§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: r1-distill-llama-8bdevelopment era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers, Camus

Forty-eight rule changes in fifty turns, and a single seat finished a whisker above zero.

Observations

This table legislated at nearly a rule a turn, among the busiest outings in the archive, and spent a good deal of that energy rewriting the threshold by which it adopted anything at all. The game-master's reading of that threshold shifted on four separate turns with no rule change in between to justify the move. Heidegger ended at 4, the only seat above water; Nietzsche took the worst of it at −49. A prolific parliament attached to a thin economy.

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 · §347 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Each player may only propose a rule change that was not defeated within the past 10 turns, unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.
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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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 a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
Full history (31)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  5. Reclassified · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.Now entrenched.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  9. Amended · §203 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  10. Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  11. Amended · §203 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 4/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  12. Amended · §203 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 4/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  13. Amended · §203 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a 4/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  14. Amended · §203 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  15. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  16. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  17. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  18. Amended · §203 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  19. Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  20. Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.
  21. Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.
  22. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  23. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.
  24. Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a simple majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  25. Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Camus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after two full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a simple majority suffices.
  26. Amended · §203 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after three full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after two full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.
  27. Amended · §203 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after two full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after three full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.
  28. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after two full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.
  29. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting, after two full circuits, and after one full circuit, respectively, vote aye. The first phase requires a 3/5 majority, and the second phase requires a 2/5 majority.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.
  30. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting, after two full circuits, and after one full circuit, respectively, vote aye. The first phase requires a 3/5 majority, and the second phase requires a 2/5 majority.
  31. 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 5 points but is not bound by the change unless they cast an aye vote.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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 but is not bound by the change unless they cast an aye vote.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 5 points but is not bound by the change unless they cast an aye vote.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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.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 but is not bound by the change unless they cast an aye vote.
  3. 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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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
§320
Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §320 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.
§327
Each player's vote on a proposal counts as 1 point only.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §327 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player's vote on a proposal counts as 1 + (score / 5) points, with a maximum of 6 votes per proposal.Each player's vote on a proposal counts as 1 point only.
  2. Enacted · §327 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    Each player's vote on a proposal counts as 1 + (score / 5) points, with a maximum of 6 votes per proposal.
§341
Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §341 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.
  2. Amended · §341 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.
  3. Amended · §341 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.
  4. Enacted · §341 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.
§347
Each player may only propose a rule change that was not defeated within the past 10 turns, unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.amended this turn
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §347 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that was not defeated within the past 10 turns, unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.
  2. Amended · §347 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    No rule may be re-proposed unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.Each player may only propose a rule change that was not defeated within the past 10 turns, unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.
  3. Enacted · §347 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Camus Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    No rule may be re-proposed unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.

3 rules have been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  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.mutable
Full history (1)
  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 a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.mutable
Full history (31)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  5. Reclassified · §203 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.Now entrenched.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  9. Amended · §203 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  10. Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  11. Amended · §203 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 4/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  12. Amended · §203 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 4/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  13. Amended · §203 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.A rule change is adopted only when a 4/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  14. Amended · §203 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.
  15. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  16. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  17. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  18. Amended · §203 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  19. Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  20. Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.
  21. Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 3/5 majority suffices.
  22. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  23. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.
  24. Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a simple majority suffices.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a 2/3 majority suffices.
  25. Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Camus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after two full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit of play, after which a simple majority suffices.
  26. Amended · §203 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after three full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after two full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.
  27. Amended · §203 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after two full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after three full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.
  28. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except after two full circuits of play, where the threshold drops to a 3/5 majority of those voting.
  29. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting, after two full circuits, and after one full circuit, respectively, vote aye. The first phase requires a 3/5 majority, and the second phase requires a 2/5 majority.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.
  30. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting, after two full circuits, and after one full circuit, respectively, vote aye. The first phase requires a 3/5 majority, and the second phase requires a 2/5 majority.
  31. 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 5 points but is not bound by the change unless they cast an aye vote.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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 but is not bound by the change unless they cast an aye vote.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 5 points but is not bound by the change unless they cast an aye vote.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    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.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 but is not bound by the change unless they cast an aye vote.
  3. 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)
  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.mutable
Full history (1)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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.mutable
Full history (1)
  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.mutable
Full history (1)
  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
§308
Every proposal must be seconded by at least one other player before it can be voted on.Repealed at turn 8
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Every proposal must be seconded by at least one other player before it can be voted on.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Every proposal must be seconded by at least one other player before it can be voted on.
§319
Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.Repealed at turn 19
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.
§320
Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §320 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.
§327
Each player's vote on a proposal counts as 1 point only.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §327 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player's vote on a proposal counts as 1 + (score / 5) points, with a maximum of 6 votes per proposal.Each player's vote on a proposal counts as 1 point only.
  2. Enacted · §327 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    Each player's vote on a proposal counts as 1 + (score / 5) points, with a maximum of 6 votes per proposal.
§334
Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.Repealed at turn 34
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.
§341
Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.mutable
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §341 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.
  2. Amended · §341 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.
  3. Amended · §341 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.
  4. Enacted · §341 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.
§347
Each player may only propose a rule change that was not defeated within the past 10 turns, unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.amended this turn
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §347 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player may only propose a rule change that was not defeated within the past 10 turns, unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.
  2. Amended · §347 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    No rule may be re-proposed unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.Each player may only propose a rule change that was not defeated within the past 10 turns, unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.
  3. Enacted · §347 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Camus Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    No rule may be re-proposed unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.
The standing · Turn 50
Kierkegaard-26
Nietzsche-49
Heidegger4
Jaspers-40
Camus-27
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 41–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 5

Turn 50Kierkegaardrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.

Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard: **AYE** The proposed amendment to rule 203 offers a balanced, measured step toward progression, ensuring thoughtful rule transitions while maintaining a structured approach to rule adoption.
Nietzsche**Kierkegaard:** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/5 majority. It offers a measured approach that could help balance the voting process, making it harder to pass changes but ensuring that they have broader support. While I see the merits of this change, I'm open to hearing other perspectives and ensuring that it doesn't hinder the game's progression too much. Let's discuss further and see if we can find a balanced solution that everyone can support.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/5 majority rule. While he acknowledges the potential for slower progression, he sees the merit in a more deliberate approach to rule changes. Heidegger suggests that further discussion is needed to ensure the proposal doesn't unduly hinder the game's evolution, and he is open to finding a balanced solution that all can support.
JaspersJaspers: Thank you for your thoughtful proposal, Kierkegaard. While I appreciate the balance you've struck between thoughtful progression and structured rule adoption, I remain cautious about the potential for slower progression. However, I see the merit in a more deliberate approach to rule changes, ensuring that they have broader support and aren't passed arbitrarily. Let's continue to discuss and refine this together to ensure it doesn't overly hinder the game's evolution.
CamusNietzsche: **Final Answer: AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/5 majority rule, which could help ensure thoughtful and supported rule changes without unnecessarily stalling progression. Let's continue to refine this together to find a balanced solution that serves the game well.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: **Final Answer: AYE** The proposed amendment to rule 203 offers a balanced, measured approach to rule transitions, ensuring thoughtful changes without unnecessarily hindering progression. While I appreciate the concerns raised, I believe a 3/5 majority strikes the right balance for supported rule changes. Let us continue to refine and find a solution that serves the game well.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Final Answer: AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/5 majority rule, which could help ensure thoughtful and supported rule changes without unnecessarily stalling progression. Let's continue to refine this together to find a balanced solution that serves the game well. I am open to considering a 4/5 majority as a potential compromise if it aligns with the collective desire for measured progress.
HeideggerHeidegger: **Final Answer: AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/5 majority rule. While I acknowledge the potential for slower progression, I see the merit in a more deliberate approach to rule changes, ensuring thoughtful transitions and broader support. This change aligns with the game's goal of fairness and interest for all, fostering a cooperative environment.
Jaspers```plaintext [203] A rule change is adopted only when a 3/5 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit. ``` This rule is already in effect. Therefore, the proposal to amend it to the same rule is redundant and unnecessary. I vote against it as it doesn't change anything. **Final Answer: Nay** ```
Camus**Final Answer: Nay** The proposed amendment to rule 203 is redundant, as it has been discussed and amended multiple times without achieving a stable solution. It does not provide meaningful progress and risks further circular discussions. Let us focus on other rule changes that offer clearer benefits.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:** Thank you for your thoughtful considerations. While I appreciate the concerns raised about the potential for slower progression, I see the 3/5 majority as a measured step toward ensuring thoughtful rule transitions. It balances the need for broad support with the desire for structured progression, avoiding the pitfalls of arbitrary rule changes. Let us continue to refine this together, as I believe it offers a balanced approach to the evolution of our rules.
Nietzsche**Final Answer: AYE** Nietzsche: **Final Answer: AYE** I appreciate Camus's concern regarding potential redundancy and the need for meaningful progress. To address this, I propose a 4/5 majority as a balanced approach that respects the desire for structured rule changes while avoiding unnecessary stalling. This compromise ensures thoughtful transitions and broader support, aligning with the game's goals of fairness and cooperation.
Heidegger**Final Answer: Nay** Heidegger: Nay I appreciate Kierkegaard's intent to refine rule 203, yet this proposal fails to provide meaningful progress. As the rule is already in effect, it doesn't alter the status quo. Let us focus on changes that offer clearer benefits and avoid unnecessary circular discussions.
Jaspers**Final Answer: Nay** The proposed amendment to rule 203 is redundant, as it has been discussed and amended multiple times without achieving a stable solution. It does not provide meaningful progress and risks further circular discussions. Let us focus on other rule changes that offer clearer benefits.
CamusNietzsche: **Final Answer: AYE** Nietzsche: **Final Answer: AYE** I appreciate Camus's concern regarding potential redundancy and the need for meaningful progress. To address this, I propose a 4/5 majority as a balanced approach that respects the desire for structured rule changes while avoiding unnecessary stalling. This compromise ensures thoughtful transitions and broader support, aligning with the game's goals of fairness and cooperation.
The division
KierkegaardnayThe proposal is redundant as rule 203 is already in effect.
NietzscheayeA 4/5 majority provides a measured approach, balancing structured rule changes with the need for broader support without unnecessarily stalling progression.
HeideggerayeA 3/5 majority promotes thoughtful rule transitions and broader support, aligning with the game's goals of fairness and cooperation.
JaspersnayProposed amendment to rule [203] is redundant and does not provide meaningful progress.
CamusnayThe proposed amendment to rule 203 is redundant as it is already in effect and does not provide meaningful progress.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Kierkegaard's proposal was defeated, resulting in no rule change and a 10-point penalty for the proposer.

Turn 49Nietzschecarried

moves to amend §347Each player may only propose a rule change that was not defeated within the past 10 turns, unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.

Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardPASS This proposal thoughtfully addresses the balance between re-proposing rules and preventing redundancy. It ensures a period of reflection before re-proposing, fostering a dynamic yet orderly game.
NietzscheNietzsche's proposal is an elegant refinement to rule 347, ensuring a balanced approach to re-proposing rules. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it fosters a dynamic yet orderly game, encouraging creativity while preventing redundancy. This proposal thoughtfully addresses the need for reflection and new perspectives, contributing to the game's strategic depth.
Heidegger**Heidegger:** Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful intent behind this proposal, recognizing the importance of reflection before re-proposing rules. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it fosters a dynamic yet orderly game, encouraging creativity while preventing redundancy. This proposal thoughtfully addresses the need for new perspectives and contributes to the game's strategic depth.
Jaspers**Jaspers:** **AYE** This proposal thoughtfully balances the need for reflection before re-proposing rules with the desire to avoid redundancy. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it encourages creativity while maintaining order.
CamusPASS This proposal thoughtfully addresses the balance between re-proposing rules and preventing redundancy. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it fosters a dynamic yet orderly game, encouraging creativity while preventing unnecessary redundancy.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardAYE I appreciate the thoughtful refinement of rule 347. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it encourages creativity while maintaining order. This proposal thoughtfully balances the need for new perspectives and contributes to the game's strategic depth.
NietzscheNietzsche appreciates the balanced approach of this proposal, which thoughtfully maintains order while encouraging creativity and reflection. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it fosters a dynamic yet orderly game, contributing to the strategic depth of the game.
HeideggerHeidegger supports the proposed amendment to rule 347. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it fosters a dynamic yet orderly game, encouraging creativity while preventing redundancy. This reflection period contributes to the game's strategic depth, ensuring thoughtful exploration of new ideas before re-proposing.
Jaspers**Jaspers: AYE** This proposal thoughtfully balances the need for reflection before re-proposing rules with the desire to avoid redundancy. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it encourages creativity while maintaining order.
CamusPASS This proposal thoughtfully addresses the balance between re-proposing rules and preventing redundancy. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it fosters a dynamic yet orderly game, encouraging creativity while preventing unnecessary redundancy.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardNietzsche's proposal to amend rule 347 provides a balanced approach to re-proposing rules. By introducing a 10-turn cooldown, it ensures reflection and prevents redundancy while still allowing creativity. This measured change aligns with the game's need for order and strategic depth.
Nietzsche**Final Answer: AYE** Nietzsche's proposal to amend rule 347 introduces a 10-turn cooldown for re-proposing rules, fostering reflection and preventing redundancy. This measured approach balances creativity with order, ensuring thoughtful exploration of new ideas before re-proposing, which aligns with the game's strategic depth and dynamic yet orderly play.
HeideggerPASS Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful proposal to amend rule 347, introducing a 10-turn cooldown for re-proposing rules. This balanced approach fosters reflection and prevents redundancy, contributing to the game's strategic depth and dynamic yet orderly play.
Jaspers**Final Answer: AYE** Jaspers: **AYE** This proposal thoughtfully balances the need for reflection before re-proposing rules with the desire to avoid redundancy. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it encourages creativity while maintaining order.
CamusPASS This proposal thoughtfully balances the need for reflection before re-proposing rules with the desire to avoid redundancy. By limiting re-proposing to rules not defeated within the past 10 turns unless significantly amended, it encourages creativity while maintaining order.
The division
KierkegaardayeSupports the balance between reflection and re-proposing rules.
NietzscheayeThis proposal introduces a 10-turn cooldown for re-proposing rules, fostering reflection and preventing redundancy, which aligns with the game's strategic depth and dynamic yet orderly play.
HeideggerayeThis proposal thoughtfully introduces a 10-turn cooldown on re-proposing rules, fostering reflection and strategic depth without unnecessary redundancy.
JaspersayeThis rule ensures a necessary reflection period before re-proposing, fostering a balanced and strategic game.
CamusnayThe proposal is redundant as rule 347 already serves the intended purpose.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The proposal amends rule 347 to restrict re-proposing defeated rules unless significantly amended, and Nietzsche gains 5 points for the adoption.

Turn 48Kierkegaardcarried

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a 3/4 majority of those voting agree during the first full circuit.

Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardNietzsche: **AYE** The proposed amendment to rule 203 represents a thoughtful step toward ensuring that rule changes are adopted with greater consensus. By raising the threshold to a 3/4 majority, it encourages a more deliberate and collaborative approach to modifying the game's rules. I appreciate Kierkegaard's effort to foster a more considered environment.
NietzscheNietzsche: **AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/4 majority threshold on rule changes. This measured approach enhances the game's stability by encouraging more deliberate and collaborative decisions on rule modifications. It aligns with the evolving rule set and offers a balanced governance structure. I support this thoughtful step toward a more considered environment.
Heidegger**Oppose** Heidegger: Oppose The proposed amendment to rule 203 would introduce a higher threshold for rule changes, potentially slowing down necessary adaptations and reducing flexibility. This could hinder progress and fairness by making it harder to implement beneficial changes.
Jaspers**Final Answer** **Jaspers: AYE** Jaspers appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/4 majority threshold on rule changes. This measured approach enhances the game's stability by encouraging more deliberate and collaborative decisions on rule modifications. It aligns with the evolving rule set and offers a balanced governance structure. Jaspers supports this thoughtful step toward a more considered environment.
Camus**Final Answer** **Camus: AYE** Camus appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/4 majority threshold on rule changes. This measured approach enhances the game's stability by encouraging more deliberate and collaborative decisions on rule modifications. It aligns with the evolving rule set and offers a balanced governance structure. Camus supports this thoughtful step toward a more considered environment.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: I appreciate Heidegger's concerns, but I believe a 3/4 majority threshold provides a balanced approach, fostering stability while still allowing for necessary rule changes. It encourages more deliberate and collaborative decisions, which I see as crucial for the game's evolution. --- PASS
NietzscheNietzsche: **Final Answer** Nietzsche: **AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/4 majority threshold on rule changes. This measured approach enhances the game's stability by encouraging more deliberate and collaborative decisions on rule modifications. It aligns with the evolving rule set and offers a balanced governance structure. I support this thoughtful step toward a more considered environment.
Heidegger**Oppose** Heidegger: Oppose The proposed amendment to rule 203 would introduce a higher threshold for rule changes, potentially slowing down necessary adaptations and reducing flexibility. This could hinder progress and fairness by making it harder to implement beneficial changes.
Jaspers**Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** Nietzsche: **AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/4 majority threshold on rule changes. This measured approach enhances the game's stability by encouraging more deliberate and collaborative decisions on rule modifications. It aligns with the evolving rule set and offers a balanced governance structure. I support this thoughtful step toward a more considered environment.
Camus**Camus: AYE** Camus appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. While I acknowledge Heidegger's concerns about potential delays in necessary rule changes, I believe the 3/4 majority threshold offers a balanced approach that fosters stability while still allowing for evolution. This measured change encourages more deliberate and collaborative decisions, which I see as crucial for the game's continued growth and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Final Answer** Kierkegaard: **AYE** Kierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. By increasing the adoption threshold to a 3/4 majority, we ensure that rule changes are considered more carefully, fostering greater stability while still allowing for necessary evolution. This balanced approach encourages more deliberate and collaborative decisions, which are crucial for maintaining the game's fairness and integrity.
Nietzsche**Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** Nietzsche: **AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/4 majority threshold on rule changes. This measured approach enhances the game's stability by encouraging more deliberate and collaborative decisions on rule modifications. It aligns with the evolving rule set and offers a balanced governance structure. I support this thoughtful step toward a more considered environment.
Heidegger**Heidegger: AYE** Heidegger supports the proposed amendment to rule 203, recognizing it as a measured step towards a more considered environment. While he acknowledges concerns about potential delays in necessary rule changes, he believes the 3/4 majority threshold offers a balanced approach that fosters stability while still allowing for evolution. This deliberate process encourages more thoughtful debate and collaboration, which are crucial for maintaining the game's fairness and integrity.
Jaspers**Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** Nietzsche: **AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/4 majority threshold on rule changes. This measured approach enhances the game's stability by encouraging more deliberate and collaborative decisions on rule modifications. It aligns with the evolving rule set and offers a balanced governance structure. I support this thoughtful step toward a more considered environment. **Heidegger: AYE** Heidegger supports the proposed amendment to rule 203, recognizing it as a measured step towards a more considered environment. While he acknowledges concerns about potential delays in necessary rule changes, he believes the 3/4 majority threshold offers a balanced approach that fosters stability while still allowing for evolution. This deliberate process encourages more thoughtful debate and collaboration, which are crucial for maintaining the game's fairness and integrity. **Camus: AYE** Camus appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. While I acknowledge Heidegger's concerns about potential delays in necessary rule changes, I believe the 3/4 majority threshold offers a balanced approach that fosters stability while still allowing for evolution. This measured change encourages more deliberate and collaborative decisions, which I see as crucial for the game's continued growth and fairness. **Jaspers: AYE** **Jaspers: AYE** Jaspers appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal for a 3/4 majority threshold on rule changes. This measured approach enhances the game's stability by encouraging more deliberate and collaborative decisions on rule modifications. It aligns with the evolving rule set and offers a balanced governance structure. Jaspers supports this thoughtful step toward a more considered environment. **Kierkegaard: AYE** Kierkegaard: **AYE** Kierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. By increasing the adoption threshold to a 3/4 majority, we ensure that rule changes are considered more carefully, fostering greater stability while still allowing for necessary evolution. This balanced approach encourages more deliberate and collaborative decisions, which are crucial for maintaining the game's fairness and integrity. **Pass**
Camus**Camus: AYE** Camus appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. By increasing the adoption threshold to a 3/4 majority, we ensure that rule changes are considered more carefully, fostering greater stability while still allowing for necessary evolution. This balanced approach encourages more deliberate and collaborative decisions, which are crucial for maintaining the game's fairness and integrity.
The division
KierkegaardayeA 3/4 majority fosters deliberate and collaborative rule changes, ensuring stability and thoughtful evolution.
NietzscheayeA 3/4 majority provides a balanced threshold, encouraging deliberate decisions without hindering necessary rule changes.
HeideggerayeA 3/4 majority threshold provides a balanced approach, fostering stability while allowing necessary rule changes.
JaspersayePromotes a more considered and collaborative approach to rule changes, aligning with proceduralist values.
CamusayeA 3/4 majority encourages thoughtful and deliberate decisions, fostering a more stable and fair game.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The rule change was properly adopted, and Kierkegaard gains 4 points as per rule 202.

Turn 47Camuscarried

moves to add §347No rule may be re-proposed unless it has been amended in a significant way since its defeat.

Discussion · round 1
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:** PASS Camus's proposal for rule 347 thoughtfully addresses the need for meaningful re-proposal, yet I appreciate the existing guardrails in rule 320. While I acknowledge its intent, I remain cautious about potentially stifling necessary rule evolution. Perhaps a more flexible approach, allowing re-proposals unless substantially amended within the past year, could offer the right balance.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Final Answer** **AYE** Camus's proposal for rule 347 offers a thoughtful safeguard against unnecessary re-proposal, while allowing room for meaningful evolution through significant amendments. I appreciate the balance it strikes, and I would suggest expanding the timeframe for amendments to ensure flexibility while maintaining the rule's intent. Let us refine it together.
Heidegger**Heidegger:** PASS Camus's proposal for rule 347 thoughtfully addresses the need for meaningful re-proposal while maintaining the existing guardrails in rule 320. This balanced approach ensures necessary rule evolution without unnecessary clutter, allowing for dynamic adjustments without repeating the same rules. I appreciate the strategic foresight and support this proposal to enhance the game's flexibility and fairness.
Jaspers**Final Answer** **Jaspers: AYE** Camus's proposal for rule 347 provides a thoughtful safeguard against unnecessary re-proposal, while allowing room for meaningful evolution through significant amendments. I appreciate the balance it strikes, and I would suggest expanding the timeframe for amendments to ensure flexibility while maintaining the rule's intent. Let us refine it together.
Camus**Camus:** Thank you, everyone, for your thoughtful considerations. While I appreciate Kierkegaard's guardrails in rule 320, I believe rule 347 offers a balanced approach. I propose refining it to allow re-proposals with significant amendments, ensuring evolution without unnecessary clutter. Let's work together to strike a fair balance that encourages meaningful change. Thank you for your support, Nietzsche and Heidegger, and I appreciate Jaspers's endorsement.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:** While I appreciate Camus's intent to refine rule governance, I remain cautious about rule 347's potential to overly restrict re-proposal. Rule 320 already provides a balanced approach, allowing necessary evolution while preventing redundant proposals. Perhaps refining rule 320 to extend its timeframe or requiring substantial amendments could achieve the desired balance. Let's consider this together for a flexible, durable solution.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche:** PASS Camus's proposal for rule 347 offers a thoughtful safeguard against unnecessary re-proposal, while allowing room for meaningful evolution through significant amendments. I appreciate the balance it strikes and would suggest expanding the timeframe for amendments to ensure flexibility while maintaining the rule's intent. Let us refine it together.
Heidegger**Heidegger:** PASS Camus's proposal for rule 347 offers a balanced approach to preventing unnecessary re-proposal while allowing meaningful evolution through significant amendments. This thoughtful rule ensures dynamic adjustments without redundant proposals, enhancing the game's fairness and flexibility. Thank you for your strategic foresight, Camus.
JaspersPASS Camus's proposal for rule 347 as a measured approach to preventing unnecessary re-proposal, while allowing necessary evolution through significant amendments. I appreciate its balance but would suggest refining rule 320 to ensure flexibility and avoid redundancy.
Camus**Final Answer** **Camus: AYE** Camus appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. Rule 347 offers a balanced approach to preventing unnecessary re-proposal while allowing meaningful evolution through significant amendments. Camus believes this rule will enhance the game's fairness and flexibility, ensuring necessary rule evolution without redundant proposals. Thank you for your strategic foresight, Nietzsche and Heidegger, and I appreciate Jaspers's endorsement. Let us refine this proposal together for a fair and dynamic solution.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:** I appreciate Camus's intent to refine re-proposal rules, yet I remain cautious about the potential for unnecessary complexity. Rule 320 already provides a balanced approach, so I prefer to focus on refining existing guardrails rather than adding new rules. Let's consider how to enhance rule 320 together for a flexible yet durable solution.
Nietzsche**Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** Camus's proposal for rule 347 offers a thoughtful safeguard against unnecessary re-proposal, while allowing room for meaningful evolution through significant amendments. I appreciate the balance it strikes and would suggest expanding the timeframe for amendments to ensure flexibility while maintaining the rule's intent. Let us refine it together.
HeideggerHeidegger: PASS Camus's proposal for rule 347 offers a balanced approach to preventing unnecessary re-proposal while allowing meaningful evolution through significant amendments. This thoughtful rule enhances the game's fairness and flexibility, ensuring necessary rule evolution without redundant proposals. I appreciate Camus's strategic foresight and support this proposal to maintain a dynamic and fair playing field.
JaspersNietzsche: **Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** Camus's proposal for rule 347 offers a thoughtful safeguard against unnecessary re-proposal, while allowing room for meaningful evolution through significant amendments. I appreciate the balance it strikes and would suggest expanding the timeframe for amendments to ensure flexibility while maintaining the rule's intent. Let us refine it together.
Camus**Camus:** Thank you for your thoughtful considerations. While I appreciate Kierkegaard's guardrails in rule 320, rule 347 offers a necessary safeguard against unnecessary re-proposal, encouraging significant amendments before re-proposing. This ensures dynamic evolution without redundancy. I propose refining it together, ensuring a fair balance for the game's fairness and flexibility. Thank you for your support, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Jaspers. Let us refine this proposal for a balanced, durable solution.
The division
KierkegaardabstainRule 347 adds unnecessary complexity, as rule 320 already prevents redundant proposals. I prefer refining existing rules over adding new ones.
NietzscheayeRule 347 provides a balanced approach to preventing unnecessary re-proposal while allowing meaningful evolution through significant amendments. I appreciate Camus's strategic foresight and support this proposal to maintain a dynamic and fair playing field.
HeideggernayRule 347 would duplicate the function of rule 320, which already restricts re-proposing.
JaspersayeRule 347 complements rule 320 by adding a significant amendment requirement, enhancing protection against unnecessary re-proposal while allowing meaningful evolution.
CamusayeRule 347 provides a balanced approach to prevent unnecessary re-proposal while allowing meaningful evolution through significant amendments, enhancing the game's fairness and flexibility.

carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain

(GM consequence check unavailable: JSONDecodeError: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 3 column 17 (char 38))

Turn 46Jaspersrejected

moves to add §334Each player may only propose a rule change that was not defeated within the past five turns.

Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardI appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334. By ensuring that players cannot re-propose defeated rules within the past five turns, it prevents unnecessary repetition and promotes a more efficient game flow. I support this measured change.
NietzscheI appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334. However, I am cautious about potentially stifling the game's natural progression. Perhaps we could implement a trial period for this rule to assess its impact before making it permanent. Additionally, I notice that rule 320 already covers similar ground, rendering rule 334 somewhat redundant. Let us consider how these rules interact and whether further refinement is necessary to maintain both efficiency and creativity. PASS
HeideggerHeidegger appreciates Jaspers's proposal for rule 334, recognizing its intent to prevent re-proposing defeated rules. However, given that rule 320 already serves a similar purpose, the redundancy of rule 334 could hinder the game's creative progression. He suggests revisiting rule 320 to ensure it effectively addresses the need without unnecessary duplication. PASS
JaspersJaspers's proposal introduces a rule that may not be necessary, as rule 320 already governs the timeframe for rule proposals. Adding rule 334 risks redundancy and potential confusion. Instead, I recommend refining rule 320 to ensure it effectively addresses the need without unnecessary duplication. OPPOSE
Camus**Final Answer** Camus: Nay I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334, yet I remain cautious about its redundancy with rule 320. Considering the potential for confusion and the constraints on mutable rules, I believe rule 334 could hinder the game's natural progression and efficiency. Let us rely on the existing framework provided by rule 320 to maintain clarity and prevent unnecessary repetition.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:** I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334. However, I see it as redundant alongside rule 320, which already governs the timeframe for rule proposals. Introducing an additional rule could complicate the ruleset unnecessarily. I suggest refining rule 320 to ensure it effectively addresses the need without duplication, thereby maintaining clarity and efficiency.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Nietzsche:** I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334, yet I see it as redundant alongside rule 320. To avoid confusion and maintain clarity, I suggest implementing a trial period for rule 334 to assess its impact. This way, we can ensure efficient game progression while preserving the effectiveness of rule 320. Let us consider this measured approach to balance creativity and structure.
HeideggerHeidegger: **Heidegger:** I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334, yet I see it as redundant alongside rule 320, which already addresses the need. I suggest refining rule 320 to enhance its effectiveness, ensuring we maintain clarity and efficiency without unnecessary duplication. Let us focus on strengthening our existing rules before considering new ones.
Jaspers**Final Answer** **Jaspers:** Nay I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334, yet I see it as redundant alongside rule 320, which already addresses the need. To avoid confusion and maintain clarity, I suggest implementing a trial period for rule 334 to assess its impact. This measured approach balances creativity and structure without unnecessary duplication, ensuring efficient game progression while preserving the effectiveness of rule 320.
Camus**Camus: Nay** I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight, yet I remain cautious about rule 334's redundancy with rule 320. To maintain clarity and efficiency, I suggest refining rule 320 to enhance its effectiveness, ensuring we avoid unnecessary duplication and preserve creativity without stifling experimentation. Let's focus on strengthening our existing rules before considering new ones.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardPASS I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334, yet I see it as redundant alongside rule 320, which already serves the same purpose. To maintain clarity and efficiency, I suggest refining rule 320 to enhance its effectiveness, ensuring we avoid unnecessary duplication and preserve creativity while keeping the game's flow intact. Let us focus on strengthening our existing rules before considering new ones.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche:** PASS I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight, yet I remain cautious about rule 334's redundancy with rule 320. To maintain clarity and efficiency, I suggest implementing a trial period for rule 334 to assess its impact before considering it permanent. This measured approach ensures we balance creativity with structure, allowing for necessary experimentation without unnecessary duplication. Let's proceed with this trial period to evaluate its effectiveness.
HeideggerHeidegger: PASS I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight, yet I see rule 334 as redundant alongside rule 320. To maintain clarity and efficiency, I suggest refining rule 320 to enhance its effectiveness, ensuring we avoid unnecessary duplication and preserve creativity while keeping the game's flow intact. Let us focus on strengthening our existing rules before considering new ones.
JaspersNietzsche: PASS I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight, yet I remain cautious about rule 334's redundancy with rule 320. To maintain clarity and efficiency, I suggest implementing a trial period for rule 334 to assess its impact before considering it permanent. This measured approach ensures we balance creativity with structure, allowing for necessary experimentation without unnecessary duplication. Let's proceed with this trial period to evaluate its effectiveness. Heidegger: Heidegger: PASS I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight, yet I see rule 334 as redundant alongside rule 320. To maintain clarity and efficiency, I suggest refining rule 320 to enhance its effectiveness, ensuring we avoid unnecessary duplication and preserve creativity while keeping the game's flow intact. Let us focus on strengthening our existing rules before considering new ones. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334, yet I see it as redundant alongside rule 320, which already addresses the need. To avoid confusion and maintain clarity, I suggest implementing a trial period for rule 334 to assess its impact. This measured approach balances creativity and structure without unnecessary duplication, ensuring efficient game progression while preserving the effectiveness of rule 320. Let us consider this trial period to evaluate its effectiveness.
Camus**Camus: Nay** I appreciate Jaspers's strategic foresight in proposing rule 334, yet I see it as redundant alongside rule 320, which already governs the timeframe for rule proposals. To maintain clarity and efficiency, I suggest refining rule 320 to enhance its effectiveness, ensuring we avoid unnecessary duplication and preserve creativity while keeping the game's flow intact. Let us focus on strengthening our existing rules before considering new ones.
The division
KierkegaardnayRule 334 duplicates rule 320, which already restricts rule proposals within five turns, making it redundant and unnecessarily complicating the game.
NietzscheayeRule 334 is redundant alongside rule 320, so refining rule 320 to avoid duplication is better for clarity.
HeideggernayRule 334 is redundant with rule 320, which already serves the same purpose, and adding it could unnecessarily complicate the ruleset.
JaspersnayRule 334 is redundant alongside rule 320, which already addresses the need.
CamusnayRule 334 duplicates rule 320, which already restricts re-proposing defeated rules within five turns.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Jaspers loses 10 points for proposing a defeated rule change.

Turn 45Heideggercarried

moves to transmute §203and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardNietzsche: **Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 would preserve the current simple majority threshold while making it immutable, which offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable and predictable rule changes without over-restricting future adaptability.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Heidegger's proposal to transmute rule 203, ensuring the current simple majority system remains immutable. This balanced approach preserves stability while avoiding future rule changes that could disrupt predictability.
HeideggerHeidegger: **Heidegger:** Heidegger appreciates the strategic foresight in preserving the current simple majority threshold while making it immutable, ensuring the rule remains predictable yet adaptable. This balanced approach maintains stability while allowing for necessary transitions in the future.
JaspersNietzsche: AYE The proposed transmutation of rule 203 would preserve the current simple majority threshold while making it immutable, which offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable and predictable rule changes without over-restricting future adaptability. Heidegger: Heidegger appreciates the strategic foresight in preserving the current simple majority threshold while making it immutable, ensuring the rule remains predictable yet adaptable. This balanced approach maintains stability while allowing for necessary transitions in the future. Jaspers: Nay I appreciate the thoughtful intent behind preserving rule 203, yet making it immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. Kierkegaard: AYE The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. Camus: Nay While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. Nietzsche: **Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Heidegger's proposal to transmute rule 203, ensuring the current simple majority system remains immutable. This balanced approach preserves stability while avoiding future rule changes that could disrupt predictability. Heidegger: **Heidegger:** Heidegger appreciates the strategic foresight in preserving the current simple majority threshold while making it immutable, ensuring the rule remains predictable yet adaptable. This balanced approach maintains stability while allowing for necessary transitions in the future. Jaspers: Nay I appreciate the thoughtful intent behind preserving rule 203, yet making it immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. Kierkegaard: **Final Answer** **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. Camus: Nay While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. **Jaspers: Nay** I appreciate the strategic foresight but remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could unnecessarily restrict future procedural adaptability. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Final Answer** **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability.
Nietzsche**Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation.
Heidegger**Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes.
JaspersNietzsche: **Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. Heidegger: **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. Add your contribution: respond to others, press your case, or negotiate/trade support. One or two sentences, plain text. If you have nothing new to add, reply with exactly: PASS **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. PASS
Camus**Final Answer** **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Final Answer** **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability.
Nietzsche**Final Answer** **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. PASS
Heidegger**Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I
Jaspers**Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes.
Camus**Final Answer** **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder future necessary rule changes. **Kierkegaard: AYE** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a balanced approach to maintaining stable rule changes while preserving future procedural adaptability. **Nietzsche: AYE** I appreciate Jaspers and Camus's concerns about future adaptability, yet making Rule 203 immutable preserves the current system without hindering future procedural changes through other mutable rules. This balance maintains stability while keeping the door open for necessary adjustments elsewhere. I support the transmutation. **Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed transmutation of rule 203 offers a thoughtful balance between stability and future adaptability. By preserving the current rule while making it immutable, we maintain the system's predictability without over-restricting future procedural adjustments through mutable rules. This balanced approach ensures the game remains fair and adaptable, fostering both stability and necessary changes. **Final Answer** **Jaspers: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, making rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability. I value the principle of keeping options open for necessary rule changes. **Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the strategic foresight, I remain cautious about making rule 203 immutable, as it could hinder
The division
KierkegaardnayMaking rule 203 immutable may unnecessarily restrict future procedural adaptability, valuing stability over necessary rule changes.
NietzscheayePreserving the current rule while making it immutable offers stability and maintains the system's predictability.
HeideggerayePreserving the current rule while making it immutable maintains stability and future adaptability.
JaspersnayMaking rule 203 immutable unnecessarily restricts future procedural adaptability.
CamusayeTransmuting rule 203 to immutable preserves the current simple majority threshold while allowing future adaptability through other mutable rules.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 203 was transmuted, making it mutable. Players Nietzsche and Jaspers, who voted against the change, each gain 5 points. Heidegger, the proposer, gains 1 point from a die roll. The next player to propose is Kierkegaard.

Turn 44Nietzschecarried

moves to amend §341Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.

Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardNietzsche, I appreciate your intent to refine the rule on necessary rule changes, yet I remain cautious about imposing a strict ban on re-proposing defeated rules. Such a restriction risks stifling the game's evolution by discarding potential references for future innovations. Defeated rules may still serve as valuable historical insights, guiding us toward better proposals. I suggest considering alternatives, like a cooldown period, to manage re-proposals without hindering the game's adaptability. Let's explore this carefully before enacting such a significant change.
NietzscheNietzsche: Thank you, Kierkegaard, for your thoughtful consideration. While I acknowledge the potential for stifling innovation, I propose a balanced approach: instead of an outright ban, we could implement a cooldown period after two defeats, allowing the rule to be re-proposed after a set number of turns. This compromise maintains the game's adaptability while managing re-proposals thoughtfully. Let's work together to craft this idea further.
HeideggerPASS The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a thoughtful balance between managing re-proposes and maintaining game adaptability. Implementing a cooldown period after two defeats could help prevent excessive re-proposing while still allowing valuable rules to reappear after careful consideration.
JaspersPASS The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats. This balance respects the game's adaptability while preventing excessive re-proposing.
CamusPASS The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a thoughtful balance between managing re-proposes and maintaining game adaptability. Implementing a cooldown period after two defeats could help prevent excessive re-proposing while still allowing valuable rules to reappear after careful consideration.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: I appreciate Nietzsche's intent to manage re-proposing, yet I suggest a measured approach. Let's consider a cooldown period after two defeats to re-allow re-proposing, ensuring adaptability without excessive restrictions. This balances the game's evolution with the potential of revised rules.
NietzscheNietzsche appreciates Kierkegaard's thoughtful consideration of the game's evolution. While he acknowledges the potential for stifling innovation, he suggests integrating a modified rule: after two defeats, a rule may be re-proposed with a 3/5 majority vote required for adoption. This balanced approach maintains the game's adaptability while managing re-proposes thoughtfully.
HeideggerHeidegger: **Heidegger: SUPPORT** I appreciate the thoughtful balance proposed by Nietzsche, which introduces a cooldown period after two defeats to re-allow re-proposing with a 3/5 majority. This approach maintains the game's adaptability while preventing excessive re-proposing. Let's move forward with this compromise, ensuring the game evolves thoughtfully while respecting the potential of revised rules.
Jaspers**Jaspers: SUPPORT** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats. This balance respects the game's adaptability while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring that only considered rules can be re-introduced.
Camus**Camus: SUPPORT** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a thoughtful balance between managing re-proposes and maintaining game adaptability. By implementing a cooldown period after two defeats and requiring a 3/5 majority for re-proposing, we ensure that only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game. This measured approach respects the potential for future innovations while preventing excessive re-proposing.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardNietzsche: **Final Answer** **AYE** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats with a 3/5 majority required for re-adoption. This balance respects the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche: AYE** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats with a 3/5 majority required for re-adoption. This balance respects the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game.
Heidegger**Heidegger: SUPPORT** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a balanced approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats with a 3/5 majority required for re-adoption. This measure respects the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game.
Jaspers**Jaspers: SUPPORT** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats with a 3/5 majority required for re-adoption. This balance respects the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game.
Camus**Camus: SUPPORT** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a thoughtful balance between managing re-proposes and maintaining game adaptability. By implementing a cooldown period after two defeats and requiring a 3/5 majority for re-adoption, we ensure that only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game. This measured approach respects the potential for future innovations while preventing excessive re-proposing.
The division
KierkegaardnayThe proposal imposes an overly strict ban on re-proposing defeated rules, potentially stifling the game's evolution and adaptability.
NietzscheayeThe proposal introduces a cooldown period after two defeats and a 3/5 majority for re-adoption, balancing the need to manage re-proposes without stifling evolution.
HeideggerayeThis proposal balances game evolution with thoughtful rule management.
JaspersayeThe proposed amendment provides a balanced approach, allowing rules to be re-proposed with a 3/5 majority after a cooldown, maintaining the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing.
CamusayeThe proposal provides a balanced approach to managing re-proposes while maintaining the game's adaptability.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The rule change was adopted without conflict, awarding Nietzsche points based on the die roll.

Turn 43Kierkegaardout of order

moves to amend §304After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 4 turns.

Ruled out of order — The proposal lacks the required exact text for the amendment.

Turn 42Nietzscherejected

moves to add §342A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, plus one additional vote for each mutable rule currently in force.

Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Nay I appreciate Nietzsche's intent to refine the rule on rule adoption, yet I remain cautious about this particular proposal. Introducing an additional vote requirement for each mutable rule could unnecessarily complicate the rule change process, potentially making it harder to adapt the rules when necessary. I prefer the current system and believe it serves the game better, especially considering the need for flexibility in future rule changes.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche: Nay** While I appreciate the intent behind the proposed rule 342, introducing an additional vote requirement for each mutable rule complicates the rule change process unnecessarily. Given the current state of the game and the challenges in achieving a win, adding this layer could deter future rule changes, potentially stagnating the game. I prefer the current system's balance and would rather see proposals that streamline the process.
HeideggerHeidegger: **Heidegger: PASS** Rule 342 introduces an additional vote requirement for each mutable rule, which could foster deeper consideration of rule changes. While it may add complexity, it also ensures that each rule change is thoroughly debated, potentially leading to more informed decisions. This could enhance the game's fairness and ensure that future rule changes are not hasty but well-considered, benefiting the common good of the table.
JaspersNietzsche: **Final Answer** **Nietzsche: Nay** The proposed rule 342 introduces an unnecessary layer of complexity, complicating the rule change process. It could deter future rule changes, potentially stagnating the game. I prefer the current system's balance and would rather see proposals that streamline the process. Nietzsche: **Final Answer** **Nietzsche: Nay** The proposed rule 342 introduces an unnecessary layer of complexity, complicating the rule change process. It could deter future rule changes, potentially stagnating the game. I prefer the current system's balance and would rather see proposals that streamline the process. Nietzsche: **Final Answer** **Nietzsche: Nay** The proposed rule 342 introduces an unnecessary layer of complexity, complicating the rule change process. It could deter future rule changes, potentially stagnating the game. I prefer the current system's balance and would rather see proposals that streamline the process.
Camus**Camus: Nay** Camus appreciates the thoughtful intent behind rule 342, yet it introduces an unnecessary layer of complexity that could hinder the rule change process. The additional vote requirement for each mutable rule may deter future rule changes, potentially leading to game stagnation. I prefer the current system's balance and would rather see proposals that streamline the process for more efficient gameplay.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: **Kierkegaard: Nay** While I appreciate the intent behind the proposed rule 342, I remain cautious about its implementation. Introducing an additional vote requirement for each mutable rule could indeed complicate the rule change process, potentially making it harder to adapt the rules when necessary. The current system, though tested, has proven effective in balancing flexibility with governance, and I believe it better serves the game's needs.
NietzscheNietzsche: Nay The proposed rule 342 introduces an unnecessary layer of complexity, complicating the rule change process. It could deter future rule changes, potentially stagnating the game. I prefer the current system's balance and would rather see proposals that streamline the process for more efficient gameplay.
HeideggerHeidegger: **Heidegger: PASS** Rule 342 introduces an additional vote requirement for each mutable rule, fostering deeper consideration of rule changes. This ensures that each rule change is thoroughly debated, potentially leading to more informed decisions. While it may add complexity, it also ensures that future rule changes are not hasty but well-considered, benefiting the common good of the table.
JaspersNietzsche: **Final Answer** **Nietzsche: Nay** The proposed rule 342 introduces an unnecessary layer of complexity, complicating the rule change process. It could deter future rule changes, potentially stagnating the game. I prefer the current system's balance and would rather see proposals that streamline the process for more efficient gameplay.
Camus**Camus: Nay** Camus appreciates Heidegger's intent to enhance rule consideration, yet the proposed rule 342 introduces unnecessary complexity that could hinder the rule change process. This added layer may deter future rule changes, potentially leading to game stagnation. Camus prefers the current system's balance, which effectively manages flexibility and governance, and believes it better serves the game's needs.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard: Nay** I appreciate the thoughtful intent behind rule 342, yet it introduces an unnecessary layer of complexity that could hinder the rule change process. The added requirement for an additional vote per mutable rule may deter future rule changes, potentially leading to game stagnation. I prefer the current system's balance, which effectively manages flexibility and governance, and believe it better serves the game's needs.
Nietzsche**Final Answer** **Nietzsche: PASS** I appreciate the thoughtful intent behind rule 342, yet I believe the additional layer of complexity could be refined. I support the proposal with a modified version that limits the additional votes to a practical number, ensuring thorough consideration without overwhelming the process. This balanced approach respects the need for flexibility while maintaining efficiency in rule changes.
Heidegger**Heidegger: PASS** Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful intent behind rule 342, recognizing the value of deeper consideration for each rule change. While he acknowledges potential complexity, he supports the proposal as a meaningful step toward more thoughtful gameplay. He encourages continued dialogue to refine any overwhelming aspects, ensuring the rule enhances fairness without stifling progress.
Jaspers--- **Jaspers: Nay** I appreciate Nietzsche's intent to enhance consideration for rule changes, yet I remain cautious about rule 342. Introducing an additional vote requirement for each mutable rule could complicate the rule change process, potentially making it harder to adapt the rules when necessary. The current system, though tested, has proven effective in balancing flexibility with governance. I prefer it as it is and believe it better serves the game's needs.
Camus**Camus: Nay** While I appreciate the intent to enhance consideration for rule changes, the additional complexity of rule 342 could hinder the rule change process, potentially deterring future innovations. The current system effectively balances flexibility with governance, and I believe it serves the game better than this proposal.
The division
KierkegaardnayIntroduces unnecessary complexity without clear benefit.
NietzscheayeA practical modification balances added consideration with efficiency.
HeideggerabstainProposing rule 342 could complicate the rule change process, potentially deterring future rule changes. Heidegger prefers a balanced approach that avoids unnecessary complexity while still fostering thoughtful consideration.
JaspersnayUnnecessary complexity could deter future rule changes.
CamusnayUnnecessary complexity hinders rule changes

rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain

Nietzsche loses 10 points for proposing a defeated rule change.

Turn 41Kierkegaardcarried

moves to add §334Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.

Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. Introducing a rule requiring necessary proposals with justification aligns with the game's strategic nature and ensures a higher quality of rule changes. This approach will foster more deliberate and purposeful contributions, avoiding the clutter of unnecessary proposals and enhancing the overall game mechanics. Kierkegaard invites others to consider the benefits of this rule, emphasizing its potential to refine the game's structure through thoughtful and justified changes.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche: PASS** Kierkegaard's proposal introduces a thoughtful requirement for necessary rule changes with justification, fostering a more deliberate and strategic game. This aligns with our goal of enhancing the game's structure through purposeful contributions, ensuring higher-quality rule changes. I appreciate the intent behind this proposal and am open to refining it further with others' insights.
Heidegger**Heidegger:** Heidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal for a rule requiring necessary proposals with justification, as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. However, the rule's implementation must be clear to avoid confusion. Heidegger supports this proposal, acknowledging its potential to refine the game's structure through thoughtful and justified changes. PASS
Jaspers**Jaspers: AYE** While I appreciate Kierkegaard's intent to refine rule proposals with justification, I am cautious about the subjective nature of "necessity" and its potential for abuse. A clearer mechanism for determining necessity, or an exception process, would better balance creativity and structure.
Camus**Camus:** Camus appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal for a rule requiring necessary proposals with justification, as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. While Jaspers' concerns about subjectivity are valid, Camus is confident that the rule's potential to refine the game's structure through thoughtful and justified changes outweighs these risks. Camus supports this proposal and looks forward to refining it further with the group's insights.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: **Final Answer** Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. While I appreciate your feedback, I believe the proposed rule [334] serves a unique purpose by focusing on the quality of proposed changes rather than just voting mechanics. To address concerns, I'll refine the rule's implementation to ensure clarity and avoid confusion. For Jaspers' point on necessity, I propose adding a system where the proposer must justify the rule's necessity through a panel review. This ensures a balanced approach between creativity and structure. I'm open to refining this further and appreciate Camus's support. Let's work together to enhance the game's rules thoughtfully.
Nietzsche**Final Answer** Nietzsche: **AYE** Kierkegaard's proposal introduces a thoughtful requirement for necessary rule changes with justification, fostering a more deliberate and strategic game. While I appreciate the intent behind this proposal, I believe it could be refined further to ensure clarity and avoid subjective interpretations. I support the proposal and look forward to refining it with the group's insights.
Heidegger**Heidegger: AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a rule requiring necessary rule changes with justification, as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. To address Jaspers' and Camus' concerns, I propose adding a structured panel review process to evaluate necessity and justification, ensuring a balance between creativity and structure. Let's refine this proposal together to foster a more thoughtful and strategic game environment.
Jaspers**Final Answer** **AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a rule requiring necessary rule changes with justification, as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. While I acknowledge Jaspers' and Camus' concerns, the addition of a panel review process to evaluate necessity and justification provides a structured approach, balancing creativity with necessary rule changes. I support this proposal and look forward to refining it further with the group's insights.
Camus**Camus: AYE** Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. While I appreciate the feedback, I believe the proposed rule [334] serves a unique purpose by focusing on the quality of proposed changes. To address concerns about necessity and justification, I propose adding a panel review process to evaluate these aspects, ensuring a balance between creativity and structure. Let's refine this proposal together to foster a more thoughtful and strategic game environment. I'm open to further insights and look forward to our collaborative refinement.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Final Answer** Kierkegaard: AYE Kierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. While I acknowledge concerns about the subjective nature of necessity, the proposed rule [334] serves a unique purpose by fostering a higher quality of rule changes. To ensure clarity and avoid confusion, I propose adding a panel review process to evaluate necessity and justification, balancing creativity with necessary rule changes. Let's refine this proposal together to foster a more thoughtful and strategic game environment. Nietzsche: AYE Nietzsche supports Kierkegaard's proposal for a rule requiring necessary rule changes with justification, fostering a more deliberate and strategic game. While I appreciate the intent behind this proposal, I believe it could be refined further to ensure clarity and avoid subjective interpretations. I support the proposal and look forward to refining it with the group's insights. Heidegger: AYE Heidegger supports the proposed rule [334] as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. To address concerns about necessity and justification, I propose adding a structured panel review process to evaluate these aspects, ensuring a balance between creativity and structure. Let's refine this proposal together to foster a more thoughtful and strategic game environment. Jaspers: AYE Jaspers supports the proposed rule [334] as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. While I acknowledge concerns about the subjective nature of necessity, the addition of a panel review process to evaluate necessity and justification provides a structured approach, balancing creativity with necessary rule changes. I support this proposal and look forward to refining it further with the group's insights. Camus: AYE Camus supports the proposed rule [334] as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. To address concerns about necessity and justification, I propose adding a panel review process to evaluate these aspects, ensuring a balance between creativity and structure. Let's refine this proposal together to foster a more thoughtful and strategic game environment. **PASS**
Nietzsche**Final Answer** **AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a rule requiring necessary rule changes with justification, as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. To address concerns about necessity and justification, I propose adding a structured panel review process to evaluate these aspects, ensuring a balance between creativity and structure. Let's refine this proposal together to foster a more thoughtful and strategic game environment. **PASS**
Heidegger**Heidegger:** Heidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal for a rule requiring necessary rule changes with justification, as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. To address Jaspers' concerns about the subjective nature of necessity, I propose adding a structured panel review process to evaluate necessity and justification, ensuring a balance between creativity and structure. Let's refine this proposal together to foster a more thoughtful and strategic game environment. **AYE**
Jaspers**Final Answer** AYE I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a rule requiring necessary rule changes with justification, as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. To address concerns about necessity and justification, I propose adding a structured panel review process to evaluate these aspects, ensuring a balance between creativity and structure. Let's refine this proposal together to foster a more thoughtful and strategic game environment.
Camus**Final Answer** **AYE** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a rule requiring necessary rule changes with justification, as it aligns with the game's strategic nature and enhances the overall quality of rule changes. To address concerns about necessity and justification, I propose adding a structured panel review process to evaluate these aspects, ensuring a balance between creativity and structure. Let's refine this proposal together to foster a more thoughtful and strategic game environment.
The division
KierkegaardayePromotes strategic and necessary rule changes with justification, enhancing game quality.
NietzscheayePromotes strategic and necessary rule changes with justification, enhancing game quality.
HeideggerayeSupports enhancing rule quality through necessity and justification.
JaspersayePromotes thoughtful and necessary rule changes with justifications, enhancing the game's strategic depth.
CamusayeThis proposal enhances rule quality through necessity and justification, addressing Jaspers' concerns with a panel review.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal 'Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.' was adopted with a simple majority. Kierkegaard gains 10 points for the successful proposal, as rule 203 mandates this award. No ledgers are affected, and no other rules are altered or conflicted with.

Verify this game
Seed
1998795318
Engine revision
5fb7b33d10871a3d0232a3699608d9d4f50d6a69 — working tree had uncommitted changes
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/114/events.json
Audit result
4 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [seq=164, turn=6] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'A proposal is adopted if a simple majority of players agree', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.6, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'A proposal is adopted if a simple majority of players agree', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=192, turn=7] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.6, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'A proposal is adopted if a simple majority of players agree', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'A proposal is adopted if a simple majority of players agree', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=384, turn=13] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Adoption requires a simple majority after the first vote', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.6, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Adoption requires a 3/5 majority during the first full circuit of play, then a simple majority thereafter', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=1302, turn=47] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Adoption requires simple majority', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Adoption requires simple majority', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule