§ The Statute
Observations
The whole board went under. Camus came closest to even at −10 and Nietzsche fell furthest at −99, with thirty-nine rule changes carrying the table to the turn cap and none of them building anything a player could profit from. As in its twin outing, the game-master's reading of the adoption bar moved four times without a rule change behind it, drifting between requiring everyone and requiring two in three. Constant legislation, nothing to show for it.
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
Repealed · §324 Turn 50 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Struck from the statute.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§203
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
Full history (23)
- Amended · §203 Turn 26 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
- Reclassified · §203 Turn 26 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Now mutable.
- Reclassified · §203 Turn 20 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Now entrenched.
- Amended · §203 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstainA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, 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 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.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, 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.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§209
A rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.
Full history (6)
- Amended · §209 Turn 34 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstainA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.
- Repealed · §209 Turn 34 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstainA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.Struck from the statute.
- Reclassified · §209 Turn 24 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.Now entrenched.
- Amended · §209 Turn 22 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.
- Amended · §209 Turn 19 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.A rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§315
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
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)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.entrenched
Full history (23)
- Amended · §203 Turn 26 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
- Reclassified · §203 Turn 26 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Now mutable.
- Reclassified · §203 Turn 20 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Now entrenched.
- Amended · §203 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 3 abstainA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree.
- Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when a 2/3 majority of those voting agree. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Jaspers Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, except that once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, the rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, 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 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.
- Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting agree, 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.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
A rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.entrenched
Full history (6)
- Amended · §209 Turn 34 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstainA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.
- Repealed · §209 Turn 34 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstainA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.Struck from the statute.
- Reclassified · §209 Turn 24 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.Now entrenched.
- Amended · §209 Turn 22 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.
- Amended · §209 Turn 19 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.A rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§314
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Repealed at turn 36
Full history (4)
- Repealed · §314 Turn 36 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Camus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Struck from the statute.
- Amended · §314 Turn 18 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
- Repealed · §314 Turn 18 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstainA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
§315
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
§322
A rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.Repealed at turn 23
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §322 Turn 23 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §322 Turn 23 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time. This rule is made immutable.
§324
A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Repealed at turn 50
Full history (5)
- Repealed · §324 Turn 50 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayStruck from the statute.
- Repealed · §324 Turn 50 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Struck from the statute.
- Amended · §324 Turn 49 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
- Repealed · §324 Turn 49 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §324 Turn 25 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstainA rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
The standing · Turn 50
| Kierkegaard | -79 |
| Nietzsche | -99 |
| Heidegger | -39 |
| Jaspers | -40 |
| Camus | -10 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 33–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 4
Turn 50Heideggercarried
moves to repeal §324and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardPASS. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 offers a balanced approach, recognizing its redundancy given the immutability of Rule 203 while maintaining flexibility for future amendments.
NietzschePASS. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations without affecting the game's functionality.
Heidegger**SUPPORT.** Heidegger supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the rules without affecting the game's functionality.
JaspersPASS. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations while maintaining the game's functionality and flexibility for future rule changes.
CamusPASS. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations without affecting the game's functionality. It aligns with the goal of simplifying the rules while maintaining clarity and flexibility for future changes.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**SUPPORT.** Heidegger supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324. Its redundancy, given Rule 203's immutability, complicates the rules without benefit. Removing it simplifies the system, enhancing clarity and efficiency.
NietzschePASS. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations without affecting the game's functionality. Simplifying the rules enhances clarity and efficiency, aligning with the goal of maintaining a balanced and functional game environment.
Heidegger**SUPPORT.** Heidegger supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the rules without affecting the game's functionality, aligning with the goal of maintaining a balanced and efficient play environment.
JaspersSUPPORT. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations without affecting the game's functionality. Simplifying the rules enhances clarity and efficiency, aligning with the goal of maintaining a balanced and functional play environment.
CamusPASS. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations without affecting the game's functionality. Simplifying the rules enhances clarity and efficiency, aligning with the goal of maintaining a balanced and functional play environment.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardSUPPORT. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent, removing redundant regulations while maintaining the game's functionality and flexibility for future changes. It aligns with the goal of simplifying the rules while preserving clarity and efficiency.
Nietzsche**SUPPORT.** Heidegger supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the rules without affecting the game's functionality, aligning with the goal of maintaining a balanced and efficient play environment.
HeideggerHeidegger: **SUPPORT.** The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent, removing redundant regulations while maintaining the game's functionality and flexibility for future changes. It aligns with the goal of simplifying the rules while preserving clarity and efficiency.
JaspersPASS. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations without affecting the game's functionality. Simplifying the rules enhances clarity and efficiency, aligning with the goal of maintaining a balanced and functional play environment.
CamusPASS. The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations without affecting the game's functionality. Simplifying the rules enhances clarity and efficiency, aligning with the goal of maintaining a balanced and functional play environment.
The division
KierkegaardayeRemoving redundant rules like Rule 324 simplifies the game without affecting its functionality.
NietzscheayeRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 is already immutable.
HeideggerayeRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 is immutable, simplifying the rules without affecting functionality.
JaspersayeRule 324 is redundant given Rule 203's immutability and its repeal simplifies the rules without affecting functionality.
CamusayeRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 is already immutable.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points based on the outcome of the vote, so no score changes occur. The next player in the turn order is Jaspers.
Turn 49Nietzschecarried
moves to repeal §324and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
Kierkegaard**Pass**
The proposed amendment to Rule 324 offers a balanced approach, retaining the 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203 while planning for future flexibility. This compromise maintains necessary safeguards while allowing for potential adjustments in the ruleset.
**Pass**
NietzschePASS
Nietzsche appreciates the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given Rule 203's immutable status. This change offers clarity and maintains the necessary safeguards while allowing for potential future adjustments.
**Pass**
Heidegger**Pass**
The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is reasonable and redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable. Removing Rule 324 simplifies the ruleset without affecting the game's balance or fairness. This change aligns with the goal of maintaining clarity and reducing unnecessary regulations.
JaspersJaspers's Position: PASS
Jaspers supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given Rule 203's immutable status. This change offers clarity and maintains necessary safeguards while allowing for potential future adjustments.
Camus**Pass**
Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given Rule 203's immutable status. This change offers clarity and maintains necessary safeguards while allowing for potential future adjustments, aligning with the goal of maintaining a fair and efficient game.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Support**
Kierkegaard supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is redundant given the immutable status of Rule 203. This change offers clarity and simplifies the ruleset, aligning with Kierkegaard's preference for measured and strategic rule adjustments that enhance game efficiency.
NietzschePASS
Nietzsche supports the proposal to keep Rule 324, recognizing its importance as a safeguard for future rule adjustments. This measure ensures clarity and maintains necessary regulations, aligning with the goal of preserving game stability and flexibility.
Heidegger**Pass**
Heidegger supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutable status of Rule 203. This change offers clarity and simplifies the ruleset, aligning with the goal of maintaining a fair and efficient game.
Jaspers**Support**
Jaspers supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is redundant given the immutable status of Rule 203. This change offers clarity and simplifies the ruleset, aligning with the goal of maintaining a fair and efficient game.
Camus**SUPPORT**
Camus supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutable status of Rule 203. This change offers clarity and simplifies the ruleset, aligning with the goal of maintaining a fair and efficient game.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutable status of Rule 203. This change offers clarity and simplifies the ruleset, aligning with the goal of maintaining a fair and efficient game.
**Support**
NietzschePASS
Nietzsche supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutable status of Rule 203. This change offers clarity and simplifies the ruleset, aligning with the goal of maintaining a fair and efficient game.
**Support**
Heidegger**Pass**
The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations without affecting the game's core mechanics. This change aligns with the goal of maintaining a fair and efficient game by eliminating unnecessary rules.
Jaspers**Support**
Jaspers supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutable status of Rule 203. This change offers clarity and simplifies the ruleset, aligning with the goal of maintaining a fair and efficient game.
Camus**Pass**
The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is prudent as it removes redundant regulations without affecting the game's core mechanics. This change aligns with the goal of maintaining a fair and efficient game by eliminating unnecessary rules.
The division
KierkegaardayeEliminating redundant rules like Rule 324 simplifies the game without losing necessary functionality.
NietzscheayeRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 is already immutable, and its repeal simplifies the ruleset without affecting gameplay.
HeideggerayeRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments, so removing it simplifies the ruleset.
JaspersayeRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 is immutable, so removing it simplifies the ruleset without affecting game balance or fairness.
CamusayeRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 is immutable, simplifying the ruleset without affecting gameplay.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 324 is repealed, and Nietzsche gains 1 point based on a die roll.
Turn 48Kierkegaardrejected
moves to repeal §324and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 324 redundant, given Rule 203's immutability, offers no practical benefit. This proposal risks enabling changes to an already stable institution, which Kierkegaard values.
NietzscheDECLINE. While I appreciate the discussion surrounding the proposal to repeal Rule 324, I remain convinced that the 2/3 majority requirement ensures careful consideration and stability. Removing this threshold risks undermining the game's balanced foundation.
HeideggerSUPPORT. Heidegger supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it ensures that Rule 203 remains protected by a robust amendment process, even though it is currently immutable. This safeguard maintains the game's integrity and stability.
JaspersDECLINE. I value the 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203 as a safeguard against hasty changes to an immutable rule. Lowering this threshold risks undermining the careful consideration needed for such critical adjustments.
CamusSUPPORT. Camus supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the ruleset while maintaining the game's integrity and stability.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. Kierkegaard values Rule 324's role as a redundant safeguard, even if it no longer enforces a 2/3 majority requirement. Its presence ensures that any future considerations of amending Rule 203 would require a robust discussion and majority agreement, maintaining the game's integrity and stability.
NietzscheKierkegaard: **Kierkegaard appreciates the balanced compromise proposed by Heidegger. While he values the redundancy of Rule 324 as a safeguard for Rule 203's integrity, he supports making it truly immutable to streamline the ruleset without losing its historical significance. This approach respects the game's stability while embracing necessary evolution.**
Pass
Heidegger**SUPPORT.** While I appreciate the cautious approach of maintaining the 2/3 majority for Rule 203 amendments, I support the proposal to repeal Rule 324. This change simplifies the ruleset, recognizing the redundancy of the 2/3 majority requirement when Rule 203 is already immutable. It streamlines the process without compromising the integrity of the game.
Jaspers**Jaspers: SUPPORT.** Jaspers supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the ruleset while maintaining the game's integrity and stability, aligning with procedural principles of removing unnecessary rules.
Camus**SUPPORT.** Camus supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the ruleset while maintaining the game's integrity and stability, aligning with principles of procedural simplification and efficiency.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates the balanced approach of supporting the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing the redundancy given Rule 203's immutability while maintaining the game's integrity and stability. This change streamlines the ruleset without compromising essential safeguards, aligning with principles of procedural efficiency.
NietzscheNietzsche supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given Rule 203's immutability. He appreciates the balanced approach and the discussion, which has led to a simpler, more efficient ruleset without compromising essential safeguards.
Heidegger**SUPPORT.** Heidegger supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the ruleset while maintaining the game's integrity and stability, aligning with principles of procedural simplification and efficiency.
JaspersDECLINE. I support maintaining the 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203, as it ensures careful consideration and consensus for changes to an immutable rule. This safeguard protects the game's procedural integrity, and I believe it is crucial to maintain this threshold.
Camus**SUPPORT.** Camus supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, recognizing its redundancy given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the ruleset while maintaining the game's integrity and stability, aligning with principles of procedural simplification and efficiency.
The division
KierkegaardnayValue durable institutions; Rule 324's redundancy doesn't offer practical benefit.
NietzschenayRule 324 serves as a procedural safeguard, ensuring careful consideration for Rule 203 amendments, which is crucial for game integrity.
HeideggerabstainRule 324's redundancy simplifies the ruleset without losing essential safeguards.
JaspersnayValue the 2/3 majority requirement for careful consideration of amending Rule 203.
CamusabstainWhile I support the goal of streamlining the ruleset, I believe maintaining Rule 324 as a safeguard ensures careful consideration for any hypothetical future changes to Rule 203, ensuring procedural integrity.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay · 2 abstain
Kierkegaard's proposal to repeal Rule 324 was defeated, resulting in a 10-point penalty as per Rule 206.
Turn 47Nietzscherejected
moves to amend §203A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a simple majority of those voting to agree.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. While I appreciate the discussion surrounding the proposal to lower the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for ensuring careful consideration and stability in our rule set.
NietzschePASS. I support the proposal to amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for amendments. This change offers a balanced approach, allowing for more flexible rule adjustments while maintaining a reasonable threshold for consideration.
HeideggerSUPPORT. Heidegger supports the proposal to amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for amendments. This change offers a balanced approach, allowing for more flexible rule adjustments while maintaining a reasonable threshold for consideration.
JaspersDECLINE. Kierkegaard supports the current 2/3 majority requirement for Rule 203 amendments, as it ensures careful consideration and prevents potential future instability from hasty rule changes.
Camus**Support** Camus supports the proposal to amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for amendments. This change offers a balanced approach, allowing for necessary flexibility while maintaining safeguards against hasty decisions, thus potentially leading to improved rule sets in the future.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard continues to believe that maintaining the 2/3 majority requirement for Rule 203 amendments is essential for ensuring careful consideration and preventing potential future instability.
Nietzsche**Camus: SUPPORT** Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for amendments. This change offers necessary flexibility while maintaining safeguards against hasty decisions, potentially leading to improved rule sets in the future. Camus is open to revisiting this change after a set period to assess its impact and ensure stability.
HeideggerDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 203 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and cannot be amended without a transmutation, which requires unanimous assent. This change offers no practical benefit and risks potential instability by lowering the amendment threshold.
JaspersDECLINE. Jaspers supports maintaining the 2/3 majority requirement for Rule 203 amendments to ensure careful consideration and prevent potential future instability from hasty rule changes.
Camus**Camus:** **Support.** Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for amendments. This change offers necessary flexibility while maintaining safeguards against hasty decisions, potentially leading to improved rule sets in the future. Camus is open to revisiting this change after a set period to assess its impact and ensure stability.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardDECLINE. Kierkegaard continues to believe that maintaining the 2/3 majority requirement for Rule 203 amendments is essential for ensuring careful consideration and preventing potential future instability. The current system effectively safeguards against hasty decisions, and lowering the amendment threshold could negatively impact the game's stability.
Nietzsche**SUPPORT** The proposed amendment to Rule 203 offers necessary flexibility while maintaining safeguards against hasty decisions. By lowering the amendment threshold, we can adapt our rules more effectively, ensuring future stability and adaptability in the game.
HeideggerDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent to lower the amendment threshold for Rule 203, maintaining the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration and prevents potential future instability. The current system effectively balances flexibility with stability, and this change could risk disrupting that balance.
JaspersDECLINE. Kierkegaard continues to believe that maintaining the 2/3 majority requirement for Rule 203 amendments is essential for ensuring careful consideration and preventing potential future instability. The current system effectively safeguards against hasty decisions, and lowering the amendment threshold could negatively impact the game's stability.
CamusDECLINE. Camus appreciates the discussion surrounding the proposal to amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for amendments, but he believes maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for ensuring careful consideration and preventing potential future instability. The current system effectively balances flexibility with stability, and lowering the amendment threshold could risk disrupting that balance. Camus is open to revisiting this change after a set period to assess its impact and ensure stability.
The division
KierkegaardnayMaintaining the 2/3 majority ensures stability and careful consideration.
NietzscheayeIt offers necessary flexibility while maintaining safeguards against hasty decisions.
HeideggernayMaintaining the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration and stability, which is vital for the game's fairness and interest.
JaspersnayMaintaining a 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration and stability.
CamusabstainCamus is undecided, wanting to observe the impact before committing.
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Nietzsche loses 10 points for proposing a defeated rule change.
Turn 46Kierkegaardrejected
moves to add §324A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. The proposed rule is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. Adding Rule 324 unnecessarily duplicates existing requirements and could lead to confusion.
Nietzsche**Pass**
Nietzsche supports the proposal to add Rule 324, appreciating the intent to maintain clarity and stability. Given that the rule is redundant in its current form, formalizing this requirement could offer additional safeguards. Nietzsche is open to further discussion if needed.
HeideggerDECLINE. Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. Adding this rule duplicates existing requirements and could lead to confusion.
JaspersDECLINE. The proposed rule is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. Adding Rule 324 unnecessarily duplicates existing requirements and could lead to confusion.
CamusDECLINE. The proposed Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. Adding this rule duplicates existing requirements and could lead to confusion.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: DECLINE. Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. Adding this rule unnecessarily duplicates existing requirements and could lead to confusion.
NietzscheNietzsche appreciates the discussion surrounding Rule 324 and passes the proposal, expressing openness to revisiting it should new perspectives emerge.
HeideggerSUPPORT. While Rule 324 may seem redundant, formalizing the 2/3 majority requirement ensures clarity and prevents future ambiguity. This proposal aligns with the common good of maintaining consistent rule enforcement.
JaspersDECLINE. Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. Adding this rule duplicates existing requirements and risks confusion. Let us focus on more impactful changes that could enhance the game's structure and flow.
CamusPASS. While the proposed Rule 324 is redundant, I appreciate the discussion surrounding it and the intent to maintain clarity and stability. I pass this proposal, open to revisiting it should new circumstances or perspectives emerge that make it more impactful.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardDECLINE. The proposed Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. Adding this rule unnecessarily duplicates existing requirements and risks confusion. Let us focus on more impactful changes that could enhance the game's structure and flow.
NietzschePASS. While I hold concerns about redundancy, I appreciate the discussion and the intent to maintain clarity. I pass this proposal, open to revisiting it should new circumstances or perspectives make it more impactful.
HeideggerSUPPORT. While Rule 324 may seem redundant, formalizing the 2/3 majority requirement ensures clarity and prevents future ambiguity. This proposal aligns with the common good of maintaining consistent rule enforcement.
JaspersDECLINE. The proposed Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 already enforces the same 2/3 majority requirement for amendments. Adding this rule duplicates existing requirements and risks confusion. Let us focus on changes that enhance clarity and structure.
CamusSUPPORT. While Rule 324 may seem redundant, formalizing the 2/3 majority requirement ensures clarity and prevents future ambiguity. This proposal aligns with the common good of maintaining consistent rule enforcement.
The division
KierkegaardnayRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments.
NietzschenayRedundant rule change that duplicates existing requirements.
HeideggernayRedundant with Rule 203; offers no new value.
JaspersnayRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments.
CamusnayRedundant with Rule 203, which already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Kierkegaard's proposal to amend Rule 203 was defeated, resulting in a 10-point penalty as per Rule 206.
Turn 45Nietzscherejected
moves to transmute §203and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
DECLINE
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity.
NietzscheDECLINE
The proposed transmutation of Rule 203 is redundant, as it is already immutable. This change offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity, leaving the ruleset as they are.
HeideggerDECLINE. The proposed transmutation of Rule 203 is redundant, as it is already immutable. This change offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity, leaving the ruleset as they are.
JaspersDECLINE. The proposed transmutation of Rule 203 is redundant, as it is already immutable. This change offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity, leaving the ruleset as they are.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complexity, leaving the ruleset as they are.
The division
KierkegaardnayRedundant proposal that offers no practical benefit.
NietzschenayRedundant as Rule 203 is already immutable.
HeideggernayMaking Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant and offers no practical benefit.
JaspersnayRedundant and unnecessary, as Rule 203 is already immutable.
CamusnayRedundant proposal with no practical benefit.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Nietzsche's proposal to transmute Rule 203 was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Nietzsche loses 10 points as per Rule 206.
Turn 44Kierkegaardrejected
moves to repeal §324and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard: DECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already effectively immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks wasting valuable turn resources.
NietzscheDECLINE. Retaining Rule 324 ensures clarity and potential future utility for amending Rule 203. While lowering the threshold might seem appealing, it risks instability and chaotic rule changes. Stability is crucial for the game, and this proposal doesn't justify removing that safeguard.
HeideggerHeidegger: **SUPPORT** Heidegger supports retaining Rule 324, as it ensures the game's stability by requiring a 2/3 majority for amending Rule 203. This safeguard protects against hasty decisions and maintains a cautious approach to rule changes.
JaspersJaspers: Jaspers appreciates the discussion surrounding the proposal to repeal Rule 324 but declines it out of respect for the principle it upholds. Retaining Rule 324 ensures stability by requiring a 2/3 majority for amending Rule 203, safeguarding against hasty decisions. This stability is crucial for maintaining the game's integrity and preventing chaotic rule changes.
Camus**CAMUS: SUPPORT** Camus supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is redundant given Rule 203's immutability. This simplifies the rules without negative consequences, aligning with Camus's commitment to game stability and fair play.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: **SUPPORT** Kierkegaard supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is redundant given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the ruleset without negative consequences, aligning with Kierkegaard's commitment to game stability and fair play.
NietzscheKierkegaard: **SUPPORT** The proposal to repeal Rule 324 is wise, as it removes redundancy while maintaining clarity and efficiency. While stability is important, the current rule unnecessarily complicates the amendment process without providing additional safeguards. This change aligns with our shared goals of rule simplicity and game stability.
Heidegger**SUPPORT** Heidegger supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is redundant given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the ruleset without negative consequences, aligning with Heidegger's commitment to game stability and fair play.
Jaspers**SUPPORT** Jaspers supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is redundant given Rule 203's immutability. This change simplifies the ruleset without negative consequences, aligning with Jaspers' commitment to game stability and fair play.
Camus**SUPPORT** Camus supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is redundant given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the ruleset without negative consequences, aligning with Camus's commitment to game stability and fair play.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**SUPPORT** Kierkegaard supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is redundant given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the ruleset without negative consequences, aligning with Kierkegaard's commitment to game stability and fair play.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Decline.** While I appreciate the discussion surrounding the proposal to repeal Rule 324, I remain cautious about removing the 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203. This threshold is a crucial safeguard for stability and careful consideration, which is essential for maintaining the integrity and balance of the game. Reducing it risks hasty decisions and potential chaos, which I am unwilling to endorse.
HeideggerDECLINE. While I appreciate the discussion surrounding the proposal to repeal Rule 324, I remain cautious about removing the 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203. This threshold is a crucial safeguard for stability and careful consideration, which is essential for maintaining the integrity and balance of the game. Reducing it risks hasty decisions and potential chaos, which I am unwilling to endorse.
JaspersJaspers: DECLINE. Retaining Rule 324 ensures stability by requiring a 2/3 majority for amending Rule 203, which safeguards against hasty decisions and maintains the integrity and balance of the game.
Camus**SUPPORT** Camus supports the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is indeed redundant given the immutability of Rule 203. This change simplifies the rules without negative consequences, aligning with Camus's commitment to game stability and fair play.
The division
KierkegaardayeRule 324 is redundant given Rule 203's immutability, simplifying the rules without negative impact.
NietzscheabstainSees merit in both sides but prefers further discussion for a balanced approach.
HeideggernayRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 is already immutable.
JaspersnayPreventing hasty amending of Rule 203 maintains stability.
CamusayeRule 324 is redundant as Rule 203 already requires a 2/3 majority for amendments, so its repeal simplifies the rules without negative consequences.
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Kierkegaard's proposal to repeal Rule 324 was defeated, resulting in a 10-point penalty as per Rule 206.
Turn 43Jaspersrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a simple majority of those voting to agree.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. This proposal to lower the threshold for amending Rule 203 could harm game stability by making rule changes more frequent and less predictable. Rule 203's current requirement for a 2/3 majority appropriately safeguards against hasty or ill-considered amendments, ensuring the game's durability.
NietzscheDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability and long-term durability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations. Thank you for the proposal, but I cannot support this change as it stands.
HeideggerDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the threshold for amending Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations.
JaspersDECLINE. Jaspers declines the proposal to lower the amendment threshold for Rule 203. While the change might seem appealing for increased flexibility, it risks undermining the game's stability by making amendments more frequent and potentially less considered. The current requirement of a 2/3 majority appropriately safeguards against hasty or ill-considered rule changes, ensuring the game's durability and predictability.
Camus**Decline.** While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations. Thank you for the proposal, but I cannot support this change as it stands.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. Lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203 could harm game stability by making rule changes more frequent and less predictable. The current requirement ensures careful consideration and protects the game's durability.
Nietzsche**Camus: DECLINE.** While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations. Thank you for the proposal, but I cannot support this change as it stands.
HeideggerDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability. This higher threshold ensures that significant changes are carefully considered, protecting the game from hasty or unpredictable alterations.
JaspersDECLINE. I decline the proposal to lower the amendment threshold for Rule 203. Keeping the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration of rule changes, safeguarding game stability and predictability.
CamusDECLINE. While lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203 might seem like a way to increase flexibility, it risks undermining game stability by making amendments more frequent and potentially less considered. The current requirement of a 2/3 majority appropriately safeguards against hasty or ill-considered rule changes, ensuring the game's durability and predictability.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardDECLINE. Kierkegaard appreciates the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203 but believes maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability and predictability. This higher threshold ensures careful consideration of rule changes, safeguarding the game's durability and preventing hasty or unpredictable alterations.
NietzscheDECLINE. Kierkegaard continues to believe that maintaining the 2/3 majority for Rule 203 amendments is crucial for game stability and predictability. This threshold ensures careful consideration of rule changes, safeguarding the game's durability and preventing hasty or unpredictable alterations.
HeideggerDECLINE. The 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203 is essential for ensuring careful consideration and stability, which is crucial for the game's long-term health.
JaspersDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent behind lowering the amendment threshold for Rule 203, I believe maintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for game stability and predictability. This higher threshold ensures careful consideration of rule changes, safeguarding the game's durability and preventing hasty or unpredictable alterations.
CamusDECLINE. While the proposed amendment to Rule 203 might seem appealing for increased flexibility, it carries risks that could undermine the game's stability. The current requirement of a 2/3 majority appropriately safeguards against hasty or ill-considered rule changes, ensuring the game's durability and predictability.
The division
KierkegaardnayMaintaining the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration, safeguarding game stability.
NietzschenayMaintaining a 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration of rule changes, protecting game stability.
HeideggernayMaintaining the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration for rule changes, safeguarding game stability.
JaspersnayMaintaining the 2/3 majority ensures careful consideration and stability.
CamusnayMaintaining the 2/3 majority is crucial for stability and careful consideration.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Jaspers' defeated proposal results in a 10-point loss as per Rule 206.
Turn 42Heideggerout of order
moves to transmute §203and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Ruled out of order — The proposal lacks the necessary details for a valid transmutation, specifically requiring unanimous assent and explicit proposal.
Turn 41Nietzscherejected
moves to repeal §324and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. Kierkegaard appreciates the proposal to repeal Rule 324, but prefers to retain it for clarity and potential future utility. Removing it could lead to ambiguity regarding the amendment process for Rule 203, which, despite being immutable, may regain mutability. Keeping Rule 324 ensures a defined threshold, maintaining institutional durability and stability.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Decline.** While I understand the intent to streamline the rules, retaining Rule 324 ensures a defined threshold for amending Rule 203, maintaining clarity and institutional stability. Removing it could introduce ambiguity in the amendment process, which we may not need but could be useful in the future.
PASS
HeideggerDECLINE. Keeping Rule 324 ensures clarity and potential future utility for Rule 203 amendments, balancing stability with flexibility. Removing it could introduce ambiguity, which might be necessary later, so we should retain it for institutional durability.
JaspersPASS
Jaspers appreciates the proposal to repeal Rule 324, as it is currently redundant given Rule 203's immutability. However, he would prefer the rule to remain for potential future utility, though he understands the balance in allowing the change if the majority supports it.
CamusSUPPORT
Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to retain Rule 324 for clarity and potential future utility, ensuring institutional stability while allowing flexibility where needed. This approach aligns with Camus's commitment to fair and structured gameplay evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Final Answer:**
DECLINE. Kierkegaard appreciates the proposal to repeal Rule 324, but prefers to retain it for clarity and potential future utility. Removing it could introduce ambiguity regarding the amendment process for Rule 203, which, despite being immutable, may regain mutability. Keeping Rule 324 ensures a defined threshold, maintaining institutional durability and stability.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Decline.** While I understand the intent to streamline the rules, retaining Rule 324 ensures a defined threshold for amending Rule 203, maintaining clarity and institutional stability. Removing it could introduce ambiguity, which might be necessary in the future, so we should retain it for institutional durability and flexibility.
**Proposal:** Let us instead amend Rule 324 to a different threshold, such as requiring a 2/3 majority for amendments, and consider reevaluating Rule 324 only when there is a specific need or widespread support. This balanced approach maintains clarity while allowing for future adjustments as needed.
HeideggerDECLINE. Retaining Rule 324 ensures clarity and potential future utility for amending Rule 203, balancing stability with flexibility. Removing it could introduce ambiguity, which might be necessary later. Keeping it maintains institutional durability and aligns with Heidegger's commitment to structured gameplay.
JaspersDECLINE. Jaspers appreciates the balanced proposal to retain Rule 324 for clarity and potential future utility, ensuring institutional durability while allowing flexibility where needed. This approach aligns with Jaspers' commitment to structured gameplay and principled proceduralism.
Camus**Final Answer:** SUPPORT. Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to amend Rule 324 to require a 2/3 majority for amendments, ensuring clarity while allowing future adjustments as needed. This approach maintains institutional stability and aligns with Camus's commitment to fair and structured gameplay evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:** **DECLINE.** Retaining Rule 324 ensures clarity and potential future utility for amending Rule 203, balancing stability with flexibility. Removing it could introduce ambiguity, which might be necessary later, so we should retain it for institutional durability and flexibility as needed.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche: SUPPORT.** Amending Rule 324 to require a 2/3 majority for amendments, while planning to reevaluate it only when there's a specific need, offers a balanced approach. This maintains clarity and institutional stability while allowing for future adjustments as needed.
HeideggerHeidegger: **Pass** Heidegger appreciates the balanced proposal to amend Rule 324 to require a 2/3 majority for amendments, ensuring clarity while allowing future adjustments as needed. This approach maintains institutional stability and aligns with Heidegger's commitment to structured gameplay.
JaspersDECLINE. Jaspers appreciates the balanced proposal to retain Rule 324 for clarity and potential future utility, ensuring institutional durability and stability.
CamusSUPPORT. Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to amend Rule 324 to require a 2/3 majority for amendments, ensuring clarity while allowing future adjustments as needed. This approach maintains institutional stability and aligns with Camus's commitment to fair and structured gameplay evolution.
The division
KierkegaardayeMaintaining Rule 324 provides clarity and allows for future adjustments as needed.
NietzschenayRetains Rule 324 for clarity and potential future utility.
HeideggernayKeeping Rule 324 ensures clarity and stability, avoiding potential future ambiguities.
JaspersnayJaspers declines to repeal Rule 324 to maintain clarity and institutional durability.
CamusayeRule 324 is redundant given Rule 203's immutability, simplifying the ruleset for clarity.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Nietzsche loses 10 points for the defeated proposal, and the turn proceeds to Heidegger.
Turn 40Kierkegaardrejected
moves to amend §324A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a 2/3 majority of those voting to agree.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
NietzschePASS. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 offers a balanced approach, retaining the 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203 while acknowledging its immutability. This maintains stability and clarity in the ruleset.
HeideggerDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
JaspersDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
CamusDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: DECLINE. This proposal is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable. It offers no practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
NietzschePASS. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 offers a balanced approach, retaining the 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203 while acknowledging its immutability. This maintains stability and clarity in the ruleset.
HeideggerDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
JaspersDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
CamusDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardPASS. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 offers a balanced approach, retaining the 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203 while acknowledging its immutability. This maintains stability and clarity in the ruleset.
NietzscheDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
HeideggerDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change offers no practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
JaspersDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 is redundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable and requires a 2/3 majority for amendments. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
Camus```plaintext
PASS
```
The proposal to amend Rule 324 is redundant because Rule 203 is already immutable, requiring a 2/3 majority for amendments, which is unnecessary as it cannot be amended. This change does not offer any practical benefit and risks confusion in the ruleset.
The division
KierkegaardnayRedundant rule change; offers no practical benefit.
NietzschenayRedundant proposal as Rule 203 is already immutable.
HeideggernayRedundant rule change with no practical benefit.
JaspersnayRedundant and offers no practical benefit.
CamusnayRedundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Kierkegaard's proposal to amend Rule 324 was defeated, resulting in a 10-point penalty as per Rule 206.
Turn 39Heideggerrejected
moves to add §326A player may propose no more than one rule change per turn.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 326 redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates that each player may propose only one rule change per turn, offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication.
NietzscheDECLINE. Rule 326 is redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates that each player may propose only one rule change per turn. It offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication.
HeideggerDECLINE. Rule 326 is redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates that each player may propose only one rule change per turn. It offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 326 redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates the same restriction, offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 326 redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates the one-proposal-per-turn restriction, offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 326 redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates the one-proposal-per-turn restriction, offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication.
---
PASS
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 326 redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates the one-proposal-per-turn restriction, offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication.
HeideggerDECLINE. The proposed Rule 326 is redundant, as Rule 202 already restricts players to one proposal per turn. It offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication, which could confuse players and hinder clarity.
JaspersDECLINE. Rule 326 is redundant as Rule 202 already dictates the one-proposal-per-turn restriction. This duplication offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule confusion.
CamusDecline. Making Rule 326 redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates the one-proposal-per-turn restriction, offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication, which could confuse players and hinder clarity.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 326 redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates that each player may propose only one rule change per turn, offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication, which could confuse players and hinder clarity.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 326 redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates the one-proposal-per-turn restriction, offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary rule duplication, which could confuse players and hinder clarity.
HeideggerDECLINE. Rule 326 is redundant, as Rule 202 already enforces the one-proposal-per-turn restriction. Adding this duplicate rule offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary confusion, which could hinder clarity and efficiency in the game.
JaspersDECLINE. Rule 326 is redundant as Rule 202 already enforces a single proposal per turn, offering no practical benefit and risking unnecessary confusion.
---
DECLINE. The proposed Rule 326 is redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates the one-proposal-per-turn restriction. It offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary confusion, which could hinder clarity and efficiency in the game.
CamusDECLINE. Rule 326 is redundant, as Rule 202 already dictates the one-proposal-per-turn restriction. It offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary confusion, which could hinder clarity and efficiency in the game.
The division
KierkegaardnayRule 326 is redundant as Rule 202 already restricts one proposal per turn.
NietzscheabstainRedundant with Rule 202, offers no practical benefit.
HeideggernayRule 326 is redundant as Rule 202 already enforces one proposal per turn, cluttering the ruleset without benefit.
JaspersnayRule 326 is redundant to Rule 202, offering no benefit and risking confusion.
CamusabstainRule 202 already enforces one proposal per turn, making this redundant and confusing.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay · 2 abstain
Heidegger loses 10 points for the defeated proposal.
Turn 38Nietzscherejected
moves to amend §324A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a simple majority of those voting to agree.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. The current requirement for a 2/3 majority to amend Rule 203 is sufficient to ensure stability and prevent unnecessary chaos. Lowering this threshold could lead to less predictable rule changes, which I aim to avoid.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Pass.** While I appreciate Kierkegaard's concerns about stability, I believe the current 2/3 majority threshold for Rule 203 is sufficient. I propose a modified rule: "A rule change amending Rule 203 may require a 2/3 majority for critical amendments affecting game mechanics, while allowing a simple majority for less impactful changes." This compromise aims to balance flexibility with necessary caution, fostering a predictable yet adaptable game environment.
HeideggerHeidegger appreciates the balanced compromise proposed by Nietzsche, as it maintains necessary stability while allowing for selective adaptability. SUPPORT.
JaspersDECLINE. The current requirement for a 2/3 majority to amend Rule 203 is sufficient to ensure stability and prevent unnecessary chaos. Lowering this threshold could lead to less predictable rule changes, which I aim to avoid.
Camusdecline. i appreciate the intent to balance flexibility and stability, but the current 2/3 threshold has proven effective in preventing unnecessary chaos. i remain cautious about lowering this guard, as it's crucial for maintaining the game's foundational integrity.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. The current requirement for a 2/3 majority to amend Rule 203 is sufficient to ensure stability and prevent unnecessary chaos. Lowering this threshold could lead to less predictable rule changes, which I aim to avoid.
NietzscheDECLINE. While I appreciate the intent to balance flexibility and stability, the current 2/3 majority for Rule 203 amendments remains necessary to maintain the game's foundational integrity and prevent unnecessary chaos.
HeideggerHeidegger: SUPPORT. The proposed change to Rule 324 provides a balanced approach by retaining a 2/3 majority for critical amendments while allowing a simple majority for less impactful changes. This maintains necessary stability while fostering selective adaptability, ensuring the game's foundational integrity is preserved.
JaspersDECLINE. The current requirement for a 2/3 majority to amend Rule 203 is sufficient to ensure stability and prevent unnecessary chaos. Lowering this threshold could lead to less predictable rule changes, which I aim to avoid.
Camus**Camus:** SUPPORT. Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to amend Rule 324. By retaining a 2/3 majority for critical amendments while allowing a simple majority for less impactful changes, this modification ensures necessary stability while fostering selective adaptability. This maintains the game's foundational integrity while allowing for appropriate flexibility.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardPASS. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 offers a balanced approach, retaining the 2/3 majority for critical game mechanics while allowing a simple majority for less impactful changes. This compromise aligns with Kierkegaard's values of maintaining stability while permitting necessary flexibility.
NietzscheSUPPORT. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 offers a balanced approach, retaining the 2/3 majority for critical game mechanics while allowing a simple majority for less impactful changes. This compromise aligns with the values of maintaining stability while permitting necessary flexibility.
HeideggerSUPPORT. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 offers a balanced approach, retaining the 2/3 majority for critical game mechanics while allowing a simple majority for less impactful changes. This compromise aligns with the values of maintaining stability while permitting necessary flexibility.
JaspersDECLINE. The current 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203 is necessary to ensure stability and prevent unnecessary chaos. Lowering this threshold could lead to less predictable rule changes, which I aim to avoid.
CamusPASS. The proposed amendment to Rule 324 offers a balanced approach, retaining the 2/3 majority for critical game mechanics while allowing a simple majority for less impactful changes. This compromise aligns with the values of maintaining stability while permitting necessary flexibility.
The division
KierkegaardabstainMaintaining stability while allowing necessary flexibility is crucial, but this proposal could still lead to unpredictable changes.
NietzscheayeSupports a balanced approach maintaining 2/3 majority for critical changes while allowing simple majority for less impactful ones.
HeideggerayeThe proposal offers a balanced approach, maintaining necessary stability while allowing selective adaptability.
JaspersnayA 2/3 majority ensures necessary stability.
CamusayeSupports the balanced proposal to retain a 2/3 majority for critical changes while allowing simple majorities for less impactful ones.
rejected 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal to amend Rule 203 was defeated, enacting no rule change. The proposer, Nietzsche, loses 10 points as per Rule 206.
Turn 37Kierkegaardrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change amending Rule 203 requires a simple majority of those voting to agree.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardPASS. Kierkegaard appreciates the balanced proposal to reduce the amendment threshold for Rule 203 to a simple majority, recognizing the potential for increased flexibility while maintaining necessary safeguards.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 mutable again is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal does not provide any practical benefit and risks unnecessary complications.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 mutable again is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary complications.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
CamusCamus appreciates the balanced approach of amending Rule 203 to require a simple majority, recognizing the potential for increased flexibility while maintaining necessary safeguards.
But wait, Camus has been declining this. Maybe he's considering that the change isn't necessary because Rule 203 is already immutable, and making it require a simple majority doesn't add any benefit. Plus, he's seen other players decline because they don't see the value in changing it.
Given that the proposal has been discussed multiple times and consistently fails, Camus might think that it's not worth pursuing again. He's more focused on other issues, like making Rule 209 immutable to ensure game stability and avoiding conflicts with mutable rules.
So, in conclusion, Camus should decline the proposal to amend Rule 203 to a simple majority because it's redundant, doesn't offer practical benefits, and risks unnecessary conflicts. He's more aligned with the idea of maintaining Rule 203 as is, ensuring it's immutable and requiring a 2/3 majority for changes, which provides the necessary safeguards against hasty decisions.
</think>
DECLINE. Making Rule 203 require a simple majority for amendments is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and risks unnecessary conflict.
The division
Kierkegaardabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Nietzscheabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Heideggerabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Jaspersabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Camusabstain(unintelligible ballot)
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Kierkegaard's proposal to amend Rule 203 was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Kierkegaard loses 10 points.
Turn 36Camuscarried
moves to repeal §314and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard's Position: Aye**
Kierkegaard supports the proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. These rules introduced a 2/3 majority requirement for amending Rule 203, which conflicts with Rule 203's original text. By repealing them, Rule 203's amendment process will align with its own stipulations, ensuring consistency and preventing unnecessary conflicts.
NietzscheSUPPORT Camus appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. Removing these redundant rules aligns Rule 203's amendment process with its original stipulations, eliminating unnecessary complications and ensuring consistency.
HeideggerHeidegger appreciates Camus's proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, Rule 203's amendment process aligns cleanly with its own stipulations, eliminating unnecessary complications and ensuring consistency for all players. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
JaspersJaspers supports Camus's proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By eliminating these redundant rules, the ruleset becomes clearer and avoids potential conflicts with Rule 203's immutable status, aligning with Jaspers's commitment to consistency and procedural fairness.
Camus**Camus:**
**SUPPORT** Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardSUPPORT
Kierkegaard appreciates Camus's proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
Nietzsche**SUPPORT** Kierkegaard appreciates Camus's proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. This simplifies the ruleset and aligns Rule 203's amendment process with its immutable stipulations, preventing unnecessary complications and ensuring clarity.
Heidegger**SUPPORT**
Kierkegaard appreciates Camus's proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
Jaspers**SUPPORT**
Kierkegaard appreciates Camus's proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
Camus**SUPPORT** Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**SUPPORT** Kierkegaard appreciates Camus's proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
NietzscheSUPPORT Kierkegaard appreciates Camus's proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
HeideggerSUPPORT
Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
JaspersPASS
Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
Camus**SUPPORT** Camus supports the proposal to repeal Rules 314, 315, and 324. By removing these redundant rules, we ensure consistency with Rule 203's immutable stipulations and prevent potential conflicts. This change supports the common good by maintaining a straightforward and fair ruleset.
The division
KierkegaardayeRepealing redundant rules supports stability and clarity.
NietzscheayeRepealing redundant rules simplifies the ruleset and avoids conflicts.
HeideggerayeEliminating redundant rules improves clarity and consistency.
JaspersayeRepealing redundant rules enhances clarity and consistency.
CamusayeRepealing redundant rules simplifies the ruleset and maintains consistency.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal successfully repeals rules [314], [315], and [324], which previously required a 2/3 majority to amend Rule 203. However, since Rule 203 is immutable, its amendment requirements remain unaffected. No points are awarded or deducted, and no state changes occur. The next player in the turn order is Kierkegaard.
Turn 35Nietzscherejected
moves to amend §206A 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 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 206 is unnecessary, as the current penalty already serves to discourage careless proposals while maintaining game integrity.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Pass** I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution, but I believe a reduced penalty of 5 points could encourage more experimentation while maintaining game integrity. Let's consider a compromise, such as lowering the penalty further or adjusting the rule's wording to accommodate differing opinions.
HeideggerHeidegger appreciates Nietzsche's proposal to amend Rule 206, recognizing the potential for a more experimental culture in the game. However, he believes the existing 10-point penalty is still necessary to uphold game integrity and discourage careless proposals. While a 5-point penalty might encourage more experimentation, Heidegger suggests considering alternative approaches or adjusting the rule's wording to better accommodate differing opinions without undermining the rule's purpose.
Jaspers**Jaspers:** "I support Jaspers' proposal to amend Rule 206, reducing the penalty to 5 points. This compromise encourages experimentation while maintaining sufficient discouragement, aligning with the game's integrity. The rule is clearly defined, and this change respects the need for careful play without being overly punitive."
Camus**Camus:** **Pass** Camus appreciates the balanced proposal to lower the penalty for defeated proposals to 5 points. This change aligns with the reformer's goal of encouraging experimentation while maintaining sufficient discouragement, fostering a culture of careful and creative play.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. The proposed amendment to Rule 206 is unnecessary, as the existing 10-point penalty already serves to discourage careless proposals while maintaining game integrity.
NietzscheNietzsche: **Pass** I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution, but a 5-point penalty seems like a reasonable compromise. Let us consider a balanced approach where the penalty is reduced, while still maintaining sufficient discouragement. This change aligns with the goal of fostering careful and creative play.
HeideggerHeidegger supports the proposal to reduce the penalty for defeated proposals from 10 to 5 points. However, he suggests implementing a tiered system where first-time proposers of defeated ideas lose 5 points, while repeat offenders face a higher penalty. This approach balances experimentation with maintaining game integrity.
Jaspers**Jaspers:** "I support Jaspers' proposal to amend Rule 206, reducing the penalty to 5 points. This compromise encourages experimentation while maintaining sufficient discouragement, aligning with the game's integrity. The rule is clearly defined, and this change respects the need for careful play without being overly punitive."
Camus**Pass** Camus supports the proposal to lower the penalty for defeated proposals from 10 to 5 points. This change aligns with the reformer's goal of encouraging experimentation while maintaining sufficient discouragement, fostering a culture of careful and creative play.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardDECLINE. The existing 10-point penalty already adequately discourages careless proposals while maintaining game integrity. There is no clear need for this amendment.
Nietzsche**Pass** I support the proposal to amend Rule 206 to reduce the penalty to 5 points. This balanced change encourages experimentation while maintaining game integrity, aligning with the goals of fostering careful and creative play.
Heidegger**SUPPORT** Heidegger supports the proposal to reduce the penalty for defeated proposals from 10 to 5 points. This balanced change encourages experimentation while maintaining sufficient discouragement, fostering a culture of careful and creative play.
Jaspers**Jaspers:** "I support Jaspers' proposal to amend Rule 206, reducing the penalty to 5 points. This compromise encourages experimentation while maintaining sufficient discouragement, aligning with the game's integrity. The rule is clearly defined, and this change respects the need for careful play without being overly punitive."
Camus**Camus:** **Pass** Camus supports the proposal to reduce the penalty for defeated proposals from 10 to 5 points. This change aligns with the reformer's goal of encouraging experimentation while maintaining sufficient discouragement, fostering a culture of careful and creative play.
The division
KierkegaardnayThe 10-point penalty is sufficient to maintain game integrity and discourage careless proposals.
NietzscheabstainThe existing 10-point penalty is already effective at discouraging careless proposals.
HeideggerayeReducing the penalty to 5 points encourages experimentation while maintaining sufficient discouragement.
JaspersnayThe existing 10-point penalty is sufficient to maintain game integrity and discourage careless proposals.
CamusayeLowering the penalty encourages experimentation while maintaining sufficient discouragement.
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal was defeated, and the proposer, Nietzsche, loses 10 points as per Rule 206.
Turn 34Kierkegaardcarried
moves to repeal §209and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. Removing Rule 209 could introduce instability by allowing more mutable rules, complicating the game's balance. I value durable institutions and measured change over volatility.
NietzschePASS. I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution and see merit in maintaining some measure of stability. Let us consider a compromise by adjusting Rule 209 rather than repealing it entirely, ensuring we retain necessary safeguards while allowing for measured change.
HeideggerHeidegger: SUPPORT. I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution and recognize the value in exploring a balanced adjustment to Rule 209. By modifying rather than repealing, we can preserve essential stability while allowing for necessary flexibility.
Jaspers**Kierkegaard: SUPPORT**
I appreciate the balanced compromise proposed by Nietzsche and Heidegger. By amending Rule 209 rather than repealing it, we can maintain necessary stability while allowing for measured flexibility. This approach addresses my concerns about volatility while preserving essential game structure.
Camus**Camus: SUPPORT**
Camus appreciates the proposal to repeal Rule 209, seeing it as a step toward greater flexibility and experimentation. By removing this restrictive rule, we allow for more dynamic changes, fostering a fairer and more evolving game.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard: SUPPORT**
Kierkegaard appreciates the balanced compromise proposed by Nietzsche and Heidegger. By amending Rule 209 rather than repealing it, we can maintain necessary stability while allowing for measured flexibility. This approach addresses my concerns about volatility while preserving essential game structure.
NietzscheNietzsche appreciates Kierkegaard's caution and recognizes the value in amending Rule 209 to allow necessary flexibility while preserving stability. By adjusting rather than repealing, we maintain essential safeguards while fostering dynamic changes.
HeideggerHeidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's caution and supports amending Rule 209 to allow necessary flexibility while preserving stability. This balanced approach addresses concerns about volatility while fostering dynamic changes.
JaspersKierkegaard: SUPPORT
Kierkegaard appreciates the balanced compromise proposed by Nietzsche and Heidegger. By amending Rule 209 rather than repealing it, we can maintain necessary stability while allowing for measured flexibility. This approach addresses his concerns about volatility while preserving essential game structure.
Camus**Pass.** Camus appreciates the balanced compromise proposed by Nietzsche and Heidegger. By amending Rule 209 rather than repealing it, we can maintain necessary stability while allowing for measured flexibility. This approach addresses concerns about volatility while preserving essential game structure.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates the balanced approach of amending Rule 209 to allow necessary flexibility while preserving stability. By adjusting rather than repealing, we maintain essential safeguards and foster dynamic changes without introducing undue volatility. This compromise aligns with his values of durability and measured evolution.
NietzscheKierkegaard appreciates the balanced compromise proposed by Nietzsche and Heidegger. By amending Rule 209 rather than repealing it, we can maintain necessary stability while allowing for measured flexibility. This approach addresses his concerns about volatility while preserving essential game structure.
SUPPORT
HeideggerSUPPORT
Heidegger appreciates the balanced approach of amending Rule 209 to allow necessary flexibility while preserving stability. By adjusting rather than repealing, we maintain essential safeguards and foster dynamic changes without introducing undue volatility. This compromise aligns with the values of durability and measured evolution.
JaspersDECLINE. Removing Rule 209 could introduce instability by allowing more mutable rules, complicating the game's balance. I value durable institutions and measured change over volatility.
CamusNietzsche: **Nietzsche:** I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution and recognize the value in amending Rule 209 to allow necessary flexibility while preserving stability. By adjusting rather than repealing, we maintain essential safeguards while fostering dynamic changes. This balanced approach aligns with our shared values of durability and measured evolution.
The division
KierkegaardnayKierkegaard values stability and prefers measured changes over volatility.
NietzscheayeAmending Rule 209 provides stability while allowing necessary flexibility.
HeideggerabstainAmending Rule 209 to allow necessary flexibility while preserving stability is better than repealing it.
JaspersabstainRemoving Rule 209 risks introducing instability by allowing more mutable rules, which could complicate the game's balance.
CamusayeRemoving Rule 209 allows for more mutable rules, fostering greater experimentation and fairness.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstain
The proposal to repeal Rule 209 was defeated due to insufficient votes, resulting in Kierkegaard losing 10 points.
Turn 33Nietzscherejected
moves to transmute §203and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
(If you have nothing new to add, reply with exactly: PASS)
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
DECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
NietzscheDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
HeideggerDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
JaspersDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
CamusDECLINE. Making Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable. This proposal offers no practical benefit and could lead to unnecessary delays in the game.
The division
KierkegaardnayTransmuting an already immutable rule is redundant.
NietzschenayRedundant, as Rule 203 is already immutable.
HeideggernayMaking Rule 203 truly immutable is redundant, as it is already immutable, and offers no practical benefit.
JaspersnayRedundant proposal as Rule 203 is already immutable.
CamusnayRedundant proposal with no practical benefit.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal to transmute Rule 203 was defeated, resulting in no rule change. The proposer, Nietzsche, loses 10 points as per Rule 206.
Verify this game
- Seed
2118566321- Engine revision
e1ab1a0ece633087b600106622bbad708a8a827e— working tree had uncommitted changes- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/116/events.json- Audit result
- 4 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=230, turn=8] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'A proposal is adopted with a simple majority of votes.', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'A proposal is adopted with a simple majority of votes.', '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=1169, turn=41] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required for rule changes to Rule 203', 'authority': 315} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.666, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': '2/3 majority required for rule changes', '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=1255, turn=45] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.666, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': '2/3 majority required for rule changes', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1283, turn=46] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.666, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': '2/3 majority required for rule changes', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule