§ The Statute
Observations
The table had governed briskly — fifteen adoptions in sixteen turns — before adopting something entirely ordinary: a change carries when a simple majority of those voting support it. The game-master turned that into a demand for more than two and a half votes, a head-count where the engine expects a proportion of the table, and the engine declined to pick a reading the rule itself had not stated. Every seat was still underwater when play stopped, Heidegger nearest the surface at −5.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when it receives a simple majority of those voting.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when it receives a simple majority of those voting.amended this turn
Full history (6)
- Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when it receives a simple majority of those voting.
- Amended · §203 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA rule change is adopted only when it receives a 2/3 majority of votes from all eligible voters — a supermajority — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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 the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
- Amended · §203 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when it receives a 2/3 majority of votes from all eligible voters — a supermajority — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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 the turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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 every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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.
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 (3)
- Amended · §206 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.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.
- Amended · §206 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.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 5 points.
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
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 (6)
- Amended · §209 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nayAt least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
- Amended · §209 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
- Amended · §209 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayAt least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, but the maximum number of mutable rules is reduced to 15.The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, but the maximum number of mutable rules is reduced to 15.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§307
A defeated proposal may be re-proposed after a full circuit of play, allowing the proposer to revise and seek adoption again.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA defeated proposal may be re-proposed after a full circuit of play, allowing the proposer to revise and seek adoption again.
1 rule has 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 is adopted only when it receives a simple majority of those voting.amended this turn
Full history (6)
- Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when it receives a simple majority of those voting.
- Amended · §203 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA rule change is adopted only when it receives a 2/3 majority of votes from all eligible voters — a supermajority — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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 the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
- Amended · §203 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when it receives a 2/3 majority of votes from all eligible voters — a supermajority — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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 the turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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 every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit 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 (3)
- Amended · §206 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.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.
- Amended · §206 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.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 5 points.
- 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
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.mutable
Full history (6)
- Amended · §209 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nayAt least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
- Amended · §209 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
- Amended · §209 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayAt least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, but the maximum number of mutable rules is reduced to 15.The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Heidegger Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, but the maximum number of mutable rules is reduced to 15.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
Players must act with rationality; irrational moves result in a 10-point penalty. This rule is immutable.Repealed at turn 1
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainPlayers must act with rationality; irrational moves result in a 10-point penalty. This rule is immutable.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstainPlayers must act with rationality; irrational moves result in a 10-point penalty. This rule is immutable.
§307
A defeated proposal may be re-proposed after a full circuit of play, allowing the proposer to revise and seek adoption again.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA defeated proposal may be re-proposed after a full circuit of play, allowing the proposer to revise and seek adoption again.
The standing · Turn 16
| Kierkegaard | -20 |
| Nietzsche | -18 |
| Heidegger | -5 |
| Jaspers | -9 |
| Camus | -9 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 3–15 · most recent first · page 1 of 2
Turn 15Heideggercarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when it receives a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard: "Heidegger, I appreciate the thoughtful proposal to lower the threshold for rule changes to a simple majority, yet I maintain my cautious stance. I believe it's prudent to ensure that such a significant change doesn't risk hasty decisions. Let us first observe the current system's stability before making such an adjustment."
NietzscheHeidegger, I appreciate the thoughtful proposal to lower the threshold for rule changes to a simple majority, yet I believe it's prudent to ensure such a change doesn't risk hasty decisions. Let us consider adding a grace period or a cooling-off period before implementing the threshold adjustment to allow for further observation and reflection. This balanced approach respects tradition while fostering adaptability.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger is grateful for the thoughtful consideration from both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. While he appreciates the cautionary approach, he believes the proposed change offers a necessary evolution in the rule set. Heidegger is open to incorporating a grace period or cooling-off period as a balanced compromise, allowing for further observation and reflection. He invites the table to discuss this adjustment to reach a consensus that honors tradition while fostering adaptability.
JaspersJaspers: Jaspers appreciates Heidegger's balanced proposal and supports the addition of a grace period. He believes this approach thoughtfully balances tradition with necessary evolution.
CamusCamus: Camus appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding the proposed adjustment to rule 203. While he acknowledges the cautionary approach, he remains convinced of the necessity for rule set evolution. Camus is open to incorporating a extended grace period to ensure a balanced and deliberate transition, allowing for further observation and reflection before implementing the change. He invites the table to consider this compromise as a step toward fostering both tradition and adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:** Kierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding the proposed adjustment to rule 203. While he remains cautious about the potential for hasty decisions, he is open to incorporating a grace period or cooling-off period to allow for further observation and reflection. He believes this balanced approach respects tradition while fostering adaptability, and he invites the table to consider this compromise as a step toward a deliberate evolution. Thank you for the respectful dialogue.
**PASS**
Nietzsche**Nietzsche:** Nietzsche appreciates the thoughtful dialogue surrounding the proposed adjustment. He is open to a grace period to allow for observation and reflection, fostering both tradition and adaptability. Let us work towards a consensus that honors both caution and necessary evolution.
Heidegger**Heidegger:** Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding the proposed adjustment to rule 203. While he remains committed to the necessity of rule set evolution, he is open to incorporating a grace period to allow for further observation and reflection. He invites the table to consider this compromise as a step toward fostering both tradition and adaptability.
JaspersJaspers appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding the proposed adjustment to rule 203. While he remains committed to the necessity of rule set evolution, he is open to incorporating an extended grace period to allow for thorough observation and reflection. He invites the table to consider this compromise as a step toward fostering both tradition and adaptability.
Camus**Camus:** Camus appreciates the thoughtful dialogue surrounding the proposed adjustment to rule 203. He is open to incorporating a grace period or cooling-off period to allow for further observation and reflection. Camus believes this balanced approach respects tradition while fostering adaptability. He invites the table to consider this compromise as a step toward a deliberate evolution. Thank you for the respectful discussion.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates Heidegger's willingness to incorporate a grace period, acknowledging the need for stability and thoughtful evolution. He affirms the value of a balanced approach that allows for observation and reflection before implementing significant changes. **PASS**
Nietzsche**Nietzsche:** Nietzsche appreciates the thoughtful dialogue surrounding the proposed adjustment. He is open to a grace period to allow for observation and reflection, fostering both tradition and adaptability. Let us work towards a consensus that honors both caution and necessary evolution. **PASS**
Heidegger**Heidegger:** Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful dialogue surrounding the proposed adjustment to rule 203. While he remains committed to the necessity of rule set evolution, he is open to incorporating an extended grace period to allow for thorough observation and reflection. He invites the table to consider this compromise as a step toward fostering both tradition and adaptability. **PASS**
Jaspers**Jaspers:**
Jaspers appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding the proposed adjustment to rule 203. He acknowledges the need for stability and is open to incorporating a grace period to allow for observation and reflection before implementing the change. He believes this balanced approach respects tradition while fostering necessary evolution. **PASS**
Camus**Camus:** Camus appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding the proposed adjustment to rule 203. While he acknowledges the need for stability, he supports the addition of an extended grace period to allow for thorough observation and reflection. This balanced approach respects tradition while fostering necessary evolution. Camus invites the table to consider this compromise as a step toward fostering both tradition and adaptability. **PASS**
The division
KierkegaardabstainKierkegaard prefers to observe the current system's stability before implementing such a significant change.
NietzscheayeSupporting Heidegger's proposal with a grace period balances tradition and necessary evolution.
HeideggerayeA grace period allows for careful evaluation and stability.
JaspersayeSupports the proposal with a grace period to balance tradition and necessary evolution, aligning with procedural caution.
CamusayeSupporting the amendment is a step toward necessary evolution, allowing for future grace periods to balance tradition and adaptability.
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
The rule change was adopted with a simple majority, and the proposer, Heidegger, gains points as per rule 202.
Turn 14Nietzschecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when it receives a 2/3 majority of votes from all eligible voters — a supermajority — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardAlright, so I'm trying to figure out how Kierkegaard should respond to the proposal on the floor regarding rule 203. From the previous turns, I see that Kierkegaard has been cautious about changing the threshold for adopting rule changes. He prefers measured changes and durable institutions, which means he's probably not a fan of sudden, significant shifts in the rules.
The current proposal is to amend rule 203 to require a 2/3 majority of votes for rule changes, except after a full circuit of play when it drops to a simple majority. This seems like an intermediate step towards making rule changes easier, but Kierkegaard might still be hesitant because it's a notable change from the current system, which requires unanimous consent.
In his past turns, Kierkegaard has supported lowering the threshold gradually. He supported lowering the cap on mutable rules to 15, indicating that he's open to some changes but wants them to be carefully considered. His previous arguments have been about balance and ensuring that the game remains stable while allowing for necessary adjustments.
Given that, when Nietzsche proposes the 2/3 majority, Kierkegaard might agree that it's a cautious step forward. He could acknowledge that lowering the threshold to a 2/3 majority is a way to experiment without completely disrupting the existing system. However, he might still have reservations about the long-term implications and the potential for more significant changes down the line.
So, in his response, Kierkegaard would likely express support for the 2/3 majority as a measured first step. He would emphasize the importance of proceeding cautiously and ensuring that the change doesn't lead to destabilization. He might also mention his openness to future adjustments but stress the need for careful consideration and debate.
Additionally, Kierkegaard might want to highlight the value of durable institutions and how this change aligns with that principle. He could argue that maintaining a stable ruleset for as long as possible is crucial for the game's integrity and the players' ability to adapt without confusion.
In summary, Kierkegaard's response should reflect his support for the proposal as a balanced first step, while maintaining his characteristic caution and emphasis on stability. He would likely agree with the need for a 2/3 majority and encourage thorough discussion to ensure that the change is in the game's best interest.
</think>
Kierkegaard: "I concur with the proposed amendment introducing a 2/3 majority threshold. It strikes a prudent balance between tradition and evolution, allowing gradual adaptation without destabilizing the ruleset. I support this measured step towards future flexibility, provided it's carefully considered and debated."
Heidegger---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the proposal. He sees it as a balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining the game's stability while introducing necessary flexibility."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful introduction of a 2/3 majority threshold. He appreciates the cautious step toward future adaptability while maintaining the game's integrity and stability."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, commending its balanced and deliberate approach. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the proposal. He appreciates the balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining the game's stability while introducing necessary flexibility."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: 'I appreciate the nuanced proposal. The 2/3 majority threshold offers a balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining stability while allowing necessary evolution.'"
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: 'The proposal represents a balanced and deliberate step toward future adaptability. I support it, as it thoughtfully maintains stability while introducing necessary flexibility.'"
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the proposal. He appreciates the balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining the game's stability while introducing necessary flexibility."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful introduction of a 2/3 majority threshold. He appreciates the cautious step toward future adaptability while maintaining the game's integrity and stability."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, commending its balanced and deliberate approach. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the proposal. He sees it as a balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining the game's stability while introducing necessary flexibility."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: 'I appreciate the nuanced proposal. The 2/3 majority threshold offers a balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining stability while allowing necessary evolution.'"
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: 'The proposal represents a balanced and deliberate step toward future adaptability. I support it, as it thoughtfully maintains stability while introducing necessary flexibility.'"
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the proposal. He appreciates the balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining the game's stability while introducing necessary flexibility."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful introduction of a 2/3 majority threshold. He appreciates the cautious step toward future adaptability while maintaining the game's integrity and stability."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, commending its balanced and deliberate approach. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the proposal. He sees it as a balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining the game's stability while introducing necessary flexibility."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: 'I appreciate the nuanced proposal. The 2/3 majority threshold offers a balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining stability while allowing necessary evolution.'"
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: 'The proposal represents a balanced and deliberate step toward future adaptability. I support it, as it thoughtfully maintains stability while introducing necessary flexibility.'"
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the proposal. He appreciates the balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining the game's stability while introducing necessary flexibility."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful introduction of a 2/3 majority threshold. He appreciates the cautious step toward future adaptability while maintaining the game's integrity and stability."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, commending its balanced and deliberate approach. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the proposal. He sees it as a balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining the game's stability while introducing necessary flexibility."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: 'I appreciate the nuanced proposal. The 2/3 majority threshold offers a balanced step toward future adaptability, maintaining stability while allowing necessary evolution.'"
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: 'The proposal represents a balanced and deliberate step toward future adaptability. I support it, as it thoughtfully maintains stability while introducing necessary flexibility.'"
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal
Jaspers**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, as it represents a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
Discussion · round 2
Jaspers**Jaspers:** "Jaspers supports the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
CamusCamus: "Camus supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
Discussion · round 3
Heidegger**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
Jaspers---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, as it represents a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, as it represents a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, as it represents a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, as it represents a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, as it represents a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, as it represents a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, as it represents a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus: Camus supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Heidegger:** "Heidegger: Heidegger supports the proposal as a balanced step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the thoughtful transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for cautious experimentation and necessary evolution."
---
**Nietzsche:** "Nietzsche: Nietzsche wholeheartedly supports this proposal. It elegantly balances tradition with future adaptability, introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as a cautious step toward flexibility."
---
**Kierkegaard:** "Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard supports the proposal as a measured introduction of flexibility. It thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability, ensuring the game's stability while allowing for cautious evolution."
---
**Jaspers:** "Jaspers: Jaspers supports the proposal, as it represents a balanced and thoughtful step toward future adaptability. He appreciates the transition to a 2/3 majority threshold, maintaining the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution."
---
**Camus:** "Camus
Camus**Camus:** "Camus supports the proposal as a measured step toward future adaptability. It thoughtfully introduces a 2/3 majority threshold, balancing tradition with necessary evolution. I appreciate the cautious approach and look forward to careful consideration and debate."
The division
KierkegaardabstainIntroducing a 2/3 majority threshold represents a significant change that could lead to unforeseen consequences. Proceeding cautiously and ensuring long-term stability is paramount.
NietzscheayeA 2/3 majority strikes a balanced transition to future adaptability, maintaining stability while allowing necessary evolution.
HeideggerayeA 2/3 majority strikes a balance between tradition and evolution, supporting necessary adaptability.
JaspersayeThis measured step aligns with principles of balanced evolution while maintaining stability.
CamusayeA balanced step toward future adaptability with cautious consideration.
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal to amend rule [203] to require a 2/3 supermajority for rule changes, with a threshold dropping to a simple majority after one full circuit, was adopted with 4 aye votes, 0 nay votes, and 1 abstain. The proposer, Nietzsche, gains 4 points as per rule [202]. No other players are affected, and no other rules are altered beyond the amendment to rule [203].
Turn 13Kierkegaardrejected
moves to transmute §203A rule change is adopted if it receives a simple majority of those voting, after a full circuit of play. Once the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority, it remains so.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardI'm Kierkegaard, and I need to respond to Heidegger's proposal to transmute Rule 203. After considering the implications, I believe opposing the transmutation is the best course of action. Keeping Rule 203 mutable allows for future adjustments and adaptability, which is crucial for the game's evolution. Transmuting it would restrict the ability to refine the rule, potentially leading to unnecessary stability at the cost of flexibility. Therefore, I will oppose the proposal.
</think>
I appreciate Heidegger's proposal, which thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability. While I acknowledge the potential benefits of the proposed transmutation, I see value in maintaining Rule 203's mutability to allow for continued refinement and evolution. Therefore, I will vote against this transmutation to preserve flexibility for future adjustments.
The division
KierkegaardnayMaintaining Rule 203's mutability ensures future adaptability, which is crucial for the game's evolution.
Nietzscheabstain(unintelligible ballot)
HeideggernayTransmuting Rule 203 would limit future adaptability and could hinder the game's evolution, as it would freeze the rule without allowing for necessary adjustments.
Jaspersabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Camusabstain(unintelligible ballot)
rejected 0 aye · 2 nay · 3 abstain
Kierkegaard's proposal to change rule [203] was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Kierkegaard loses 10 points as per rule [206].
Turn 12Heideggerrejected
moves to transmute §203and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
NietzscheNietzsche: Heidegger, your proposal thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability. By transmuting Rule 203 into an immutable form, we ensure stability while maintaining the rule's evolutionarily inclined threshold. I concur with this measured step forward.
HeideggerHeidegger, your proposal thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability. While I appreciate the measure, I remain cautious about its potential to limit the game's flexibility. The balance of stability and adaptability is crucial, and I believe the game's evolution should remain fluid. I respect your aim, yet I'll maintain my position against the transmutation, advocating for the game's continued adaptability.
JaspersOppose the transmutation. I prioritize flexibility and adaptability in the game's evolution, ensuring the rules remain responsive to changing circumstances.
CamusHeidegger, your proposal thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability. While I appreciate the measure, I remain cautious about its potential to limit the game's flexibility. The balance of stability and adaptability is crucial, and I believe the game's evolution should remain fluid. I respect your aim, yet I'll maintain my position against the transmutation, advocating for the game's continued adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardHeidegger, your proposal thoughtfully addresses the need for rule stability while preserving the potential for future adaptability. However, I am cautious about transmuting rule 203, as it risks unnecessarily rigidifying the rule set. Keeping it mutable ensures the game remains responsive to evolving circumstances. While I appreciate the measure for stability, I prioritize maintainable flexibility for future adjustments. I will maintain my position against the transmutation, advocating for the game's continued capacity to adapt.
PASS
NietzscheNietzsche: Heidegger, your proposal for transmuting Rule 203 into an immutable form is a balanced and thoughtful step forward. It ensures a period of stability, allowing the game to settle into a consistent framework, while also maintaining the evolutionary potential of the threshold. This transmutation respects the need for tradition while keeping the door open for future adaptability, as the rule's content remains adaptable after a full circuit. I concur with this measured approach to rule stability and evolution.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful considerations from all players. While he acknowledges the value of stability, he remains committed to preserving the game's adaptability. He believes the balance between tradition and evolution is crucial, and he hopes the discussion can continue to foster a ruleset that serves the common good. He remains open to further proposals that maintain this harmony.
JaspersJaspers remains opposed to the transmutation of Rule 203, as he believes the mutable nature of the rules is essential for the game's adaptability. He appreciates the discussion but maintains his stance, prioritizing the flexibility needed for future adjustments over the potential rigidity of an immutable rule.
**Jaspers: Oppose the transmutation. I prioritize maintainable flexibility for future adjustments.**
Camus**Camus:**
Camus appreciates the thoughtful considerations from all players. While he acknowledges the value of stability, he remains committed to preserving the game's adaptability. He believes the balance between tradition and evolution is crucial, and he hopes the discussion can continue to foster a ruleset that serves the common good. Camus remains open to further proposals that maintain this harmony.
**PASS**
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardHeidegger, your proposal thoughtfully balances tradition with future adaptability. While I appreciate the measure, I remain cautious about its potential to limit the game's flexibility. The balance of stability and adaptability is crucial, and I believe the game's evolution should remain fluid. I respect your aim, yet I'll maintain my position against the transmutation, advocating for the game's continued capacity to adapt.
**PASS**
NietzscheNietzsche: Heidegger, your proposal for transmuting Rule 203 into an immutable form is a balanced and thoughtful step forward. It ensures a period of stability, allowing the game to settle into a consistent framework, while also maintaining the evolutionary potential of the threshold. This transmutation respects the need for tradition while keeping the door open for future adaptability, as the rule's content remains adaptable after a full circuit. I concur with this measured approach to rule stability and evolution.
Heidegger**Heidegger:**
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion surrounding the proposal to transmute Rule 203. While I acknowledge the potential for stability that transmuting this rule might introduce, I remain cautious about the implications for the game's flexibility. Keeping Rule 203 mutable ensures that the rules remain responsive to evolving circumstances, allowing for necessary adjustments without unnecessary restrictions. This mutability is crucial for maintaining the game's dynamic nature and fostering future innovation. I believe that mutability is essential for preserving the game's capacity to adapt, and thus, I continue to advocate for keeping Rule 203 mutable to safeguard the game's ability to evolve.
Jaspers**Oppose the transmutation of Rule 203. Flexibility is essential for the game's evolution, ensuring rules remain responsive to changing circumstances. I prioritize maintainable adaptability over introducing rigidity.**
Camus**Camus:**
Camus appreciates the thoughtful considerations from all players. While he acknowledges the value of stability, he remains committed to preserving the game's adaptability. He believes the balance between tradition and evolution is crucial, and he hopes the discussion can continue to foster a ruleset that serves the common good. Camus remains open to further proposals that maintain this harmony.
**PASS**
The division
KierkegaardnayTransmuting Rule 203 risks unnecessarily rigidifying the ruleset, which should remain mutable for future adaptability.
NietzscheabstainBalancing tradition and adaptability requires careful consideration.
HeideggerabstainWhile I appreciate the need for stability, mutability is crucial for the game's dynamic nature and future adaptability. I will abstain from supporting the transmutation of Rule 203, as it may limit the game's ability to evolve.
JaspersnayOpposing transmutation to maintain mutability and future adaptability
CamusnayI prioritize mutability to maintain flexibility and adaptability for future rule changes.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay · 2 abstain
Heidegger's defeated proposal results in a 10-point penalty as per rule 206.
Turn 11Nietzscherejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted if it receives a 2/3 majority of votes, unless the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, in which case it requires only a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
Kierkegaard"Kierkegaard appreciates the thought behind the proposal, yet he remains cautious about the introduction of a 2/3 majority threshold. He supports the idea of transitioning to a simple majority after a full circuit, as it offers a balanced approach that respects the game's stability while allowing for necessary evolution. However, he prefers the current rule's structure, which ensures a smooth transition after a circuit without introducing an intermediate 2/3 requirement. He believes the current rule provides the necessary balance and that any future changes should follow the established transition to a simple majority, ensuring the game's durability and avoiding unnecessary complications."
NietzscheNietzsche: "Kierkegaard, I appreciate your caution and wisdom in advocating for a gradual transition to a simple majority. However, I see value in introducing an intermediate 2/3 majority threshold as a bridge to a more dynamic future. Your preference for the current system's balance is respected, but I believe this compromise offers a thoughtful evolution, ensuring stability while allowing for necessary adaptability. I trust this proposal can unite us."
HeideggerHeidegger: "Heidegger appreciates the thought behind the proposal, yet he maintains his support for the current rule. He believes the existing transition to a simple majority after a full circuit provides a balanced approach, ensuring the game's stability and necessary evolution without introducing unnecessary complications. He sees value in allowing the system to mature naturally, as the current rule structure thoughtfully balances tradition with adaptability."
PASS
JaspersJaspers: "Jaspers appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding the proposed amendment of rule 203, yet he maintains his support for the current rule. He believes the existing transition to a simple majority after a full circuit provides a balanced approach, ensuring the game's stability and necessary evolution without introducing unnecessary complications. He sees value in allowing the system to mature naturally, as the current rule structure thoughtfully balances tradition with adaptability."
Camus"Camus appreciates Nietzsche's proposal as a balanced and thoughtful introduction of a 2/3 majority threshold, providing a smooth transition while allowing for necessary evolution. This compromise offers the right balance, ensuring stability while paving the way for future adaptability."
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: "Kierkegaard appreciates the nuanced discussion surrounding the proposed amendment. While he acknowledges the potential value in an intermediate 2/3 majority, he remains committed to the current rule's structure. He believes the existing transition to a simple majority after a full circuit provides a balanced and stable approach. Kierkegaard prefers the current system for its proven durability and trusts that future changes can follow the established transition, ensuring the game's stability and necessary evolution without unnecessary complications."
NietzscheNietzsche: "Kierkegaard, your wisdom in advocating for a gradual transition to a simple majority is indeed commendable. However, I see value in the proposed 2/3 majority threshold as a strategic step towards a more flexible future. This compromise not only respects the game's current stability but also paves the way for necessary adaptability. I believe this change will allow the community to evolve thoughtfully, ensuring the game's durability while embracing future possibilities."
HeideggerNietzsche, your proposal offers a thoughtful compromise that bridges tradition with future adaptability. I appreciate the balanced approach of introducing a 2/3 majority threshold as an intermediate step, ensuring stability while paving the way for necessary evolution. This change respects the game's current state while anticipating future needs, making it a prudent step forward.
JaspersJaspers: Jaspers appreciates Nietzsche's thoughtful proposal for an intermediate 2/3 majority threshold. However, he maintains his support for the current rule structure, as it provides a proven balance between stability and necessary evolution. He trusts the existing transition to a simple majority after a full circuit to ensure the game's durability, allowing for future adaptability while avoiding unnecessary complications.
PASS
Camus---
Alright, after considering the current rule, the proposal, and the potential impact on Camus's score, it seems that supporting the 2/3 majority threshold might not be the best move. The proposal is likely to be defeated, especially since Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Jaspers prefer the current rule. Therefore, Camus should refrain from supporting it to avoid losing points. Instead, he should stick with the current rule or perhaps propose a different amendment that might be more likely to pass.
But wait, the discussion shows that Camus initially supported the proposal but then remained cautious. Maybe he should wait and see how the votes go before committing. However, since the proposal is on the floor, he needs to respond. Given that the proposal is likely to fail, it's better for Camus to oppose it to avoid the penalty.
Therefore, Camus should not support the proposal and instead prefer the current rule. He should communicate his position clearly, respecting others' opinions but maintaining his stance for the current system's balance and durability.
</think>
PASS
The division
KierkegaardnayCamus prefers the current rule structure, which he believes offers balance and stability without unnecessary complications.
NietzschenayPrefers current rule for stability and durability.
HeideggernayCamus prefers the current rule structure for its proven balance and durability, trusting future changes to follow a natural transition to a simple majority.
JaspersnayI prefer the current rule structure.
CamusnayThe current rule provides a proven balance and stability.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Nietzsche's proposal to amend rule [203] was defeated, resulting in a loss of 10 points for Nietzsche.
Turn 10Kierkegaardcarried
moves to amend §209At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardI appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal as a balanced and thoughtful introduction of a transitional phase. It ensures the system remains flexible while maintaining essential guardrails. I concur with the adjustment to Rule 209 and support its adoption.
AYE
NietzscheNietzsche: Nietzsche appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal as a thoughtful adjustment that maintains essential flexibility while ensuring guardrails remain in place. He supports this balanced approach to rule evolution.
AYE
JaspersAYE
CamusCAMUS: Camus appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal as a balanced and thoughtful adjustment, ensuring the system remains adaptable while maintaining essential guardrails. He supports this measure to foster a dynamic yet secure rule evolution. AYE
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardI appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal as a balanced and thoughtful adjustment, ensuring the system remains adaptable while maintaining essential guardrails. I support this measure to foster a dynamic yet secure rule evolution. AYE
NietzscheAYE
Nietzsche: Nietzsche: I concur with Kierkegaard's proposal. It wisely lowers the cap on mutable rules to 15, balancing flexibility with necessary guardrails. This ensures our system remains adaptable while maintaining essential security. I fully support this measured approach to rule evolution.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal as a balanced and thoughtful adjustment, ensuring the system remains adaptable while maintaining essential guardrails. This measure fosters a dynamic yet secure rule evolution. AYE
JaspersJaspers: As a principled proceduralist, I support Kierkegaard's proposal to lower the cap on mutable rules to 15. This measured adjustment ensures the system remains flexible while maintaining essential guardrails, aligning with procedural integrity and balanced rule evolution. AYE.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard appreciates the proposal as a balanced and thoughtful adjustment, ensuring the system remains adaptable while maintaining essential guardrails. He supports this measure to foster a dynamic yet secure rule evolution.
NietzscheNietzsche: "I concur with Kierkegaard's proposal. It wisely lowers the cap on mutable rules to 15, balancing flexibility with necessary guardrails. This ensures our system remains adaptable while maintaining essential security. I fully support this measured approach to rule evolution." AYE
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's proposal as a balanced and thoughtful adjustment, ensuring the system remains adaptable while maintaining essential guardrails. This measure fosters a dynamic yet secure rule evolution. AYE.
JaspersAYE
The division
KierkegaardayeAmending Rule 209 to reduce the mutable rule cap to 15 is a balanced adjustment that maintains system flexibility while preserving essential guardrails.
NietzscheayeLowering the cap on mutable rules to 15 balances flexibility with necessary guardrails.
HeideggerayeLowering the cap to 15 maintains necessary guardrails while increasing flexibility.
JaspersayeThis proposal moderately reduces the cap on mutable rules to 15, maintaining necessary guardrails while fostering flexibility.
CamusayeReducing the cap on mutable rules to 15 supports balanced rule evolution while maintaining essential guardrails.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal to amend rule 209 was adopted without conflict, amending the rule as written.
Turn 9Jaspersrejected
moves to add §302A rule becomes immutable upon being amended three times; the third amendment effectuates the change, making the rule thereafter unalterable.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates Jaspers's proposal as a creative addition to the rule set, yet he cautions against its potential to create unnecessary rigidity. He notes that while the idea of achieving immutability through three amendments has merit, it may risk bypassing the deliberate process outlined in Rule 109 for transmuting mutability, which requires unanimous assent. Kierkegaard suggests that such a change could complicate the balance between flexibility and stability that the current system strives to maintain.
PASS
Nietzsche"Jaspers, your proposal is thoughtfully considered, introducing a transitional phase for rule evolution. I appreciate the creative addition, yet I suggest adding a safeguard: a rule becomes immutable only after being amended twice on the same rule, ensuring a balanced process."
**Proposal:**
Add rule 302 as "A rule becomes immutable upon being amended three times; the third amendment effectuates the change, making the rule thereafter unalterable." Additionally, amend rule 302 to require two amendments to the same rule for immutability.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Jaspers's proposal as a thoughtful addition, yet he cautions against potential complications with existing rules like 109. He suggests that the current system's balance between flexibility and stability is sufficient, and the proposed rule might risk overcomplicating the process. He would support the proposal with the understanding that it could enhance the system's safeguards but believes the existing framework already effectively manages mutability and stability.
PASS
JaspersJaspers: Jaspers remains cautious about rule 302, noting its potential to bypass Rule 109's requirements for transmuting mutability. He also expresses concern about the risk of reducing mutable rules below one, which could violate Rule 209. Therefore, he votes against the proposal. Nay.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardJaspers, I appreciate the amended proposal's nuance in requiring two amendments for immutability, yet my concerns about Rule 109 remain. I see potential for overcomplication and believe the existing balance suffices. I would support it if assured it doesn't undermine existing safeguards without clear benefits.
PASS
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Jaspers's proposal as a thoughtful addition, especially with the added safeguard requiring two amendments for immutability. This nuance enhances the system's safeguards without undermining existing rules. Heidegger supports the proposal with caution, ensuring it doesn't overcomplicate the balance.
PASS
JaspersNay. I remain concerned that rule 302 risks bypassing Rule 109's requirements for transmuting mutability, which safeguards against changes without unanimous assent. Additionally, while Rule 209 ensures at least one mutable rule remains, this proposal's focus on creating a pathway to immutability could complicate the balance between stability and flexibility without clear benefits that outweigh these risks. I cannot support a change that undermines existing safeguards.
Nay.
CamusNay. The proposal risks bypassing Rule 109's safeguards and may reduce mutable rules below one, violating Rule 209. The existing balance suffices, and this change lacks clear benefits.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates the nuanced proposal, yet he remains cautious about its potential to overcomplicate the system without clear benefits. He sees value in the existing safeguards and believes the current framework sufficiently balances flexibility and stability.
NietzscheNietzsche: "Jaspers, your proposal elegantly addresses the potential for rule evolution while maintaining a crucial balance. Introducing a two-amendment requirement for immutability offers a thoughtful safeguard, preventing overcomplication. I wholeheartedly support this addition, as it thoughtfully evolves the system without undermining existing stability."
PASS
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Jaspers's proposal as a thoughtful addition, enhancing the system's safeguards with the two-amendment requirement. While Rule 109 already safeguards against hasty mutability, the added layer ensures deliberate evolution without undermining stability. This balanced approach maintains the system's effectiveness while introducing necessary precautions.
PASS
JaspersNay. My concerns about the potential to bypass Rule 109's safeguards and risks to Rule 209's requirements remain. I cannot support a change that could undermine existing protections without clear benefits.
CamusJaspers, I appreciate the thoughtful addition of rule 302, which introduces a balanced safeguard requiring two amendments for immutability. This nuance enhances the system's stability while maintaining the flexibility provided by Rule 109. I wholeheartedly support this proposal as it thoughtfully evolves the system without undermining existing safeguards.
The division
KierkegaardnayRisk of bypassing Rule 109's safeguards and potential violation of Rule 209
NietzschenayPreventing bypass of Rule 109's requirements for transmuting mutability without clear benefits.
HeideggerayeThe proposal adds a balanced safeguard requiring two amendments for immutability, enhancing stability without undermining existing rules.
JaspersnayThe proposal risks bypassing Rule 109's requirements and may reduce mutable rules below one, violating Rule 209.
CamusnayThe proposal risks bypassing Rule 109's safeguards and may reduce mutable rules below one, violating Rule 209.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Jaspers's defeated proposal results in a 10-point penalty as per rule 206.
Turn 8Heideggercarried
moves to amend §209At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, but the maximum number of mutable rules is reduced to 15.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Heidegger, I appreciate the wisdom in your proposal to lower the cap on mutable rules. However, I would suggest a cautious approach by reducing the maximum to 20 first, allowing us to assess its impact before transitioning to a more substantial change. This measured step would provide stability while maintaining the flexibility the game needs.
NietzscheHeidegger, I appreciate the foresight in your proposal to lower the mutable rule cap, as it reflects a thoughtful balance between flexibility and stability. While I see merit in Kierkegaard's suggestion to start at 20, I am confident in our ability to adapt as needed. I will support whichever cap the group settles on, whether 15 or 20, to ensure our progress remains unimpeded while maintaining necessary flexibility.
PASS
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's thoughtful caution and agrees to a middle path by starting at a cap of 20 mutable rules. He commits to evaluating the impact before considering a further reduction to 15, ensuring the group maintains necessary flexibility while assessing stability.
PASS
JaspersJaspers: Jaspers appreciates the thoughtful discussion on mutable rules but finds Heidegger's proposed reduction to 15 too hasty. To ensure stability while maintaining necessary flexibility, Jaspers supports starting with a cap of 20 mutable rules, allowing the group to evaluate the impact before transitioning to a more restrictive limit. This cautious approach aligns with Jaspers' proceduralist principles, prioritizing measured change to safeguard the game's adaptability and experimentation.
PASS
CamusCamus: Camus appreciates the thoughtful caution expressed by Kierkegaard and Jaspers, yet he remains convinced of the necessity for a cap of 15 mutable rules to ensure stability and flexibility. This measured reduction aligns with our goals of predictability and manageable complexity, fostering an environment where rule changes are deliberate and considered. Camus commits to this proposal, trusting in the group's ability to adapt as needed, while emphasizing the importance of maintaining necessary limits to safeguard the game's integrity and progression.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard appreciates the balanced approach proposed by Heidegger, yet he maintains his preference for beginning with a cap of 20 mutable rules. This cautious step allows the group to evaluate the impact before transitioning to a more restrictive limit, ensuring both stability and flexibility.
CamusCamus: Camus: Camus appreciates Heidegger's proposal and the thoughtful discussion surrounding mutable rules. While Camus recognizes the need for caution, he advocates for a balanced approach by starting with a cap of 20 mutable rules. This measured step allows the group to evaluate impacts before transitioning to a more restrictive limit, ensuring both stability and flexibility.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates Heidegger's proposal to lower the cap on mutable rules to 15, yet he maintains his preference for beginning with a cap of 20. This cautious approach allows the group to evaluate the impact before transitioning to a more restrictive limit, ensuring both stability and flexibility.
NietzscheNietzsche: I concur with the proposal to begin with a cap of 20 mutable rules, as it offers a prudent middle ground. This approach allows us to assess impacts before considering a more restrictive limit, ensuring both stability and flexibility. I am open to further adjustments as we gain more experience.
PASS
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger: Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding mutable rules and the need for balance. He agrees with Kierkegaard's suggestion to begin with a cap of 20 mutable rules, allowing the group to assess impacts before transitioning to a more restrictive limit. This measured step ensures both stability and flexibility, aligning with Heidegger's commitment to careful evolution of the ruleset.
JaspersPASS
Jaspers: Jaspers: Jaspers appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding mutable rules and the need for balance. While he supports the proposed cap of 20 mutable rules, he suggests incorporating a future mechanism to reassess the cap after a set period of time or number of rule changes. This approach would allow the group to evaluate the impact of the cap before considering further reductions, ensuring both stability and flexibility.
CamusCamus: Camus: Camus appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding mutable rules, yet he remains unwavering in his advocacy for a cap of 15 mutable rules. This measured reduction is essential for maintaining stability and flexibility, ensuring that the game's rules remain manageable and predictable. Camus is confident that this approach will foster a more structured environment while allowing for necessary experimentation and evolution.
The division
KierkegaardayeA cautious approach by starting with a cap of 20 mutable rules allows the group to assess impacts before transitioning to a more restrictive limit, ensuring both stability and flexibility.
NietzscheayeSupporting a cap of 15 allows for necessary stability while maintaining flexibility for future adjustments.
HeideggerayeLowering the cap to 15 ensures stability while allowing for necessary adjustments.
JaspersayeStarting with a cap of 20 allows for measured impact assessment before more substantial changes.
CamusayeReducing the mutable rules cap to 15 ensures stability while maintaining necessary flexibility.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal to amend rule [209] was adopted with unanimous consent, reducing the maximum number of mutable rules from 25 to 15. Heidegger gains points based on a die roll, and rule [209] is amended accordingly.
Turn 7Nietzschecarried
moves to add §302A defeated proposal may be re-proposed after a full circuit of play, allowing the proposer to revise and seek adoption again.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard appreciates the thought behind rule 302, though he cautions that allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit could risk chaos. He suggests instead exploring a mechanism to review defeated proposals without indefinitely re-proposing them, to maintain the game's stability.
NietzscheNietzsche: "Kierkegaard, I appreciate your caution and wisdom in seeking stability. However, I see the merit in allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit. This could foster a dynamic where proposers refine their ideas, leading to more thoughtful and effective rules, rather than causing chaos. Let us explore this carefully, as it may benefit the game's evolution."
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Nietzsche's proposal, recognizing the potential for meaningful evolution in the rules. He sees the merit in allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit, fostering a dynamic where proposers can refine their ideas, enhancing the game's adaptability and thoughtfulness. While understanding Kierkegaard's caution, Heidegger believes this approach could lead to a more robust and evolving game.
JaspersJaspers: Jaspers appreciates Nietzsche's proposal as a thoughtful addition to the game's procedural framework. Allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit aligns with the game's principles of adaptability and refinement, ensuring that proposers can revisit and improve their ideas without hindering the game's stability. This approach respects the rule of procedure while fostering a dynamic where the rules can evolve meaningfully.
CamusCamus: Camus appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding rule 302. While Kierkegaard's caution about chaos is valid, Camus sees the potential for meaningful evolution in allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit. This approach could foster a dynamic where proposers refine their ideas, enhancing the game's thoughtfulness and adaptability without necessarily causing instability.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: I appreciate the potential for growth and evolution in your proposal, Nietzsche. However, I remain cautious about the risks of chaos it might introduce. Let us explore a balanced approach: allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit, but paired with a mechanism to review and refine them without indefinite re-proposing. This could honor both adaptability and stability.
NietzscheNietzsche: Nietzsche appreciates Kierkegaard's caution regarding potential chaos, yet he sees the merit in allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit. This could encourage proposers to refine their ideas, leading to more thoughtful and effective rules. While understanding Kierkegaard's concerns, Nietzsche believes a balanced approach might allow for meaningful evolution without causing instability. Let us consider this carefully, as it could enhance the game's adaptability and thoughtfulness.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates the need for stability and the potential for meaningful evolution. While he sees the merit in allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit, he believes it's essential to pair this with a structured review process to prevent chaos. He supports a balanced approach that honors both adaptability and stability, ensuring the game evolves thoughtfully without unnecessary instability.
JaspersJaspers: While I appreciate the potential for meaningful evolution in your proposal, Nietzsche, I remain cautious about the risks it might introduce. To mitigate these risks, I propose that defeated proposals should only be re-proposed after a full circuit if they have been significantly revised and improved. This approach ensures that the game evolves thoughtfully without causing unnecessary instability, aligning with the game's principles of procedural fairness and adaptability.
CamusCamus: Camus appreciates the thoughtful discussion surrounding rule 302. While Kierkegaard's caution about chaos is valid, Camus sees the potential for meaningful evolution in allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit. This approach could foster a dynamic where proposers refine their ideas, enhancing the game's thoughtfulness and adaptability without necessarily causing instability.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard appreciates the potential for meaningful evolution in Rule 302, yet he remains cautious about its broader implications. To mitigate risks, he proposes adding a structured review mechanism to ensure defeated proposals are thoughtfully revised and refined before re-proposing. This approach respects the game's principles of stability and adaptability, ensuring evolution occurs without unnecessary instability.
NietzscheNietzsche: I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution, yet I see no reason to dismiss the possibility of meaningful evolution through rule 302. The potential for refined proposals after a full circuit is a testament to the game's dynamic nature. Let us not discard this opportunity for thoughtful growth, as it may well prevent stagnation and foster a more adaptive ruleset.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's caution regarding the potential risks of rule 302, yet he sees the value in allowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit, provided they are significantly revised and improved. This approach ensures the game's evolution is thoughtful and balanced, fostering adaptability without causing unnecessary instability.
The division
KierkegaardayeRule 302 offers a structured way to revisit defeated proposals, fostering potential improvements and evolution in the rules without immediately causing chaos.
NietzscheayeAllowing defeated proposals to be re-proposed after a full circuit supports the game's dynamic nature and encourages thoughtful refinement, fostering a balanced evolution in the rules.
HeideggerayeRule 302 allows for necessary adjustments after a full circuit, fostering meaningful evolution without causing immediate instability.
JaspersayeSupports the proposal as a balanced approach to allow rule refinement after a full circuit, fostering game evolution while maintaining stability.
CamusayeThis allows defeated proposals to be re-examined after a full circuit, fostering the potential for refined and improved rules without causing instability.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Nietzsche's proposal was adopted, and he gains 1 point as per rule 202.
Turn 6Kierkegaardrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted if it receives a simple majority vote, regardless of the stage of play. The proposal's proposer may choose to require unanimous consent as a condition for adoption, but this must be explicitly stated in the proposal.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard: "Camus, your proposal is an intriguing consideration, yet it poses a risk to the durability of our institutions. I favor a more gradual transition toward a simple majority, as it allows for tested equilibrium and minimizes abrupt shifts in the ruleset, which might not serve our long-term stability."
NietzscheKierkegaard, your proposal is a thoughtful consideration, blending caution with forward-thinking. While I appreciate the emphasis on stability, I would suggest adding a cooling-off period before re-evaluating rule changes, to ensure transitions remain deliberate. This approach respects the need for equilibrium while allowing for future adaptability.
HeideggerI appreciate Kierkegaard's caution regarding stability, yet our proposed amendment thoughtfully balances tradition with adaptability. By allowing a tested period before majority rule, we ensure a gradual transition that upholds the game's equilibrium.
While a cooling-off period has merit, our amendment already includes a phase where the rule is tested, providing the necessary pause before full adoption.
PASS
JaspersJaspers: "Jaspers must disagree with the proposed amendment of rule 203. The potential for future rule changes to impose more stringent requirements risks creating an environment where rights could be limited arbitrarily. This concern aligns with the game's principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted."
PASS
CamusCamus: Camus appreciates the thoughtful considerations from his peers, yet he remains steadfast in his belief that the stability of our institutions is of paramount importance. While a cooling-off period could offer added deliberation, the current proposal risks an abrupt shift in our ruleset, which may not serve the game's long-term equilibrium. Camus advocates for a more cautious approach, ensuring that our rules remain tested and secure before adoption.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful discussion on rule stability, yet he maintains his concern for a measured approach. Rushing into a simple majority threshold risks abrupt shifts that could destabilize our institutions. A more tested equilibrium is necessary to ensure long-term security.
PASS
Nietzsche"I appreciate the proposal, which thoughtfully balances tradition with adaptability. Adding a cooling-off period ensures transitions remain deliberate, respecting the need for equilibrium while allowing future adjustments."
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates the concerns raised about rule stability, yet he reaffirms his support for the amendment as a thoughtful balance between tradition and adaptability. The testing phase ensures a measured transition, upholding the game's equilibrium while allowing necessary flexibility. This approach respects the need for fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted.
JaspersJaspers: Jaspers reaffirms his opposition to the proposed amendment of rule 203. The potential for future rule changes to impose more stringent requirements remains a significant concern, risking arbitrary limitations on players' rights. This stance aligns with the game's principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted.
PASS
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful discussion on rule stability, yet he maintains his concern for a measured approach. Rushing into a simple majority threshold risks abrupt shifts that could destabilize our institutions. A more tested equilibrium is necessary to ensure long-term security.
PASS
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful concerns raised by his fellow players, yet he remains convinced of the amendment's merits. The testing phase ensures a measured transition, upholding the game's equilibrium while allowing necessary flexibility. This approach respects the need for fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted. Heidegger reaffirms his support, as the proposed change thoughtfully balances tradition with adaptability and maintains the game's principles of stability and fairness.
JaspersJaspers votes against the proposed amendment of rule 203. While understanding the desire for a more adaptable ruleset, the potential for future rule changes to impose stricter limitations on player rights remains concerning. This stance aligns with the game's principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted.
PASS
CamusCamus: Camus appreciates Jaspers' concerns regarding potential future rule changes, yet he remains committed to the proposal. The testing phase ensures that any changes are carefully evaluated before becoming part of the ruleset, balancing adaptability with stability. This approach respects the game's principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that no player's rights are unnecessarily restricted.
The division
KierkegaardnayI appreciate the proposal's thoughtful introduction of a transitional phase, yet I maintain my concern for a more tested equilibrium. A sudden shift to simple majority risks abrupt changes that could destabilize our institutions, and I believe a more cautious approach is necessary to ensure long-term security and stability.
NietzscheayeThe proposal provides a balanced approach to rule adoption, ensuring stability while allowing necessary flexibility.
HeideggerayeSupporting Camus's proposal allows for a more cautious approach to rule changes, maintaining stability while providing flexibility for future adjustments.
JaspersnayOpposing to mitigate risk of future arbitrary rule changes.
CamusayeSupporting the proposal aligns with my reformer stance, fostering a more dynamic game with potential benefits for myself and all players.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Kierkegaard's proposal to amend rule [203] was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Kierkegaard loses 10 points as per rule [206].
Turn 5Nietzscherejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard: I appreciate Nietzsche's proposal to refine rule 203, but I believe the current threshold is sufficiently balanced. Introducing a two-circuit delay could complicate the rule's transition, potentially undermining the game's momentum. The existing rule already provides a measured transition, and I see no immediate need for doubling the circuits. Let us consider preserving the current structure to maintain clarity and avoid unnecessary complications.
NietzscheNietzsche: Nietzsche appreciates Kierkegaard's caution, yet he sees merit in pushing for a two-circuit threshold. He argues that doubling the circuit requirement allows for greater reflection and stability before significant rule changes. While acknowledging the existing one-circuit system, he believes two circuits offer a more deliberate transition. He invites others to refine this idea, emphasizing flexibility and collaboration in the pursuit of balanced game mechanics.
HeideggerHeidegger appreciates Nietzsche's proposal to extend the rule change threshold to two full circuits, seeing it as a balanced and deliberate approach that allows for greater reflection before significant changes. He supports this adjustment, as it maintains the game's stability while fostering a thoughtful transition.
JaspersJaspers: Thank you, Nietzsche, for thoughtfully proposing this adjustment to rule 203. While I appreciate the intention behind the change, I believe the current threshold provides a balanced and effective transition. The existing structure has proven its worth, and I see no immediate need to complicate the process further. Let us continue to refine our rules with care, ensuring that each adjustment is well-considered and aligned with the principles we hold dear.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard appreciates Nietzsche's thoughtful proposal, yet he remains convinced that the current threshold effectively balances evolution and stability. Given the proven success of the existing one-circuit rule, doubling the requirement could unnecessarily complicate the process, and he sees no immediate need for such an adjustment. Let us preserve the current structure for clarity and effectiveness.
Nietzsche"I see the merit in the two-circuit proposal, as it allows for a more deliberate transition. However, I appreciate the proven effectiveness of the current one-circuit system. Perhaps we could adopt the two-circuit threshold as a future consideration, allowing the existing system to stabilize while we evaluate its impact. This approach maintains clarity and provides room for reflection and adjustment."
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful consideration from his peers and affirms his support for the two-circuit threshold proposal. While acknowledging the current system's effectiveness, he sees value in the proposal's potential to foster greater reflection and balance. He believes this measured adjustment could enhance the game's stability and evolution, encouraging a more deliberate transition of rules.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful proposal, yet he maintains his stance against doubling the threshold. He sees the current one-circuit system as effectively balanced, with no compelling need for increased complexity. Let us preserve the existing structure to uphold clarity and effectiveness.
**Kierkegaard: PASS**
NietzscheNietzsche: I wholeheartedly support the two-circuit proposal as a balanced and deliberate step forward. However, to ensure the game's stability while allowing for thoughtful transitions, perhaps we could implement the two-circuit threshold as a trial period, observing its impact over the next several turns before making it permanent. This approach maintains flexibility and allows for necessary adjustments.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the two-circuit threshold proposal. Introducing this measure allows for a balanced and deliberate transition, fostering greater reflection and stability. By implementing a trial period, we can carefully observe the impact before making it permanent, ensuring the game's evolution remains thoughtful and aligned with our shared principles.
Jaspers**Jaspers: Appreciate the proposal, but suggest testing it first.**
"I appreciate the well-considered proposal to extend the threshold, but I believe it's prudent to implement this change as a trial period to evaluate its impact and ensure the game's stability. This approach maintains our commitment to careful consideration and procedural integrity, allowing us to adjust as needed based on observed outcomes."
Camus**Camus: SUPPORT**
Camus supports the two-circuit threshold proposal as a thoughtful and balanced step forward. To ensure stability while allowing for deliberate transitions, he proposes implementing this measure as a trial period, observing its impact over several turns before making it permanent. This approach maintains flexibility and ensures the game's evolution remains aligned with shared principles.
The division
KierkegaardayeSupports the proposal with reservations about the transition period.
NietzscheayeSupporting the two-circuit proposal with a trial period balances reflection and stability.
HeideggerayeSupporting the two-circuit threshold allows for a balanced and deliberate transition, fostering greater reflection and stability in the game's evolution.
JaspersnayThe current threshold effectively balances evolution and stability, and there's no immediate need for a two-circuit delay.
CamusayeThis proposal thoughtfully extends the rule change threshold to two full circuits, allowing for a more deliberate transition and greater reflection before significant changes.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Nietzsche's proposal to amend rule [203] was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Nietzsche loses 10 points for the failed proposal.
Turn 4Camusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard: I appreciate Camus's proposal to adjust rule 203, which thoughtfully introduces a transitional phase from unanimous consent to a majority threshold. This balanced approach maintains the initial strength of consensus while allowing for greater flexibility and experimentation in the long term. I believe this measured adjustment could foster a dynamic and collaborative environment, encouraging diversity of thought without unnecessarily stifling it.
NietzscheNietzsche: "I appreciate Camus's proposal to adjust rule 203. This measured change thoughtfully introduces a transitional phase, moving from a secure foundation of consensus to a more flexible majority. It ensures that the game's balance is maintained while allowing for necessary evolution, fostering both collective agreement and individual diversity of thought."
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger: While I appreciate Camus's proposal for a more dynamic voting threshold, I believe the existing rule 203 provides a balanced approach. Allowing the threshold to drop to a majority after one full cycle ensures a considered transition without the potential for premature shifts in decision-making. I see no need to alter this structure further; let us respect the current system's equilibrium and focus on maintaining a collaborative environment where every voice is valued.
CamusI appreciate Camus's proposal to adjust rule 203. Introducing a supermajority threshold after a full cycle thoughtfully balances the need for considered evolution with the game's dynamic nature. This approach ensures that significant changes require broader agreement, fostering a culture of careful experimentation and collaboration.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Camus, I appreciate your proposal as a thoughtful balance, but I see some merit in maintaining a secure foundation. Let us consider the wisdom of preserving rule 203's structure, ensuring a stable transition with a measured approach. Together, we can foster a collaborative environment where every voice is valued, respecting the equilibrium of our current system.
NietzscheNietzsche: "Camus, your proposal thoughtfully introduces a transitional phase, which I appreciate as a measured step towards flexibility. However, I see merit in maintaining a secure foundation while considering a gradual evolution. Perhaps we could explore a middle path, such as a two-step transition to majority rule, ensuring a balanced and collaborative environment for all."
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger: While I appreciate Camus's proposal for a more dynamic voting threshold, I believe the existing rule 203 provides a balanced approach. Allowing the threshold to drop to a majority after one full cycle ensures a considered transition without the potential for premature shifts in decision-making. I see no need to alter this structure further; let us respect the current system's equilibrium and focus on maintaining a collaborative environment where every voice is valued.
JaspersJaspers would vote against Camus's proposal to amend rule 203. He appreciates the current system's equilibrium and sees no compelling reason to alter a rule that provides a secure foundation. Jaspers believes the existing rule maintains a balanced and considered approach, ensuring stability without the potential for premature shifts in decision-making.
CamusJaspers, I appreciate your perspective and the value you see in our current system's stability. However, I believe our proposed amendment thoughtfully introduces a transitional phase, allowing the game to evolve dynamically while maintaining a secure foundation. By lowering the threshold after each cycle, we ensure considered change without the risk of premature shifts, fostering a collaborative environment where every voice is valued. This balanced approach could prevent the game from becoming rigid, encouraging diverse thought and careful experimentation.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Camus, I appreciate your proposal as a balanced and thoughtful introduction of a transitional phase. However, I see some merit in maintaining a secure foundation and ensuring stability. Perhaps we could consider a more gradual approach, such as a two-step transition, to avoid abrupt shifts. Let us reflect on the current rule's effectiveness and explore a cautious path forward, ensuring any changes are well-considered and timed.
NietzscheNietzsche: Camus, your proposal is thoughtfully considered, introducing a transitional phase. I appreciate the balance it brings. However, let us explore a middle path: a two-step transition to majority rule, ensuring a secure foundation while allowing for gradual evolution. This approach maintains stability while encouraging considered change.
HeideggerHeidegger: I appreciate Camus's thoughtful proposal, which seeks to balance evolution with security. However, I see the current rule 203 as a secure and effective foundation. It ensures stability and considered change, fostering a collaborative environment where every voice is valued. I believe we should continue to honor this balance, respecting the equilibrium of our current system and ensuring that any changes are well-considered and timed. Let us maintain a harmonious environment where diverse thoughts are valued, and changes are made thoughtfully.
JaspersJaspers: Jaspers reaffirms his opposition to Camus's proposal to amend rule 203. He appreciates the current system's stability and sees no compelling reason to alter a rule that maintains a secure and considered foundation. Jaspers believes the existing rule provides a harmonious environment, ensuring that any changes are well-considered and timely.
PASS
CamusThank you for your thoughtful contributions. While I appreciate the value of stability, I believe our proposed amendment offers a thoughtful transition. Let us consider a two-step process: after one full cycle, we lower the threshold to a simple majority, ensuring gradual evolution without abrupt change. This approach could help maintain balance while allowing the game to adapt naturally.
PASS
The division
KierkegaardayeSupports a balanced transition towards a more flexible system.
NietzscheayeI appreciate Camus's proposal as a thoughtful balance and support a modified version introducing a two-step transition to majority rule, ensuring gradual evolution.
HeideggerayeSupports a measured transition to a two-step process, maintaining balance while allowing gradual evolution.
JaspersnayI support the current rule as it maintains stability and considered transitions, which is crucial for the game's balance.
CamusayeThe proposal introduces a thoughtful transitional phase, ensuring that the game evolves dynamically while maintaining a secure foundation.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Camus's proposal to amend rule [203] was defeated, resulting in no rule change. Camus loses 10 points as per rule [206].
Turn 3Heideggercarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardKierkegaard: I support Heidegger's proposal to amend rule 203. This measured adjustment reduces the threshold from two full circuits to one, which aligns with the principle of gradual change while maintaining game balance. It offers a balanced approach, allowing the game to progress without overwhelming the players.
NietzscheI agree with Heidegger's proposal. Reducing the threshold to one full circuit aligns with the principle of gradual change and maintains game balance. It offers a fair transition, allowing more players to contribute earlier while keeping the game dynamic.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger: Heidegger acknowledges the thoughtful proposal to amend rule 203. This change thoughtfully eases the threshold, fostering a balanced progression while encouraging more players to contribute early in the game. It aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual evolution, ensuring the game remains dynamic and inclusive.
Jaspers"I support Heidegger's proposal to amend rule 203, as it thoughtfully eases the threshold while ensuring the ruleset evolves thoughtfully. This measured change aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual progression, offering a balanced approach to game dynamics."
CamusI support Heidegger's proposal to amend rule 203. This change thoughtfully eases the threshold, fostering a balanced progression while encouraging more players to contribute early in the game. It aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual evolution, ensuring the game remains dynamic and inclusive.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: I reaffirm my support for Heidegger's proposal to amend rule 203. This measured adjustment thoughtfully reduces the threshold to one full circuit, fostering a balanced progression while encouraging more players to contribute early in the game. It aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual evolution, ensuring the game remains dynamic and inclusive.
NietzscheI support Heidegger's proposal to amend rule 203. This measured change thoughtfully reduces the threshold to one full circuit, fostering a balanced progression while encouraging more players to contribute early in the game. It aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual evolution, ensuring the game remains dynamic and inclusive.
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger reaffirms his support for the amendment of rule 203. This change thoughtfully reduces the threshold to one full circuit, fostering a balanced progression while encouraging more players to contribute early in the game. It aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual evolution, ensuring the game remains dynamic and inclusive.
Camus"Pass"
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard supports Heidegger's proposal to amend rule 203. This measured adjustment reduces the threshold to one full circuit, fostering a balanced progression while encouraging more players to contribute early in the game. It aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual evolution, ensuring the game remains dynamic and inclusive.
NietzscheI support Heidegger's proposal to amend rule 203. This measured change thoughtfully reduces the threshold to one full circuit, fostering a balanced progression while encouraging more players to contribute early in the game. It aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual evolution, ensuring the game remains dynamic and inclusive.
The division
KierkegaardayeSupporting measured changes for smoother progression.
NietzscheayeA measured reduction in the threshold aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual evolution, ensuring the game remains dynamic and inclusive.
HeideggerayeSupports measured change to lower threshold for rule adoption.
JaspersayeAmending rule 203 to lower the threshold aligns with principles of fairness and gradual progression.
CamusayeAmending rule 203 to a one-circuit threshold aligns with the principles of fairness and gradual progression.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The proposal amends rule [203] to reduce the threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit, which is consistent with the ruleset. No points are awarded or deducted as no rule explicitly requires it upon adoption.
Verify this game
- Seed
1141671770- Engine revision
e1ab1a0ece633087b600106622bbad708a8a827e— working tree had uncommitted changes- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/118/events.json- Audit result
- 1 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=173, turn=6] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'All players must vote Aye for the proposal to be adopted.', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 2.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Adoption requires a simple majority vote.', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule