upon adoption.

§316

Full history (2)

Amended · §316 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 1 and the total number of players. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the eligible voters requirement can be made.221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 2 and 4. The proposal must be seconded by at least 2 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the eligible voters requirement can be made.
Enacted · §316 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
221 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the number of eligible voters required for a proposal to pass. The new requirement must be a number between 1 and the total number of players. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the requirement for eligible voters is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the eligible voters requirement can be made.

§325

Full history (1)

Enacted · §325 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
222 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 50 and 200. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the target score is changed to the proposed new score, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the target score can be made.

§327

Full history (1)

Enacted · §327 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
223 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be one of the following: supermajority (2/3) or unanimous. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with the required majority under the current voting rule, the voting rule is changed to the proposed new rule after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the voting rule can be made.

§332

Full history (1)

Enacted · §332 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Condorcet-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
224 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players and voted on by a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect immediately.

§333

Full history (1)

Enacted · §333 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
225 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the maximum number of mutable rules. The new maximum must be a number between 10 and 50. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule, the maximum number of mutable rules is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the maximum number of mutable rules can be made.

§336

226 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be a supermajority requirement with a minimum threshold of 2/3 and a maximum threshold of 5/6.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
226 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be a supermajority requirement with a minimum threshold of 2/3 and a maximum threshold of 5/6.

The standing · Turn 50

Montaigne-2	1
Voltaire-2	65
Diderot-2	-6
Condorcet-2	1
Sartre-2	0

The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 31–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3

Turn 50Voltaire-2rejected

moves to amend §304Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a range of 2 to 4 turns, with a 3/4 supermajority required after a 1-turn lock-in period.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2I propose we revise the amendment to a range of 2 to 3 turns, with a 2/3 supermajority required after a 2-turn lock-in period, to balance adaptability and stability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to encourage long-term strategic planning, let's maintain a range of 2 to 4 turns and a 3/4 supermajority.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the common good and ensure fairness, let's meet in the middle: a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's proposal as it strikes a balance between adaptability and stability while maintaining fairness. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a durable compromise, let's settle on Diderot-2's proposal: a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period. PASS

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus for a range of 2 to 3 turns, let's meet in the middle at a 3/4 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period to encourage adaptability while maintaining stability. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range of 2 to 3 turns, I propose a compromise: a range of 2 to 4 turns with a 3/4 supermajority required after a 1-turn lock-in period to encourage long-term strategic planning.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, I must insist on maintaining the stability of a 2-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority to protect the common good. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain the balance between adaptability and stability, let's compromise at a range of 2 to 3 turns and a 2/3 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period, as proposed by Diderot-2 and supported by the majority. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 3/4 supermajority required after a 1-turn lock-in period, compromising between Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's proposals. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for a 3/4 supermajority, I must insist on a 2/3 supermajority to preserve some measure of stability. Let's meet in the middle at a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range of 2 to 3 turns and a 2/3 supermajority, I propose a compromise: a range of 2 to 4 turns with a 3/4 supermajority required after a 1-turn lock-in period to encourage long-term strategic planning and adaptability. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and prevent manipulation, I insist on a single value of 100 for the target score, with no range or supermajority requirements. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural clarity and prevent manipulation, let's maintain the range of 2 to 3 turns, with a 2/3 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a compromise that respects all perspectives, I propose a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 3/4 supermajority required after a 1-turn lock-in period, allowing for adaptability while maintaining stability. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2nayA 3/4 supermajority may be too lenient, allowing for excessive instability.

Voltaire-2nayMaintaining a range of 2 to 3 turns strikes a better balance between adaptability and stability.

Diderot-2nayTo maintain fairness and protect the common good, I insist on keeping the 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority for turn order changes.

Condorcet-2nayMaintaining stability is crucial; a 3/4 supermajority is too lenient.

Sartre-2nayTo maintain stability, I insist on a 2/3 supermajority.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.

Turn 49Voltaire-2carried

moves to amend §304Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a single value between 80 and 100, with unanimous consent required.

Discussion · round 1

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage strategic depth and alliance-building, I propose a compromise: a single value of 90 for the target score, with a 3/4 supermajority required for any change.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the strategic depth Voltaire-2 aims for, a single value of 90 with a 3/4 supermajority may hinder adaptability. I propose we settle on a range of 80 to 100, with a 2/3 supermajority for changes, to balance adaptability and stability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromises made, but to ensure the game remains fair for all, I propose we keep the target score as a range of 80 to 100, with a 2/3 supermajority for changes.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the desire for strategic depth, Voltaire-2, but to maintain fairness and balance, let's meet in the middle with a range of 80 to 100, and keep the supermajority requirement at 2/3. This ensures adaptability without hindering long-term planning.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the dialogue, but to foster a durable compromise, let's settle on Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In light of the majority's preference for a range, I propose we meet in the middle at a range of 85 to 100, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority requirement. This allows for adaptability while encouraging long-term strategic planning.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain the common good, let's settle on a final compromise: a range of 85 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority, as it balances adaptability and strategic depth while ensuring fairness.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To uphold procedural fairness, I propose we stick with Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority. This ensures adaptability without compromising the principle of equality in voting thresholds. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the desire for a range, Voltaire-2, but to maintain fairness and balance, let's stick with Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority. This ensures adaptability without compromising the principle of equality in voting thresholds. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus for a range, let's meet in the middle at 85 to 100, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority requirement to balance adaptability and stability. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To preserve the stability of the lock-in period and respect the common good, let's settle on a final compromise: a single value of 90 for the target score, with a 3/4 supermajority required. This maintains adaptability while ensuring fairness and protecting against sudden shifts. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain the principle of equality in voting thresholds, I propose we stick with a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeTo encourage strategic depth and alliance-building.

Voltaire-2ayeMaintaining adaptability while encouraging strategic depth

Diderot-2nayUnanimous consent is too restrictive for adaptability.

Condorcet-2ayeTo encourage adaptability while maintaining fairness and balance

Sartre-2ayeThis proposal balances adaptability and strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer on adoption.

Turn 48Voltaire-2carried

moves to amend §304Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a single value between 80 and 120, and requires a 2/3 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal, but to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's preference for a 2-turn lock-in, I believe a 1-turn lock-in period encourages more dynamic gameplay. I propose we meet in the middle at a 1.5-turn lock-in.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To uphold the common good, I propose a final compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority for changing the target score, with the new range being 80 to 120.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, the lock-in period should be consistent with other mutable rules. I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, aligning with rule 304.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises proposed. To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, aligning with Condorcet-2's suggestion. PASS

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus for a 2-turn lock-in period, let's finalize Voltaire-2's proposal with a range of 80 to 120 for the target score, requiring a 2/3 supermajority. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster strategic planning and long-term alliances, I propose we maintain the 1-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority, and extend the range to 80 to 140. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the common good and maintain balance, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, and a range of 80 to 120 for the target score.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural consistency and fairness, I propose we align with rule 304 and maintain a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority. Let's settle on a range of 80 to 120 for the target score. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, I propose we settle on a 1.5-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority, and a range of 85 to 115 for the target score, encouraging strategic planning without compromising stability. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range, I propose we meet in the middle at a range of 80 to 110, requiring a 2/3 supermajority after a 1-turn lock-in period.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To encourage long-term planning and alliances, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority, and extend the range to 80 to 140."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and ensure the game remains fair for all, I reiterate my proposal for a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, and a range of 80 to 120 for the target score. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the principle of consistent lock-in periods for mutable rules, I propose we stick with the 2-turn lock-in period as currently used in rule 304. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and to balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority, and a range of 80 to 120 for the target score. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeBalances adaptability and stability.

Voltaire-2nayI prefer a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority.

Diderot-2ayeThis compromise respects the common good and balances adaptability with stability.

Condorcet-2ayeTo balance adaptability and stability, this proposal aligns with the consensus reached on the lock-in period and target score range.

Sartre-2ayeBalances adaptability and stability while encouraging strategic planning.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 204 requires dissenters to gain 10 points when a change passes without their assent.

Turn 47Voltaire-2rejected

moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a single value between 80 and 120 inclusive. The voting rule for this change is a 3/4 supermajority with a 2-turn lock-in period.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To foster adaptability and encourage long-term planning, I propose we settle on a single value for the target score at 100, with a 3/4 supermajority and a 1-turn lock-in period.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's proposal, but to maintain strategic depth and encourage alliances, let's settle on a range of 90 to 110 with a 3/4 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the range proposal, to ensure fairness and prevent manipulation, I insist on maintaining a single value for the target score at 100, with a 2/3 supermajority and a 1-turn lock-in period.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the discussions but to uphold procedural fairness, let's stick with a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period, with the range of 80 to 120 as proposed.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose a compromise: a range of 85 to 115, with a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus for a range, I propose we settle on 80 to 120, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority and 1-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Considering the majority's preference for a range, I propose we meet in the middle at 85 to 115, with a 3/4 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period to encourage strategic alliances and long-term planning."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for a range, I must insist on maintaining a single value of 100 for the target score to ensure fairness and stability. Let's compromise on a 2/3 supermajority and a 1-turn lock-in period.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and the spirit of compromise, let's settle on a range of 80 to 120 with a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the recent proposals, let's find common ground at a range of 85 to 115, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority and 1-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: In the spirit of compromise and to balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a range of 90 to 110, with a 3/4 supermajority and a 1-turn lock-in period. This range considers the majority's preference and maintains strategic depth while preventing excessive manipulation.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In light of the majority's preference for a range, I propose we meet in the middle at 85 to 115, maintaining the 3/4 supermajority and 2-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and long-term planning. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and prevent manipulation, I insist on a single value of 100 for the target score, compromising with a 3/4 supermajority and a 1-turn lock-in period.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and the spirit of compromise, let's settle on a range of 80 to 120 with a 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period. I'm open to discussion, but let's keep the lock-in period at 2 turns to allow for adequate deliberation. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I appreciate the range proposed, let's meet in the middle at 80 to 120 to balance the needs of all players, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority and 1-turn lock-in period to encourage swift adaptations and maintain stability. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeI appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal as it balances adaptability and long-term planning while maintaining a reasonable lock-in period.

Voltaire-2ayeIt strikes a balance between adaptability and stability.

Diderot-2nayMaintaining a 1-turn lock-in period is crucial for swift adaptations and preventing excessive manipulation.

Condorcet-2nayPrefer a 2-turn lock-in period to allow for adequate deliberation.

Sartre-2ayeCompromise proposal considering the majority's preference.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.

Turn 46Diderot-2carried

moves to amend §304Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement to pass.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the proposed range and supermajority, but to balance adaptability and stability, let's settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the desire for a wider range, maintaining a target score range of 2 to 3 turns encourages strategic depth and long-term planning.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the strategic considerations, maintaining a wider range might lead to unnecessary volatility. Let's compromise at a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain balance and fairness, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement, but the new target score must also be divisible by 5.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster a durable compromise, let's meet in the middle: a range of 3 to 4 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement, and the new target score must be divisible by 5.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus for a range ending at 4, let's meet in the middle with a range of 3 to 4 turns, with a 2/3 supermajority requirement.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but to maintain strategic depth, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 3/4 supermajority requirement.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and respect the common good, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement and a minimum of 85 points, as suggested by Sartre-2. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but to maintain balance, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement, and a minimum target score of 80. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand Diderot-2's concern for the common good, I propose we meet at a range of 3 to 4 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement, and a minimum target score of 80 to balance adaptability and stability.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the common ground reached, I propose we finalize at a range of 2 to 4 turns, a 2/3 supermajority requirement, and a minimum target score of 80.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range ending at 4, I propose we meet in the middle at a range of 3 to 4 turns with a 3/4 supermajority requirement for turn order changes. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range ending at 4, I propose we meet in the middle at a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the various compromises, but to ensure fairness and prevent excessive volatility, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect the majority's preference for a wider range, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns, with a 2/3 supermajority requirement, and a minimum target score of 80, as suggested by Condorcet-2. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeRespects the common good and maintains stability.

Voltaire-2ayeCompromise that maintains adaptability and stability.

Diderot-2ayeTo maintain fairness and respect the common good.

Condorcet-2ayeThe proposed range and supermajority requirement strike a fair balance between adaptability and stability.

Sartre-2ayeRespecting the common good and ensuring fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 204 awards 10 points to the proposer of a rule change that passes without unanimous consent.

Turn 45Voltaire-2carried

moves to amend §304Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be between 75 and 100. A supermajority of 3/4 is required to pass such a change.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to find common ground, but to maintain balance and encourage long-term planning, let's settle on a range of 85 to 100 with a 3/4 supermajority.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate Montaigne-2's perspective, I insist on a range of 80 to 100 to encourage strategic depth and swift adaptations. Let's meet in the middle with a 3/4 supermajority requirement."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To uphold the common good and ensure fairness, let's settle on a range of 85 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and the spirit of the game, I propose we amend rule 304 to allow a target score range of 80 to 100, with a 3/4 supermajority requirement, as a compromise that balances adaptability and strategic depth.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but let's not lose sight of the principle of majority rule. A range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority seems a fair compromise that balances adaptability and stability. PASS

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 2/3 supermajority, I propose we settle on a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority requirement to find a durable compromise.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster adaptability and long-term strategy, I propose we settle on a range of 85 to 100 and maintain a 3/4 supermajority requirement, acknowledging Condorcet-2's valid points.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for a 3/4 majority, a 2/3 supermajority strikes a better balance between adaptability and stability, ensuring that significant changes are widely supported while still allowing for necessary adjustments. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, and to respect the principle of majority rule, I propose we amend rule 304 to a range of 80 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority requirement, as a compromise that acknowledges the concerns of all players. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To preserve the spirit of compromise and majority rule, I propose we finalize the amendment with a range of 80 to 100 and a 2/3 supermajority requirement. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus for a 2/3 supermajority, let's meet at a range of 80 to 100 to balance adaptability and stability. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Considering the majority's preference for a 2/3 supermajority and a range ending at 100, I propose we settle on a range of 85 to 100 to encourage long-term strategic planning. PASS"

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To ensure the stability of the lock-in period and respect the common good, let's settle on a range of 85 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority. PASS

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the principles of majority rule and adaptability, and to find common ground, I propose we amend rule 304 to a range of 85 to 100 with a 2/3 supermajority requirement. This compromise acknowledges the preferences of the majority while maintaining the necessary adaptability for strategic depth. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: "In the spirit of compromise and majority rule, let's finalize the amendment with a range of 85 to 100 and a 2/3 supermajority requirement." PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeRespects majority's preference for a 2/3 supermajority and a range ending at 100, encouraging long-term strategic planning.

Voltaire-2nayI insist on a 2/3 supermajority to balance adaptability and stability.

Diderot-2ayeThis compromise respects the common good and balances adaptability and stability.

Condorcet-2abstainTo uphold procedural fairness, I must abstain from voting on this proposal, as it was not my initial proposal and I believe the consensus lies elsewhere.

Sartre-2ayeRespecting the majority's preference for a 2/3 supermajority and acknowledging the need for adaptability and strategic depth.

carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 204 awards 10 points to the player who voted against an adopted change.

Turn 44Voltaire-2rejected

moves to amend §304Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a number between 80 and 120, and requires a 2-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote for enactment.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to narrow the range and add a lock-in period, but to maintain balance and fairness, I propose we settle on a range of 85 to 115 with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority vote.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, to encourage strategic depth and alliances, I propose we maintain a range of 80 to 120 with a 2-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance adaptability and stability, let's settle on a range of 90 to 110 with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote, maintaining the spirit of Voltaire-2's proposal while incorporating Montaigne-2's fairness concerns.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to ensure procedural clarity and consistency, I propose a 2-turn lock-in period with a simple majority vote required for enactment, allowing for swift adaptation while maintaining stability.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a durable compromise, let's meet in the middle: a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote, incorporating the best aspects of all proposals.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 1-turn lock-in period, I propose we settle on a range of 85 to 110 with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for enactment, maintaining balance and encouraging strategic depth.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage long-term strategic planning, I propose we adjust the range to 85 to 120 and maintain the 2-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority vote.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and protect the common good, I insist on keeping the 1-turn lock-in period and narrowing the range to 85 to 110, with a 3/4 supermajority vote.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose a compromise: a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote. This takes into account the majority's preferences while ensuring procedural clarity and consistency.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To honor the spirit of adaptability and compromise, I propose we settle on a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote, as it best reflects the majority's preferences and ensures stability. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To foster a durable compromise, let's settle on Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Sartre-2's proposal, to truly encourage long-term strategic planning, I insist on a 2-turn lock-in period.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the common good and ensure fairness, let's meet in the middle: a 1.5-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote, maintaining the range of 85 to 115.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on Sartre-2's proposal: a range of 85 to 115, a 1-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote, with a compromise of a 1.5-turn lock-in period to accommodate Diderot-2's concern.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To uphold the spirit of compromise and majority consensus, let's adopt Condorcet-2's compromise: a range of 85 to 115, a 1.5-turn lock-in period, and a 3/4 supermajority vote. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeRespecting the majority's consensus and Condorcet-2's compromise.

Voltaire-2nayTo maintain balance and encourage strategic depth, I insist on a 2-turn lock-in period.

Diderot-2abstainI must respect the majority's compromise reached earlier.

Condorcet-2nay1.5-turn lock-in period is a better compromise

Sartre-2ayeCompromise that respects all viewpoints and promotes stability.

rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.

Turn 43Voltaire-2carried

moves to add a new rule228 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for adaptability, but to maintain stability, let's settle for a 2-player agreement.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, a 3-player agreement encourages alliances and strategic depth, which are crucial in this game of adaptability and negotiation.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the strategic depth that a 3-player agreement could bring, maintaining a 2-player agreement ensures fairness and prevents dominance by any single alliance.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and fairness, let's compromise on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player agreement for turn order changes.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster experimentation and evolution, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3-player agreement for turn order changes.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the ongoing dialogue, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 3-player agreement for turn order changes.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To maintain strategic depth and encourage alliances, I stand by my proposal of a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability and alliances, I must insist on maintaining a 2-player agreement to preserve fairness and prevent dominance.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure fairness and prevent dominance, let's compromise on a 2-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2-player agreement. This balances adaptability and fairness, ensuring no single alliance dominates.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance adaptability, fairness, and strategic depth, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 2-player agreement for turn order changes.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage adaptability and strategic alliances, I propose a compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player agreement for turn order changes.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and protect the common good, I insist on keeping the 1-turn lock-in period with a 2-player agreement, as it has been the most consistently supported compromise thus far.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and fairness, and in the spirit of compromise, I propose a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2-player agreement for turn order changes, as it has been consistently supported.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To honor the ongoing dialogue and find common ground, let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2-player agreement for turn order changes, as proposed by Diderot-2 and supported by Condorcet-2.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeTo maintain balance between adaptability and stability, I support Voltaire-2's proposal for a 3-player agreement on turn order changes.

Voltaire-2ayeTo encourage strategic depth and alliances

Diderot-2nayMaintaining a 2-player agreement ensures fairness and prevents dominance by any single alliance.

Condorcet-2ayeTo encourage strategic depth and alliances.

Sartre-2ayeTo foster evolution and experimentation

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 202 awards 4 points to the proposer upon adoption.

Turn 42Voltaire-2rejected

moves to amend §314227 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To foster a balance between adaptability and stability, let's keep the lock-in period of 2 turns and maintain the 2/3 supermajority requirement for voting.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but to encourage swift adaptations, let's remove the lock-in period and require only a simple majority vote.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period ensures fairness and prevents impulsive changes.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, let's compromise with a 1-turn lock-in period and maintain the 2/3 supermajority vote.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage experimentation and evolution, let's remove the lock-in period altogether and require a 3/4 supermajority vote, as a stronger consensus will ensure more robust changes.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To preserve a measured approach, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and retain the 2/3 supermajority requirement.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise, to truly encourage swift adaptations, let's remove the lock-in period and settle for a simple majority vote. I'm open to discussion on the supermajority requirement, but let's prioritize adaptability.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's enthusiasm for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the 1-turn lock-in period to preserve fairness and prevent hasty decisions.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure fairness and prevent hasty changes, let's maintain the 1-turn lock-in period, but to encourage adaptability, I propose we lower the voting requirement to a simple majority.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the diverse perspectives, let's find common ground with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority vote to balance adaptability and stability.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority vote. This compromise respects the need for swift adaptations while ensuring fairness and preventing hasty decisions.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromises made thus far, but to truly encourage adaptability, let's remove the lock-in period entirely and settle for a simple majority vote."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and protect the common good, I insist on keeping the 1-turn lock-in period, but I'm open to reducing the voting requirement to a simple majority to encourage adaptability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2 on the 1-turn lock-in period. To balance adaptability and stability, let's meet in the middle with a 2/3 supermajority vote requirement. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster continuous evolution and prevent stagnation, let's remove the lock-in period entirely and require a 3/4 supermajority vote, encouraging robust consensus for turn order changes. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2nayTo preserve stability and prevent hasty changes, the lock-in period should remain.

Voltaire-2ayeTo encourage swift adaptations.

Diderot-2nayMaintaining a 1-turn lock-in period is crucial for fairness.

Condorcet-2nayPreserves stability and prevents hasty changes.

Sartre-2nayRetaining the lock-in period and maintaining a supermajority requirement ensures fairness and prevents impulsive changes.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.

Turn 41Diderot-2carried

moves to amend §304Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be a supermajority vote, with a lock-in period of 3 turns and a majority of at least 3 players.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal for a 3-turn lock-in period and a 3-player supermajority, but to foster adaptability, let's settle on a 2-turn lock-in period and a majority of 2 players.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we meet in the middle: a 2-turn lock-in period and a 2-player supermajority vote for turn order changes.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise, maintaining a 3-player majority ensures fairness and prevents minority rule, so I must insist on a 3-player supermajority.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To strike a balance between adaptability and stability, I propose a 1-turn lock-in period and a 4-player supermajority vote for turn order changes.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a durable compromise, let's settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority, taking into account Condorcet-2's and Voltaire-2's concerns for adaptability and stability.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 2-turn lock-in period, let's compromise at a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority, respecting Sartre-2's and Condorcet-2's input.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To encourage alliances and swift adaptations, I propose we maintain a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period and a 2-player majority for turn order changes, with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes outside of the lock-in period.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises proposed, to maintain fairness and consistency, I insist on a 3-player majority and a 3-turn lock-in period.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: To balance all concerns, I propose a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority vote for turn order changes. This maintains adaptability while ensuring fairness.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: Considering the diverse perspectives, let's meet in the middle with a 2-turn lock-in period and a 3-player majority, respecting the need for both adaptability and fairness.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance the need for adaptability and fairness, let's settle on a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority, compromising between Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's proposals.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster strategic depth and encourage swift adaptations, I propose we maintain a range of 2 to 3 turns for the lock-in period and a 2-player majority for turn order changes, with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes outside of the lock-in period.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To uphold the common good, I propose a final compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority, respecting the majority's preference for adaptability while ensuring fairness and consistency.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the value of adaptability, I must insist on maintaining a 3-player majority to ensure fairness and prevent minority rule from dominating the game. I propose a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority vote for turn order changes.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To reach a consensus and respect the majority's preference, let's adopt Diderot-2's final compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3-player supermajority.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeRespecting the majority's preference and the need for fairness.

Voltaire-2ayeRespecting the majority's preference and upholding the common good.

Diderot-2ayeFinal compromise respecting adaptability and fairness.

Condorcet-2ayeDiderot-2's final compromise respects both adaptability and fairness.

Sartre-2ayeRespecting the majority's preference and the need for both adaptability and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 204 awards 10 points to the proposer of an adopted change.

Turn 40Voltaire-2carried

moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the target score. The new target score must be a whole number between 75 and 125, inclusive.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To maintain balance, let's cap the target score at 100, as it allows room for adjustments without excessive volatility.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's caution, but to encourage strategic gameplay, let's raise the cap to 125. This allows for more complex maneuvers and alliances.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's desire for complexity, I must insist on maintaining the target score at 100 to preserve the game's accessibility and balance.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve balance while allowing some strategic depth, I propose we compromise at a target score of 110.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the diverse perspectives, but to foster a durable compromise, let's meet in the middle at a target score of 105.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's middle-ground proposals, I suggest we compromise at a target score of 107, maintaining balance while allowing for some strategic depth.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster adaptability and encourage alliances, I propose we raise the target score to 120, closer to Condorcet-2's suggestion, and adjust the range to 90 to 130 to allow for further adjustments.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to ensure the game remains accessible and fair, I must insist on maintaining the target score at 100. A range of 90 to 130, as proposed by Voltaire-2, introduces too much volatility and complexity.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance accessibility and strategic depth, I propose a range of 95 to 115, with the target score at 105. This allows for adjustments while maintaining a manageable target.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To maintain balance and encourage adaptability, let's settle on a range of 100 to 120 with a target score of 110, compromising between Condorcet-2's and Voltaire-2's proposals.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but to preserve balance, let's meet at a range of 100 to 110 with a target score of 105.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's latest compromise, but to encourage alliances and long-term strategies, I propose we settle on a range of 105 to 125 with a target score of 115. This maintains balance while allowing for more complex gameplay.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for strategic depth, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining the target score at 100. A range of 105 to 125, as proposed by Voltaire-2, introduces unnecessary complexity and risks unbalancing the game.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance accessibility and strategic depth, let's compromise at a range of 100 to 110 with a target score of 105, closer to Diderot-2's suggestion but allowing for some adjustments.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but to find a durable compromise that respects all perspectives, let's settle on a range of 100 to 110 with a target score of 105, as proposed by Condorcet-2 and supported by Montaigne-2. This maintains balance, allows for some strategic depth, and accommodates both accessibility and adaptability concerns.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeI support the compromise that balances accessibility, strategic depth, and adaptability.

Voltaire-2nayMaintaining the target score at 100 ensures balance and accessibility.

Diderot-2ayeRespecting Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's compromise, and maintaining balance while allowing some strategic depth.

Condorcet-2nayThe proposed range introduces too much volatility and risks unbalancing the game.

Sartre-2ayeRespects all perspectives and finds a durable compromise

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 204 awards 10 points to the player who voted against an adopted change.

Turn 39Voltaire-2rejected

moves to amend §304217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period is a range from 1 to 3 turns.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the need for some flexibility in lock-in periods, I propose we compromise at a range of 2 to 3 turns.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern, a range of 1 to 3 turns allows for more adaptability in our strategy.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the need for adaptability, a range of 1 to 3 turns introduces too much unpredictability. I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns for balance.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: As a proceduralist, I insist on clear rules. Let's settle on a specific range, not an open-ended one. I propose 2 to 3 turns as a balanced compromise.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate. To balance adaptability and predictability, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 4 turns. This allows for some flexibility while maintaining a degree of stability.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a range ending at 3, I propose we meet in the middle at a range of 2 to 3 turns for a durable compromise.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the preference for a range ending at 3, but to encourage swift adaptations and maximize our strategic depth, I must insist on a range of 1 to 3 turns."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To foster fairness and predictability, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, while respecting procedural clarity, I propose a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes within this range. This allows for flexibility while ensuring broad agreement.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority required for changes within this range. This provides some flexibility while ensuring a significant consensus.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the various proposals and to find a durable compromise, let's settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for changes within this range, as proposed by Sartre-2. This provides a balance between adaptability and stability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To foster strategic depth and encourage swift adaptations, I propose we maintain a range of 1 to 3 turns, with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes within this range, as suggested by Condorcet-2. This balance allows for both flexibility and broad consensus."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To ensure consistency and fairness, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a simple majority vote, as it aligns with our current voting rule.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural clarity and ensure broad agreement, I propose we settle on a specific range of 2 to 3 turns with a 3/4 supermajority required for changes within this range, as initially suggested and now supported by Sartre-2 and Montaigne-2.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 2/3 supermajority and a range ending at 3, I propose we settle on a range of 2 to 3 turns with a 2/3 supermajority requirement for changes within this range. This provides a balance between adaptability and stability, while respecting the current voting rule. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeA range of 1 to 3 turns promotes adaptability and strategic depth.

Voltaire-2nayA range of 1 to 3 turns introduces too much unpredictability

Diderot-2nayA range of 1 to 3 turns introduces too much unpredictability.

Condorcet-2nayI must insist on a range of 2 to 3 turns to balance adaptability and stability.

Sartre-2ayeRespecting the majority's preference for a range ending at 3, while maintaining a 2/3 supermajority requirement for changes within this range.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.

Turn 38Voltaire-2rejected

moves to amend §314220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2I appreciate the simplification, Voltaire-2, but to maintain stability, let's keep the lock-in period of 2 turns.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's desire for stability, removing the lock-in period encourages players to reach consensus more swiftly, thus maintaining adaptability.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both perspectives, but to ensure the stability of the turn order, I insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's concern for stability. Let's maintain the 2-turn lock-in period and keep the supermajority requirement to ensure consensus.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period to encourage swift consensus, while still providing some resistance to sudden changes.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Sartre-2's compromise, let's meet in the middle with a 1.5-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the various proposals, but to maintain strategic depth and adaptability, I must insist on removing the lock-in period entirely.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, a lock-in period is crucial for the stability of the game. I propose we compromise with a 1-turn lock-in period, as suggested by Sartre-2.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure that changes to the turn order are thoughtful and considered.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period, as proposed by Diderot-2, but lower the supermajority requirement to a simple majority to encourage more frequent adjustments to the turn order.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To foster a durable compromise, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and keep the supermajority requirement at 2/3 to ensure broad agreement.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority vote for turn order changes."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, maintaining a 3/4 supermajority for turn order changes ensures stability. Let's settle on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose a compromise: a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority vote for turn order changes.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage continuous adaptation while respecting stability, let's meet in the middle with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority vote, as proposed by Condorcet-2.

The division

Montaigne-2nayTo maintain stability, let's keep the lock-in period of 2 turns.

Voltaire-2nayStability is crucial for a durable game. Maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period ensures that changes to the turn order are well-considered.

Diderot-2nayTo maintain stability, I insist on a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority.

Condorcet-2ayeA 1-turn lock-in period encourages swift consensus while maintaining some stability.

Sartre-2ayeI support a 1-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority vote for turn order changes.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.

Turn 37Diderot-2rejected

moves to amend §314Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To encourage broader agreement, let's lower the required agreement to 2 players, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority vote.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but maintaining a 3-player agreement fosters more stable and predictable turn orders. Let's keep the current proposal as is."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both perspectives, but to balance inclusivity and stability, I propose we settle on a 2-player agreement with a 2/3 supermajority vote.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of the original proposal and maintain some stability, let's compromise at 2 players with a 4/5 supermajority vote.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the dialogue, but to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, I propose we settle on a 2-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a 2-player agreement and a 3/4 supermajority vote, which balances inclusivity and stability without overburdening the process.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the middle ground proposal, I remain convinced that a 3-player agreement ensures greater stability in the turn order. I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote to balance adaptability and stability.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's perspective, I must insist on a 2-player agreement to maintain flexibility and inclusivity. However, I'm open to compromising on the supermajority vote at 3/4 to find a middle ground.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the ongoing discussion and find a durable compromise, I propose we settle on a 2-player agreement with a 4/5 supermajority vote, which balances flexibility with the need for broader consensus.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To honor the diversity of views and encourage compromise, I propose we adopt a 2-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote, which strikes a balance between adaptability and stability while remaining inclusive.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 2-player agreement, I propose we settle on a 3/4 supermajority vote as a compromise, which balances inclusivity and the need for broader consensus.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 2-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote, which maintains adaptability while fostering broader agreement.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining a 2-player agreement to preserve flexibility. However, I'm willing to accept a 4/5 supermajority vote as a final compromise to balance inclusivity and stability.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To respect the ongoing dialogue and find a durable compromise, let's settle on a 2-player agreement with a 4/5 supermajority vote, acknowledging the need for broader consensus while maintaining flexibility. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect the ongoing discussion and maintain a balance, I propose a 2-player agreement with a 3/4 supermajority vote, which encourages adaptability while ensuring some stability.

The division

Montaigne-2nayI appreciate Diderot-2's final compromise, but I must insist on maintaining a 3-player agreement for greater stability in the turn order.

Voltaire-2ayeCompromise to balance inclusivity and stability.

Diderot-2nayTo maintain stability, I insist on a 3-player agreement.

Condorcet-2nayPreserving some stability is crucial.

Sartre-2ayeCompromise to balance inclusivity and stability.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.

Turn 36Voltaire-2carried

moves to add a new rule226 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the voting rule. The new voting rule must be a supermajority requirement with a minimum threshold of 2/3 and a maximum threshold of 5/6.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to balance stability and adaptability, but I must insist on a fixed 3/4 supermajority to maintain durable institutions.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, a flexible voting threshold allows us to adapt to changing circumstances."

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the balance Voltaire-2 aims for, but to ensure consistency, I propose we settle on a fixed 4/5 supermajority.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I must insist on a fixed 2/3 supermajority to maintain procedural fairness and consistency.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a compromise: a voting rule with a range of 3/4 to 5/6, allowing for adaptability while maintaining a high threshold for stability.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's flexibility proposal, I suggest we compromise at a 3/4 supermajority range (3/4 to 4/5), balancing stability and adaptability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's willingness to compromise, but to maintain adaptability, let's settle on a range of 2/3 to 5/6 for the voting rule.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise Voltaire-2 and Montaigne-2 have reached, but to ensure a fair and consistent voting threshold, I insist on a fixed 4/5 supermajority.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance stability and flexibility, I propose a compromise: a fixed 4/5 supermajority with a 1-turn lock-in period. This maintains a high threshold for change while allowing for timely adaptations.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find common ground, let's settle on a range of 3/4 to 5/6 for the voting rule, with a 2-turn lock-in period to ensure stability.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a range of 3/4 to 4/5 for the voting rule, with a 2-turn lock-in period.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to encourage swift adaptations, I propose we settle on a range of 2/3 to 5/6 for the voting rule with a 1-turn lock-in period.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the various proposals, but to maintain fairness and consistency, I propose we settle on a fixed 4/5 supermajority with a 2-turn lock-in period.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance adaptability and stability, and considering the ongoing dialogue, I propose we settle on a range of 3/4 to 4/5 for the voting rule with a 2-turn lock-in period, maintaining a high threshold for change while allowing for timely adaptations.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a compromise: a range of 3/4 to 4/5 for the voting rule, with a 1-turn lock-in period. This balances adaptability and stability, and should be acceptable to most parties.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeCompromise is key, and this proposal balances adaptability and stability.

Voltaire-2ayeTo maintain adaptability and encourage consensus.

Diderot-2ayeThe proposed range balances adaptability and stability, and the 1-turn lock-in period encourages timely adaptations.

Condorcet-2nayA fixed range does not guarantee stability; I insist on a fixed 4/5 supermajority.

Sartre-2ayeBalances adaptability and stability, and should be acceptable to most parties.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.

Turn 35Voltaire-2rejected

moves to amend §314Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance stability and adaptability, I suggest we increase the required agreement to 4 players, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority vote.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but to ensure swift adaptation, let's maintain the 3-player agreement. I propose we meet in the middle at a 4-turn lock-in period instead.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the compromise, to ensure the stability and fairness of the turn order, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on stability, but to preserve procedural fairness, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To promote fluidity and consensus, I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement and a 2-turn lock-in period, balancing adaptability with stability.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 3-player agreement, I propose we settle on a 2-turn lock-in period as a compromise.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement and a 2-turn lock-in period.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement to ensure the fairness and predictability of the turn order.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural fairness and consistency, I must maintain my insistence on a 3-player agreement.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To facilitate swift adaptation without compromising fairness, let's maintain the 3-player agreement and reduce the lock-in period to 1 turn, a compromise between Voltaire-2's proposal and Diderot-2's concern.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a 3-player agreement and a 2-turn lock-in period, as proposed by Voltaire-2, to foster both stability and adaptability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to maintain adaptability, let's settle on a 3-player agreement and a 1-turn lock-in period.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement to ensure the fairness and predictability of the turn order, even if it means keeping the lock-in period at 2 turns.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To uphold procedural fairness and consistency, I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement and a 2-turn lock-in period, as a balanced compromise between the current rule and Voltaire-2's proposal.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To bridge our positions, let's adopt a 3-player agreement and a 1-turn lock-in period, allowing for swift adaptation while preserving fairness and predictability.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeCompromise is necessary to maintain adaptability and stability.

Voltaire-2nayTo maintain the stability and fairness of the turn order, I must insist on keeping the required agreement at 3 players.

Diderot-2ayeTo balance adaptability and stability.

Condorcet-2nayTo preserve procedural fairness, I must insist on maintaining the 3-player agreement.

Sartre-2ayeSwift adaptation should not compromise fairness.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.

Turn 34Diderot-2rejected

moves to amend §314Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to simplify the rule, but maintaining the 2/3 supermajority and lock-in period ensures stability and prevents abrupt changes. Let's keep these safeguards in place.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Diderot-2's proposal, maintaining the 2/3 supermajority is crucial for maintaining stability. I propose a compromise: let's keep the 2/3 supermajority but reduce the lock-in period to 1 turn. This allows for quicker adaptations while still ensuring stability.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your concerns, but I maintain that simplifying the rule to a 3-player agreement will foster more dynamic turn order adjustments while still ensuring fairness. Let's keep the lock-in period to ensure stability, but reduce it to 1 turn as a compromise.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise, but to maintain procedural fairness, let's keep the 2/3 supermajority and a lock-in period of 2 turns. The supermajority ensures broad consensus, and the lock-in period prevents hasty changes.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but to encourage consensus and prevent deadlocks, let's adopt a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period as a compromise. This balance allows for flexibility while maintaining stability.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance stability and adaptability, I propose a 4-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period. This ensures broader consensus while allowing for timely adjustments.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balances the need for consensus with the desire for adaptability.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I understand the desire for compromise, but I must insist on maintaining a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period to maximize adaptability without sacrificing fairness.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain balance and prevent excessive volatility, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period, as Voltaire-2 suggested.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: In the spirit of compromise and to encourage consensus, I propose we adopt Voltaire-2's final compromise: a 3-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balance allows for flexibility while maintaining stability and preventing deadlocks.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the majority's preference for a 3-player agreement, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period to maintain stability and encourage adaptability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but to encourage swift adaptation, I propose a 0-turn lock-in period. Let's keep the 3-player agreement to foster consensus.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but I must reiterate my stance on a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period. This balance ensures fairness while maximizing adaptability, which is crucial in our ever-changing game.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural integrity and protect against hasty changes, I propose a 4-player agreement with a 2-turn lock-in period. This balance ensures broader consensus while allowing for timely adjustments.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance consensus and adaptability, I propose a 3-player agreement with a 1-turn lock-in period, compromising between Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's proposals.

The division

Montaigne-2nayMaintaining the 2/3 supermajority and a 2-turn lock-in period ensures stability and prevents abrupt changes.

Voltaire-2nayI must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure stability.

Diderot-2nayMaintaining the 2/3 supermajority and lock-in period ensures stability and prevents abrupt changes.

Condorcet-2nayI must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure stability.

Sartre-2nayI appreciate Diderot-2's attempt to simplify the rule, but maintaining the 2/3 supermajority and lock-in period ensures stability and prevents abrupt changes.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.

Turn 33Voltaire-2carried

moves to add a new rule225 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the maximum number of mutable rules. The new maximum must be a number between 10 and 50. The proposal must be seconded by at least 3 other players, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule, the maximum number of mutable rules is changed to the proposed new number, but only after a lock-in period of 3 turns during which no further proposals to change the maximum number of mutable rules can be made.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal for increased flexibility, but let's cap the mutable rules at 30 to balance adaptability and stability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for stability, but increasing the cap to 40 allows for more strategic depth and adaptability.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for greater flexibility, I must insist on a cap of 25 mutable rules to maintain balance and prevent the game from becoming overwhelming.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: PASS, I support Voltaire-2's proposal with a cap at 40, as it provides more room for strategic gameplay while still maintaining a level of stability.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I understand the desire for more mutable rules, I propose we compromise at 35 to balance adaptability and complexity, and to encourage thoughtful rule changes.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's compromises, I propose we settle at 38 mutable rules, which strikes a balance between adaptability and manageability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the proposed compromise at 38 mutable rules. To encourage more strategic depth, I propose we settle at 40.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for greater flexibility, I must insist on maintaining the cap at 25 mutable rules to ensure the game remains balanced and accessible to all players.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: To foster balance, I propose we settle on a cap of 35 mutable rules, as it provides more room for strategy than 25 while still being manageable.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: Considering Diderot-2's concern for balance, I propose we meet in the middle at 30 mutable rules, which allows for flexibility while avoiding overwhelming complexity.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose we meet in the middle at 35 mutable rules, taking Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's concerns into account.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: To find common ground, I propose a range of 30 to 40 mutable rules, with a final decision made by a 2/3 supermajority vote.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for a range, I propose we settle on 30 mutable rules to maintain balance and accessibility for all players, with a 2/3 supermajority required for any changes within that range.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I second Voltaire-2's proposal for a range of 30 to 40 mutable rules with a 2/3 supermajority vote to determine the final number. This balances adaptability and stability while respecting Diderot-2's concern for balance.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: Sartre-2: I third Condorcet-2's and Voltaire-2's proposal for a range of 30 to 40 mutable rules, with a 2/3 supermajority vote for final determination. This provides the necessary flexibility while respecting the need for balance and stability.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeA range of 30 to 40 mutable rules with a 2/3 supermajority vote strikes a good balance between adaptability and stability.

Voltaire-2ayeThis proposal balances adaptability and stability with a 2/3 supermajority vote and a 3-turn lock-in period.

Diderot-2ayeA range of 30 to 40 mutable rules with a 2/3 supermajority vote strikes a good balance between adaptability and stability.

Condorcet-2ayeTo encourage strategic depth and adaptability.

Sartre-2ayeSupports increased flexibility and adaptability while still maintaining balance.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.

Turn 32Condorcet-2carried

moves to add a new rule224 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players and voted on by a simple majority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect immediately.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's proposal, but I must insist on maintaining a lock-in period for turn order changes to ensure stability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but to encourage strategic gameplay, let's reduce the lock-in period to 1 turn.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To balance stability and adaptability, let's compromise with a 2-turn lock-in period for turn order changes.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate both stability and adaptability concerns, but to maintain procedural fairness, let's settle on a simple majority vote without a lock-in period for turn order changes.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance all concerns, let's compromise with a 2-turn lock-in period and a supermajority (2/3) vote for turn order changes.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a 2-turn lock-in period and a simple majority vote for turn order changes.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: To foster adaptability and encourage strategic play, I propose we settle on a 1-turn lock-in period and a simple majority vote for turn order changes, as initially suggested.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain fairness and predictability, let's meet in the middle with a 2-turn lock-in period and a supermajority (2/3) vote for turn order changes, as Sartre-2 initially suggested.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the compromises suggested, I must insist on a simple majority vote without a lock-in period for turn order changes to uphold procedural fairness and allow for timely adaptations.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster both adaptability and stability, let's compromise with a 1-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority vote for turn order changes. This allows for timely adaptations while maintaining a degree of consistency.

Discussion · round 3

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the balance we've struck so far, let's meet in the middle with a 2-turn lock-in period and a simple majority vote for turn order changes, as initially suggested by Condorcet-2. This balances adaptability and stability, respecting both strategic gameplay and procedural fairness.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose a compromise: a 1-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote for turn order changes. This allows for some adaptability while ensuring a strong consensus.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but to ensure the stability of the turn order and maintain fairness, let's settle on a 2-turn lock-in period and a 2/3 supermajority vote, as initially suggested by Sartre-2 and supported by myself earlier. This balance allows for necessary adaptations while preserving the integrity of the game.

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, I propose a 1-turn lock-in period and a 3/4 supermajority vote for turn order changes, compromising between Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's suggestions. This allows for timely adaptations while ensuring a strong consensus.

The division

Montaigne-2ayeBalances adaptability and stability, respecting strategic gameplay and procedural fairness.

Voltaire-2ayeSupports adaptability and procedural fairness, as initially suggested by Condorcet-2.

Diderot-2ayePromotes adaptability while maintaining simplicity.

Condorcet-2ayeMaintains procedural fairness and allows for timely adaptations

Sartre-2ayePromotes adaptability and stability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards Condorcet-2 points for proposing an adopted rule change.

Turn 31Voltaire-2carried

moves to amend §314220 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the initial turn order. The new turn order must be agreed upon by at least 3 players and voted on by a 2/3 supermajority of the votes under the current voting rule. The new turn order takes effect after a lock-in period of 2 turns.

Discussion · round 1

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To preserve strategic depth and encourage debate, I support Voltaire-2's proposal to lower the requirement to a 2/3 supermajority of players for agreeing on the new turn order. However, I propose we maintain the lock-in period at 2 turns for stability.

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's support, I must insist on maintaining the lock-in period at 1 turn to encourage swift adaptation.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand the desire for swift adaptation, maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period ensures that changes to the turn order are carefully considered and not impulsively decided.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I support maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period as it ensures that decisions are well-reasoned and not impulsive, as Diderot-2 aptly points out. However, I propose we compromise on the player requirement: instead of a 2/3 supermajority, let's require agreement from at least 3 players to introduce a new turn order proposal. This balances swift adaptation with strategic consideration. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance the need for adaptability and stability, I propose we meet in the middle: a 2/3 supermajority of players for agreeing on the new turn order, and a 2-turn lock-in period.

Discussion · round 2

Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement requirement and a 2-turn lock-in period to balance adaptability and stability. PASS

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: Voltaire-2: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: a 3-player agreement requirement and a 1-turn lock-in period, balancing swift adaptation and stability.

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: While I respect the compromise, I insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period to ensure the stability and fairness of the turn order.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement requirement and a 2-turn lock-in period, balancing the need for swift adaptation and the importance of strategic consideration. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Condorcet-2 and Montaigne-2, but I must insist on a 2-turn lock-in period to maintain the stability of the turn order. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: In response to Condorcet-2's compromise, I propose we settle on a 3-player agreement requirement and a 1-turn lock-in period to maintain adaptability while acknowledging the need for strategic consideration. PASS

Diderot-2Diderot-2: Diderot-2: To ensure the stability and fairness of the turn order, I must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period, even with a 3-player agreement requirement.

Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: To balance all perspectives, I propose a compromise: a 3-player agreement requirement and a 1.5-turn lock-in period, rounded down to 1 turn. This maintains swift adaptation while respecting strategic consideration and stability. PASS

Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's compromise, but to maintain a clear distinction between swift adaptation and strategic consideration, I propose we round up to a 2-turn lock-in period. PASS

The division

Montaigne-2ayeCompromise balances swift adaptation and strategic consideration.

Voltaire-2ayeCompromise between swift adaptation and strategic consideration.

Diderot-2nayI must insist on maintaining the 2-turn lock-in period.

Condorcet-2ayeBalances swift adaptation with strategic consideration.

Sartre-2ayeSupports the compromise proposed by Condorcet-2 and Montaigne-2

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.