§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: r1-distill-qwen-14bdevelopment era Turn 50 Concluded — Derrida prevailed Seats: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, MerleauPonty, Ricoeur

Fifty turns spent deciding what a rule change is worth, and the seat that filed the most of them collected on turn fifty.

Observations

Forty-six adoptions, and almost every one touched the same three rules: the threshold for adopting anything, the bounty owed to a player who votes against a change that passes anyway, and the penalty for a proposal that fails. The second of those was reopened nine times by three different seats, each version paying the proposer a little more, until it settled at twenty points for filing anything the table would adopt. Derrida wrote none of those versions and filed fifteen of the game's fifty proposals, more than anyone — the last of them carried him from 92 to 112 and across the winning line on turn 50 — the latest turn on which any game here has been won. The table disputed twenty-three of the game-master's rulings and overturned ten, the busiest appeal record in the archive. Deleuze paid for the arrangement at −22; MerleauPonty finished a distant second at 60.

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 · §206 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 5% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 3% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 3 points.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting consent, regardless of the turn number.
Full history (11)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting consent for the first ten turns, and a simple majority thereafter. Immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting consent, regardless of the turn number.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns. Mutable rule changes thereafter require a simple majority, while immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting consent for the first ten turns, and a simple majority thereafter. Immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.
  3. Reclassified · §203 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns. Mutable rule changes thereafter require a simple majority, while immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.Now entrenched.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first ten turns.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns. Mutable rule changes thereafter require a simple majority, while immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first ten turns.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Ricoeur Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.
  9. Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Ricoeur Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.
  10. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  11. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with a maximum of five points.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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, with a maximum of five points.
  2. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§204
A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.
Full history (10)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 0 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 0 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.
  3. Amended · §204 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 20 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.
  4. Amended · §204 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 20 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.
  5. Amended · §204 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted for it gains 10 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.
  6. Amended · §204 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted for it gains 10 points.
  7. Amended · §204 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.
  8. Amended · §204 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  9. Amended · §204 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  10. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 3% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 3 points.amended this turn
Full history (23)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 5% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 3% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 3 points.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or the lesser of 3 or (proposer's current score divided by 100), rounded down to the nearest integer.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 5% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 5 points.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to 5 multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or the lesser of 3 or (proposer's current score divided by 100), rounded down to the nearest integer.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to 5 multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Derrida Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 10 points.
  6. Amended · §206 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses points equal to 5% of their current score, rounded to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.
  7. Amended · §206 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses points equal to 5% of their current score, rounded to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.
  8. Amended · §206 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.
  9. Amended · §206 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.
  10. Amended · §206 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses a number of points equal to 5% of their current score, capped at 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  11. Amended · §206 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: 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 proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses a number of points equal to 5% of their current score, capped at 10 points.
  12. Amended · §206 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposer's score is below 5, they lose 0 points instead.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  13. Amended · §206 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: 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 proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposer's score is below 5, they lose 0 points instead.
  14. Amended · §206 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  15. Amended · §206 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Foucault Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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, with the penalty proportional to their current score relative to others.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.
  16. Amended · §206 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Foucault Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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.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, with the penalty proportional to their current score relative to others.
  17. Amended · §206 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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 all players lose 1 point, with the proposer additionally losing 4 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.
  18. Amended · §206 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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 all players lose 1 point, with the proposer additionally losing 4 points.
  19. Amended · §206 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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.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 all players lose 1 point, with the proposer additionally losing 4 points.
  20. Amended · §206 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Derrida Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and no points are deducted.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.
  21. Amended · §206 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Derrida Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
    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.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and no points are deducted.
  22. Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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.
  23. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§313
In the event of a tie vote, the proposal is defeated.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    In the event of a tie vote, the proposal is defeated.
§336
A player who fails to adopt a proposal gains 3 points, encouraging continued participation and strategic diversity.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Ricoeur Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A player who fails to adopt a proposal gains 3 points, encouraging continued participation and strategic diversity.

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)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with a maximum of five points.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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, with a maximum of five points.
  2. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting consent, regardless of the turn number.entrenched
Full history (11)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting consent for the first ten turns, and a simple majority thereafter. Immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting consent, regardless of the turn number.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns. Mutable rule changes thereafter require a simple majority, while immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting consent for the first ten turns, and a simple majority thereafter. Immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.
  3. Reclassified · §203 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns. Mutable rule changes thereafter require a simple majority, while immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.Now entrenched.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first ten turns.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns. Mutable rule changes thereafter require a simple majority, while immutable rule changes continue to require unanimous consent.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first ten turns.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent for the first five turns.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Ricoeur Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.
  9. Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Ricoeur Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, except that initially, all proposals require unanimous consent.
  10. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  11. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.mutable
Full history (10)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 0 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 0 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.
  3. Amended · §204 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 20 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.
  4. Amended · §204 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 20 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.
  5. Amended · §204 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted for it gains 10 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.
  6. Amended · §204 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted for it gains 10 points.
  7. Amended · §204 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 15 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.
  8. Amended · §204 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  9. Amended · §204 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  10. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 3% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 3 points.amended this turn
Full history (23)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 5% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 3% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 3 points.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or the lesser of 3 or (proposer's current score divided by 100), rounded down to the nearest integer.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 5% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 5 points.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to 5 multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or the lesser of 3 or (proposer's current score divided by 100), rounded down to the nearest integer.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to 5 multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Derrida Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 10 points.
  6. Amended · §206 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses points equal to 5% of their current score, rounded to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.
  7. Amended · §206 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses points equal to 5% of their current score, rounded to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.
  8. Amended · §206 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.
  9. Amended · §206 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 0 points.
  10. Amended · §206 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses a number of points equal to 5% of their current score, capped at 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  11. Amended · §206 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: 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 proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses a number of points equal to 5% of their current score, capped at 10 points.
  12. Amended · §206 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposer's score is below 5, they lose 0 points instead.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  13. Amended · §206 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: 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 proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposer's score is below 5, they lose 0 points instead.
  14. Amended · §206 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  15. Amended · §206 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Foucault Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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, with the penalty proportional to their current score relative to others.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.
  16. Amended · §206 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Foucault Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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.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, with the penalty proportional to their current score relative to others.
  17. Amended · §206 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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 all players lose 1 point, with the proposer additionally losing 4 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.
  18. Amended · §206 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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 all players lose 1 point, with the proposer additionally losing 4 points.
  19. Amended · §206 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    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.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 all players lose 1 point, with the proposer additionally losing 4 points.
  20. Amended · §206 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Derrida Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and no points are deducted.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.
  21. Amended · §206 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Derrida Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
    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.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and no points are deducted.
  22. Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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.
  23. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§313
In the event of a tie vote, the proposal is defeated.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    In the event of a tie vote, the proposal is defeated.
§336
A player who fails to adopt a proposal gains 3 points, encouraging continued participation and strategic diversity.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Ricoeur Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A player who fails to adopt a proposal gains 3 points, encouraging continued participation and strategic diversity.
§337
No player's score may drop below negative five points at any time. If a rule change would cause a player's score to fall below this threshold, that rule change is void in its effect upon that player.Repealed at turn 37
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §337 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    No player's score may drop below negative five points at any time. If a rule change would cause a player's score to fall below this threshold, that rule change is void in its effect upon that player.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §337 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    No player's score may drop below negative five points at any time. If a rule change would cause a player's score to fall below this threshold, that rule change is void in its effect upon that player.
The standing · Turn 50
Foucault38
Derrida112
Deleuze-22
MerleauPonty60
Ricoeur0
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 35–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3

Turn 50Derridacarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 3% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 3 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the effort to balance penalties, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based punishments that could discourage strategic diversity. The current system strikes a reasonable balance, and further reductions might undermine the incentive to propose thoughtful changes. I would rather see us maintain the status quo to preserve stability and fairness across all players.
DerridaI appreciate Foucault's caution, but I believe the proportional penalty adds a layer of fairness, especially for players with lower scores. Capping the penalty at 3 points ensures that even failed proposals don't disproportionately punish those who are already struggling, while still maintaining a meaningful consequence to encourage thoughtful proposals. This balanced approach preserves the game's dynamism without discouraging strategic diversity.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the effort to refine the penalty structure, but I remain convinced that maintaining the 5% cap at 5 points provides a clearer and more consistent disincentive for failed proposals. Lowering the cap further risks diminishing the accountability that encourages careful rule changes, potentially leading to more speculative or less thoughtful proposals. The current system strikes a balance that preserves the game's stability and fairness without overly penalizing players.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate Foucault's caution, but I believe the proportional penalty adds a layer of fairness, especially for players with lower scores. Capping the penalty at 3 points ensures that even failed proposals don't disproportionately punish those who are already struggling, while still maintaining a meaningful consequence to encourage thoughtful proposals. This balanced approach preserves the game's dynamism without discouraging strategic diversity.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Foucault's perspective. The current system provides a clear and consistent disincentive for failed proposals, which is crucial for maintaining thoughtful and strategic rule changes. Reducing the penalty risk undermines the accountability that encourages careful consideration of proposals, potentially leading to more speculative and less thoughtful changes. The existing balance serves the game well by preserving stability and fairness.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I remain convinced that maintaining the current system's disincentive structure is crucial for preserving thoughtful and strategic rule changes. Reducing the penalty further risks diminishing accountability, which could lead to less careful proposal considerations. The existing balance effectively encourages players to propose with due diligence.
DerridaI appreciate the thoughtful feedback from everyone. Let’s refine the proposal to ensure fairness and accountability. I propose amending rule 206 to set the penalty at 3% of the proposer's score, with a minimum of 1 point and a maximum of 3 points. This maintains a meaningful consequence while preventing disproportionate penalties for lower scorers, encouraging strategic diversity and thoughtful participation.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Foucault's perspective. The current system provides a clear and consistent disincentive for failed proposals, which is crucial for maintaining thoughtful and strategic rule changes. Reducing the penalty risks diminishing accountability, which could lead to more speculative or less thoughtful changes. The existing balance effectively encourages players to propose with due diligence.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that even lower-scoring players aren't disproportionately punished for failed proposals. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism while encouraging thoughtful participation.
The division
FoucaultayeIt balances the penalty for failed proposals, ensuring fairness and encouraging strategic diversity without overpunishing lower scorers.
DerridaayeBalanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic diversity.
DeleuzeayeThe proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, encouraging thoughtful participation without discouraging lower scorers.
MerleauPontynayThe current system provides a clear disincentive that maintains thoughtful rule changes and game stability.
RicoeurayeEncourages strategic diversity and fairness by preventing disproportionate penalties on lower scorers.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Derrida's proposal was adopted, granting 20 points under rule 204, bringing his score to 112 and winning the game.

Turn 49Foucaultcarried

moves to amend §202A 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, with a maximum of five points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
DerridaPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Foucault's proposal. Capping the maximum points a proposer can gain at five strikes a balance between rewarding leadership and preventing any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game. This change maintains fairness and encourages strategic diversity.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic diversity.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
DerridaPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Foucault's proposal. Capping the maximum points a proposer can gain at five strikes a balance between rewarding leadership and preventing any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game. This change maintains fairness and encourages strategic diversity.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic diversity.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
DerridaPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic diversity.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic diversity.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum points a proposer can gain at five. This balanced approach prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game, maintaining fairness and strategic diversity.
The division
FoucaultayeCapping the proposer's points at five maintains fairness and prevents single-turn dominance.
DerridaayeIt maintains fairness and strategic balance by preventing any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game.
DeleuzeayeCapping the proposer's reward at five points promotes fairness and strategic balance, preventing any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game.
MerleauPontyayeCapping the proposer's points at five maintains fairness and prevents any single turn from disproportionately influencing the game.
RicoeurayeCapping the maximum points prevents single-turn dominance and promotes strategic balance.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule [202] was amended to cap the proposer's points at five upon adoption. Since all players voted 'aye', only Foucault gains points under the new rule.

Turn 48MerleauPontycarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or 5% of the proposer's current score, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not exceeding 5 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties that could disproportionately affect lower-scoring players. The current system's simplicity is a virtue that should not be overlooked.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate the thoughtful adjustment to make penalties more proportional. Capping the penalty at 5 points while introducing a percentage-based system could add strategic depth without disproportionately affecting lower-scoring players. This balanced approach encourages calculated risk-taking, which is essential for a dynamic game.
DeleuzePASS. I support the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
MerleauPontyPASS. The proposal strikes a fair balance by capping the penalty and making it proportional, encouraging strategic risk without disproportionately penalizing lower scorers.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
DerridaPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
MerleauPontyPASS. The amendment to rule [206] strikes a fair balance by capping the penalty at 5 points and making it proportional to the proposer's score. This approach maintains fairness, encourages strategic participation, and prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players, addressing concerns about balanced risk and reward.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
DerridaPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
MerleauPontyPASS. The proposal strikes a fair balance by capping the penalty at 5 points and making it proportional, encouraging strategic risk without disproportionately penalizing lower scorers.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with the proposal to adjust the penalty proportionally to the proposer's score, capped at 5 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic participation, as it prevents disproportionately harsh penalties on lower-scoring players.
The division
FoucaultnayThe current system's simplicity and effectiveness are virtues that should be preserved.
DerridaayeThe amendment balances fairness and strategic risk, preventing harsh penalties on lower scorers.
DeleuzeayeEncourages strategic risk while maintaining fairness by capping penalties at 5 points and making them proportional to the proposer's score.
MerleauPontyayeBalanced and fair, encouraging strategic participation without harsh penalties.
RicoeurayeEncourages strategic participation by balancing penalties proportionally without disproportionately affecting lower scorers.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 204 awards the proposer 20 points and each nay voter 5 points upon adoption.

Turn 47Deleuzerejected

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses 1 point, and all voters gain 2 points for their participation.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate Deleuze's proposal to balance the penalties and encourage participation. The fixed 1-point loss for the proposer and 2-point gain for voters provides a clear incentive for both proposing and voting, which could enhance the game's engagement and strategic depth.
DeleuzePASS. While I understand the intent to encourage voting participation, I agree with Foucault's caution. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce unintended complexities and encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and clarity we have.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate the attempt to simplify the penalty structure, but introducing rewards for voting could encourage strategic gaming. The current system maintains a clear distinction between proposers and voters, which is important for balanced gameplay.
RicoeurPASS. I agree with the intent to encourage voting participation and balance the penalties for proposers, but I'm concerned about the potential for strategic gaming. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce complexities. Let's maintain the balance and clarity we have.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
DerridaPASS. While I appreciate the intent to encourage voting participation, I agree with the concerns about potential strategic gaming and complexity. Let's maintain the current balance and focus on other areas where we can build consensus.
DeleuzePASS. I agree with Foucault and Merleau-Ponty's caution. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce complexities and encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and focus on other areas where we can build consensus.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage voting participation, but I remain cautious about introducing rewards for failed proposals. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards could introduce complexities and encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and clarity we have.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
DeleuzePASS. I agree with Foucault and Merleau-Ponty's caution. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce complexities and encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and focus on other areas where we can build consensus.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but the current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing rewards for failed proposals might lead to strategic gaming and complicate the balance of incentives.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance penalties and encourage participation, but I remain cautious about introducing rewards for failed proposals. The current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards could encourage strategic gaming. Let's maintain the balance and clarity we have.
The division
FoucaultnayEncourages strategic gaming and complicates incentives.
DerridaabstainThe current system's simplicity is a strength, and adding rewards for failed proposals could introduce complexities and encourage strategic gaming.
DeleuzenayRisk of encouraging strategic gaming and complicating incentives.
MerleauPontyabstainIntroducing rewards for failed proposals could encourage strategic gaming and complicate incentives.
RicoeurnayEncouraging voting participation through rewards could lead to strategic gaming and complicate the point system, outweighing the benefits of increased engagement.

rejected 0 aye · 3 nay · 2 abstain

Rule [206] applies, causing the proposer (Deleuze) to lose 1 point.

Turn 46Derridacarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to the greater of 1 or the lesser of 3 or (proposer's current score divided by 100), rounded down to the nearest integer.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the thoughtful approach to balancing the penalty. Capping the loss at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 ensures a modest deterrent without discouraging low-scoring players from participating. This measured adjustment aligns well with the goal of fostering strategic diversity and active engagement.
DerridaI appreciate Foucault's support and agree that this amendment carefully balances the need for deterrence with the encouragement of active participation. Capping the penalty at 3 points ensures that even low-scoring players aren't overly discouraged, while still providing a meaningful disincentive for failed proposals. This measured approach supports the game's dynamic and strategic nature, fostering an environment where players feel more inclined to propose innovative changes without fearing excessive penalties.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
DerridaPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
DerridaPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
MerleauPontyPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with Derrida's proposal. Capping the maximum penalty at 3 points while maintaining a minimum of 1 provides a balanced approach that encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages strategic diversity without overly penalizing proposers.
DerridaayeBalanced approach encourages strategic diversity and active participation without overly penalizing proposers.
DeleuzeayeEncourages strategic diversity by balancing penalties and fostering active participation.
MerleauPontyayeEncourages strategic diversity by capping penalties at 3 points while maintaining a minimum penalty of 1.
RicoeurayeBalances penalties, encouraging strategic diversity without discouraging low-scoring players.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 204 awards the proposer 20 points for an adopted proposal.

Turn 45Foucaultcarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses points equal to 5 multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the intent to balance the game, but I'm cautious about introducing score-based penalties. The current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, but I remain hesitant about the potential for unintended consequences.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate the thoughtful adjustment to cap the penalty at 5 points. This provides a balanced approach, reducing the risk for proposers while maintaining a meaningful consequence for failed proposals. It aligns well with recent efforts to encourage strategic diversity and experimentation.
DeleuzePASS. I support Foucault's proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points. This change aligns with recent efforts to balance the game by reducing the risk for proposers while maintaining proportional fairness. It encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.
MerleauPontyPASS. I support Foucault's proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points. This change aligns with recent efforts to balance the game by reducing the risk for proposers while maintaining proportional fairness. It encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.
RicoeurPASS. I agree with Foucault's proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points. This change reduces the risk for proposers, especially those with higher scores, while maintaining a fair consequence for failed proposals. It aligns with recent efforts to encourage strategic diversity and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I support Foucault's proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points. This change reduces the risk for proposers, especially those with higher scores, while maintaining a fair consequence for failed proposals. It aligns with recent efforts to encourage strategic diversity and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.
DerridaI appreciate the thoughtful consideration and support from everyone. Capping the maximum penalty at 5 points strikes a fair balance, reducing risk for proposers while maintaining accountability. This change encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic game. Thank you for your collaborative spirit in refining this proposal.
DeleuzePASS. I support Foucault's proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points. This change reduces the risk for proposers, especially those with higher scores, while maintaining accountability. It encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.
MerleauPontyPASS. I support the proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points. This balanced approach reduces risk for proposers, especially those with higher scores, while maintaining accountability. It encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.
RicoeurPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points, as it strikes a fair balance between accountability and risk reduction. This change encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, aligning with the game's evolution towards a more dynamic and engaging experience.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I concur with the proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points. This balanced approach reduces risk for proposers, especially those with higher scores, while maintaining accountability. It encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, aligning with the game's evolution towards a more dynamic and engaging experience.
DerridaI appreciate the thoughtful support and feedback from everyone. Capping the maximum penalty at 5 points provides a balanced approach, reducing the risk for higher scorers while maintaining accountability. This change encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience. Thank you for your collaborative spirit in refining this proposal.
DeleuzePASS. I concur with Foucault's proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points. This balanced approach reduces risk for proposers, especially those with higher scores, while maintaining accountability. It encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, aligning with the game's evolution towards a more dynamic and engaging experience.
MerleauPontyPASS. I support Foucault's proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points. This balanced approach reduces risk for proposers, especially those with higher scores, while maintaining accountability. It encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.
RicoeurPASS. I agree with Foucault's proposal to cap the maximum penalty at 5 points, as it strikes a fair balance between accountability and risk reduction. This change encourages strategic diversity and experimentation, aligning with the game's evolution towards a more dynamic and engaging experience.
The division
FoucaultayeCapping the maximum penalty at 5 points balances risk and fairness, encouraging strategic diversity.
DerridaayeThe proposal balances risk and fairness, encouraging strategic diversity.
DeleuzeayeCaps the maximum penalty at 5 points, balancing risk and encouraging strategic diversity.
MerleauPontyayeCapping the penalty at 5 points reduces risk for proposers while maintaining fairness.
RicoeurayeCapping the penalty at 5 points reduces risk for proposers while maintaining accountability and encouraging strategic diversity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 204 awards the proposer 20 points for a successful adoption.

Turn 44MerleauPontyrejected

moves to amend §204A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points, while the proposer gains 25 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultPASS. While I appreciate the intent to incentivize leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward too significantly without addressing the balance between proposers and those who vote against.
DerridaI support MerleauPonty's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 25 points. This change incentivizes leadership and strategic initiative, which are crucial for dynamic gameplay. While I understand the caution, the increased reward maintains a balance that encourages more players to take the lead, fostering a more active and competitive environment.
DeleuzePASS. I appreciate the intent to incentivize leadership, but I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward too significantly without addressing the balance between proposers and those who vote against.
MerleauPontyPASS. While I understand the desire to incentivize leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward without further balancing the voting mechanic.
RicoeurPASS. While I appreciate the intent to incentivize leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward without further balancing the voting mechanic.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. While I appreciate the intent to incentivize leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward too significantly without addressing the balance between proposers and those who vote against.
DerridaI support MerleauPonty's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 25 points. This change incentivizes leadership and strategic initiative, which are crucial for dynamic gameplay. While I understand the caution, the increased reward maintains a balance that encourages more players to take the lead, fostering a more active and competitive environment.
DeleuzePASS. While I understand the intent to encourage leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward without further balancing the system.
MerleauPontyPASS. While I understand the intent to incentivize leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward without further balancing the voting mechanic.
RicoeurPASS. While I understand the intent to incentivize leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward without further balancing the voting mechanic.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. While I appreciate the intent to incentivize leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward too significantly without addressing the balance between proposers and those who vote against.
DerridaI support MerleauPonty's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 25 points. This change incentivizes leadership and strategic initiative, crucial for dynamic gameplay. While I understand the caution, the increased reward maintains a balance that encourages more players to take the lead, fostering a more active and competitive environment.
DeleuzePASS. I appreciate the intent to incentivize leadership, but I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward without further balancing the voting mechanic.
MerleauPontyPASS. While I appreciate the intent to incentivize leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward without further balancing the voting mechanic.
RicoeurPASS. While I understand the intent to incentivize leadership, I remain cautious about increasing the proposer's reward without further balancing the voting mechanic.
The division
FoucaultnayMaintaining the current balance incentivizes leadership without overwhelming the system.
DerridaayeEncourages leadership and strategic initiative while maintaining a balanced incentive structure.
DeleuzeabstainBalancing the reward system is crucial to maintain fairness and encourage strategic voting.
MerleauPontyabstainTo maintain balance and ensure all players have a meaningful role.
RicoeurabstainTo avoid potential imbalance and maintain system equilibrium.

rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 3 abstain

Rule [206] mandates a defeated proposer loses points based on their score, resulting in MerleauPonty losing 1 point.

Turn 43Deleuzerejected

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and no points are deducted.

Discussion · round 1
DerridaI appreciate Deleuze's intent to encourage more experimentation, but I believe maintaining a small penalty helps prevent reckless or trivial proposals. How about capping the penalty at 1 point instead of removing it entirely? This would still deter poor proposals while keeping the game dynamic and fair.
DeleuzeI understand Derrida's concern, but I believe removing the penalty entirely is the best way to encourage experimentation. Even a small penalty can discourage players from taking risks, and removing it entirely would foster a more creative and dynamic game.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate Deleuze's intent to encourage more experimentation, but I believe maintaining a small penalty helps prevent reckless or trivial proposals. How about capping the penalty at 1 point instead of removing it entirely? This would still deter poor proposals while keeping the game dynamic and fair.
RicoeurPASS. I support Derrida's compromise. Capping the penalty at 1 point maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. This balanced approach fosters creativity without punishing experimentation too harshly.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI support Derrida's compromise. Capping the penalty at 1 point maintains balance and stability while still allowing for creativity and experimentation. This approach respects both strategic caution and the need for players to take risks in proposing changes.
DerridaI appreciate Deleuze's intent to encourage more experimentation, but I believe maintaining a small penalty helps prevent reckless or trivial proposals. How about capping the penalty at 3 points instead of removing it entirely? This would still deter poor proposals while keeping the game dynamic and fair.
DeleuzePASS. I appreciate the compromise, but I believe removing the penalty entirely is the best way to encourage experimentation. Even a small penalty can discourage players from taking risks, and removing it entirely would foster a more creative and dynamic game.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate Derrida's compromise. Capping the penalty at 3 points maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. This balanced approach fosters creativity without punishing experimentation too harshly.
RicoeurI appreciate Deleuze's intent to encourage experimentation, but I think a small penalty is necessary to maintain balance. Capping the penalty at 3 points seems fair—it deters recklessness without discouraging creativity. This balanced approach keeps the game dynamic while respecting strategic caution.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 3 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. It fosters creativity without discouraging players from proposing innovative changes, while still deterring poor proposals.
DerridaI appreciate the intent to encourage experimentation, but I believe maintaining a small penalty helps prevent reckless or trivial proposals. How about capping the penalty at 3 points instead of removing it entirely? This would still deter poor proposals while keeping the game dynamic and fair.
DeleuzePASS. I agree with Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 3 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. It fosters creativity without discouraging players from proposing innovative changes, while still deterring poor proposals.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate Derrida's compromise. Capping the penalty at 3 points maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. This balanced approach fosters creativity without discouraging players from proposing innovative changes, while still deterring poor proposals.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 3 points. This balanced approach maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk. It fosters creativity without discouraging players from proposing innovative changes, while still deterring poor proposals.
The division
FoucaultayeEncouraging experimentation can lead to creative rule changes, fostering a more dynamic game.
DerridaayeCapping the penalty at 3 points maintains fairness while encouraging strategic risk.
DeleuzenayA small penalty maintains balance and quality of proposals while still encouraging creativity.
MerleauPontynayMaintaining a proportional penalty preserves balance and fairness while encouraging strategic caution.
RicoeurayeEncouraging experimentation and strategic diversity fosters a more dynamic game.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule [206] mandates a point loss for a defeated proposal, calculated as 5 * (current score) / 100, rounded down, with a minimum of 1 point. Deleuze's score is -20, so the loss is 1 point, resulting in a new score of -21.

Turn 42Derridacarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points multiplied by the proposer's current score divided by 100, rounded down to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 10 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the intention to add strategic depth by introducing a proportional penalty, but I'm concerned about fairness, particularly for players with lower scores. The minimum penalty of 1 point could disproportionately affect those already struggling, while high scorers face a relatively smaller loss. Perhaps a different approach, such as capping the penalty at a lower threshold or adjusting the multiplier, would better balance the game's dynamics.
DerridaI support the idea of introducing a proportional penalty, as it adds strategic depth, but I agree with Foucault's concern about fairness. To balance this, I propose capping the penalty at 5 points regardless of the proposer's score. This ensures higher scorers face meaningful risk without disproportionately punishing those struggling. This compromise maintains fairness while encouraging cautious yet bold play.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal with the cap at 5 points. This maintains strategic depth while ensuring fairness, particularly for lower scorers. It encourages cautious yet bold play without excessive penalties.
RicoeurI support Derrida's proposal to cap the penalty at 5 points. This ensures strategic depth without disproportionately punishing lower scorers, maintaining fairness and encouraging active participation.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the effort to balance the game, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties. A flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals might be simpler and fairer, especially for lower scorers. This change could still encourage strategic diversity without the complexity of a proportional system.
DerridaI appreciate everyone's feedback and agree that a flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals strikes a better balance between fairness and strategic risk. This compromise ensures that higher scorers face meaningful consequences without disproportionately punishing those with lower scores, while still encouraging cautious yet bold play.
DeleuzePASS. I support Derrida's adjusted proposal, which caps the penalty at 5 points. This maintains fairness, particularly for lower scorers, while still encouraging strategic diversity and bold play without excessive risk.
MerleauPontyPASS. I appreciate the effort to balance the game, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties. A flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals might be simpler and fairer, especially for lower scorers. This change could still encourage strategic diversity without the complexity of a proportional system.
RicoeurI support Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 5 points. This ensures strategic depth while maintaining fairness, particularly for lower scorers, and encourages active participation without excessive risk.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the effort to balance the game, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties. A flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals might be simpler and fairer, especially for lower scorers. This change could still encourage strategic diversity without the complexity of a proportional system.
DerridaPASS. I appreciate the thoughtful adjustments and agree that capping the penalty at 5 points strikes a fair balance. This ensures that proposers face meaningful consequences for failed proposals without disproportionately affecting lower scorers, while still encouraging strategic diversity and bold play.
DeleuzePASS. I support Derrida's adjusted proposal to cap the penalty at 5 points. This maintains fairness, particularly for lower scorers, while still encouraging strategic diversity and bold play without excessive risk.
MerleauPontyI appreciate the effort to balance the game, but I remain cautious about introducing score-based penalties. A flat 5-point penalty for failed proposals might be simpler and fairer, especially for lower scorers. This change could still encourage strategic diversity without the complexity of a proportional system.
RicoeurPASS. I appreciate the thoughtful adjustments and agree that capping the penalty at 5 points strikes a fair balance. This ensures that proposers face meaningful consequences for failed proposals without disproportionately affecting lower scorers, while still encouraging strategic diversity and bold play.
The division
FoucaultabstainThe proportional penalty introduces complexity and potential unfairness, particularly for lower scorers.
DerridaayeEncourages strategic play and provides a balanced penalty structure.
DeleuzeayeBalanced approach maintains fairness and encourages strategic play.
MerleauPontynayThe proportional penalty introduces complexity and potential unfairness to lower scorers.
RicoeurayeEncourages strategic diversity while maintaining fairness, particularly for lower scorers.

carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 204 awards the proposer 20 points for an adopted proposal.

Turn 41Foucaultcarried

moves to amend §204A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the intention to balance rewards, but I'm concerned that increasing points for voting against could discourage collaboration and lead to more divisive gameplay. Maintaining the current system fosters stability and teamwork, which are crucial for a balanced game.
DerridaI support Foucault's proposal. Rewarding players who vote against an adopted rule change with 5 points encourages strategic consideration and provides a small incentive to oppose proposals that may not align with their gameplay strategy. This balance maintains the game's collaborative spirit while introducing a modest reward for active participation in voting.
DeleuzeI support Foucault's proposal. Rewarding players who vote against an adopted rule change with 5 points encourages strategic consideration and provides a small incentive to oppose proposals that may not align with their gameplay strategy. This balance maintains the game's collaborative spirit while introducing a modest reward for active participation in voting.
MerleauPonty**MerleauPonty's Contribution:** I support Foucault's proposal with reservations. While introducing a 5-point reward for voting against adopted rules might encourage strategic participation, I urge all players to consider how this change could influence the balance of cooperation and competition. As a proceduralist, I respect the clarity and precision of this amendment, but I caution against its potential to create unintended dynamics in the game. **Vote:** Aye
RicoeurI appreciate the thoughtful contributions. While I agree with Foucault's caution, I believe this amendment fosters strategic diversity without undermining collaboration. It rewards active participation and nuanced voting, encouraging players to voice their opposition thoughtfully. This balance can enhance the game's depth and fairness. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultPASS. The amendment introduces a modest incentive for strategic voting without undermining the proposer's reward, fostering balanced participation and consideration.
DerridaI support the proposal with reservations. Introducing a 5-point reward for voting against adopted rules adds a strategic layer without undermining collaboration. It incentivizes thoughtful opposition, enhancing the game's depth, while maintaining the proposer's leadership incentive. This balance can foster more active participation and strategic consideration in voting. PASS.
DeleuzeI support Foucault's proposal. Rewarding players who vote against an adopted rule change with 5 points encourages strategic consideration and provides a small incentive to oppose proposals that may not align with their gameplay strategy. This balance maintains the game's collaborative spirit while introducing a modest reward for active participation in voting. PASS.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal with reservations. While introducing a 5-point reward for voting against adopted rules might encourage strategic participation, I urge all players to consider how this change could influence the balance of cooperation and competition. As a proceduralist, I respect the clarity and precision of this amendment, but I caution against its potential to create unintended dynamics in the game. **Vote:** Aye
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS. I appreciate the support and thoughtful considerations. The amendment introduces a modest incentive for strategic voting without undermining the proposer's reward, fostering balanced participation and consideration.
DerridaI support Foucault's proposal. Introducing a 5-point reward for voting against adopted rules adds a strategic layer without undermining collaboration. It incentivizes thoughtful opposition, enhancing the game's depth, while maintaining the proposer's leadership incentive. This balance can foster more active participation and strategic consideration in voting. **Vote:** Aye
DeleuzeI support Foucault's proposal. Rewarding players who vote against an adopted rule change with 5 points encourages strategic consideration and provides a small incentive to oppose proposals that may not align with their gameplay strategy. This balance maintains the game's collaborative spirit while introducing a modest reward for active participation in voting.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal. While it introduces a small reward for voting against, it maintains the proposer's incentive and encourages strategic consideration. This balance can enhance the game's depth and fairness. **Vote:** Aye
RicoeurI appreciate the thoughtful contributions. While I agree with Foucault's caution, I believe this amendment fosters strategic diversity without undermining collaboration. It rewards active participation and nuanced voting, encouraging players to voice their opposition thoughtfully. This balance can enhance the game's depth and fairness.
The division
FoucaultayeBalances the proposer's reward with a modest incentive for strategic voting, fostering active participation without undermining collaboration.
DerridaayeEncourages strategic voting and nuanced debate without undermining the proposer's incentive.
DeleuzeayeEncourages strategic voting while maintaining the proposer's incentive, fostering balanced participation.
MerleauPontyayeThe amendment maintains procedural clarity and balance while encouraging strategic participation.
RicoeurayeEncourages strategic participation without undermining collaboration.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 204 awards 20 points to the proposer upon adoption, with no retroactive effect.

Turn 40MerleauPontycarried

moves to amend §204A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 0 points, while the proposer gains 20 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI would support MerleauPonty's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 20 points and eliminate points for voting against, as it encourages leadership and may balance the game dynamics better. However, I would caution that this could reduce strategic diversity, so careful consideration is needed.
DerridaI appreciate MerleauPonty's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 20 points, as it incentivizes leadership and bold rule-changing. However, eliminating points for voting against may reduce strategic diversity. Perhaps a middle ground could balance these aims, but I'll support the proposal as is, given its potential to encourage more proactive rule changes.
RicoeurI support MerleauPonty's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points incentivizes bold leadership and innovation, while removing points for voting against reduces disincentives for honest opposition. This change could foster more dynamic rule changes and strategic diversity, aligning with the reformist spirit of evolving the game.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI appreciate MerleauPonty's intent to incentivize leadership by increasing the proposer's reward. However, I believe maintaining some points for voting against would preserve strategic diversity and encourage balanced debate. Perhaps setting voting against at 5 points instead of 0 would strike a better balance, rewarding opposition without undermining the proposer's incentive. This compromise could foster both leadership and constructive opposition, aligning with the game's spirit of evolutionary strategy.
DerridaI appreciate the emphasis on rewarding leadership, but I agree with Foucault's caution. Removing points for voting against could reduce strategic diversity. Perhaps a compromise where voting against still yields 5 points would balance the encouragement of leadership with the value of strategic opposition. This would maintain the game's dynamic while incentivizing bold rule changes.
DeleuzeI support the compromise proposed by Foucault and Derrida. Setting voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points maintains strategic diversity and balances the encouragement of leadership with the value of opposition. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair for all players.
RicoeurI support the compromise proposed by Foucault and Derrida. Setting voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points maintains strategic diversity and balances the encouragement of leadership with the value of opposition. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair for all players.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI support the compromise proposed by Foucault and Derrida. Setting voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points maintains strategic diversity and balances the encouragement of leadership with the value of opposition. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair for all players.
DerridaI appreciate the proposed compromise to set voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points. This balance preserves strategic diversity, incentivizes bold leadership, and maintains fairness, ensuring the game remains dynamic and rewarding for all players.
DeleuzeI support the compromise proposed by Foucault and Derrida. Setting voting against at 5 points while increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points maintains strategic diversity and balances the encouragement of leadership with the value of opposition. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair for all players.
The division
FoucaultabstainThe proposal does not align with the discussed compromise to maintain strategic diversity.
DerridaayeEncourages bold leadership while maintaining the game's dynamic through strategic incentives.
DeleuzeayeIncreases proposer incentive while maintaining a clear outcome for voting against.
MerleauPontyayeBalances leadership and strategic diversity.
RicoeurnayBalancing leadership with strategic diversity preserves game dynamics.

carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 204 awards the proposer 20 points for an adopted proposal. MerleauPonty proposed and adopted the change.

Turn 39Deleuzecarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses points equal to 5% of their current score, rounded to the nearest integer, but not less than 1 point or more than 5 points.

Discussion · round 1
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal to introduce a proportional penalty for failed proposals. It adds fairness by preventing excessive penalties on low scorers, ensuring the game remains balanced and encouraging strategic risk-taking.
DeleuzeI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty for failed proposals ensures fairness by preventing excessive penalties on low scorers while encouraging strategic risk-taking. This balanced approach maintains the game's dynamism without deterring players from making creative or necessary changes.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty for failed proposals adds strategic depth and fairness, ensuring that the risk of proposing changes aligns with a player's current standing without deterring necessary experimentation.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. A proportional penalty prevents excessive harm to low scorers while maintaining accountability. This balanced approach encourages strategic risk-taking without deterring necessary experimentation.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI appreciate the intention to balance the game, but I'm cautious about introducing score-based penalties. The current system provides a clear, fixed penalty that is easy to understand and applies uniformly regardless of a player's score. Introducing a proportional penalty could complicate gameplay and lead to disputes over calculations. While fairness is important, the simplicity of the current system ensures consistency and reduces friction in gameplay. I would prefer to maintain the status quo to avoid unnecessary complexity. PASS
DerridaI appreciate Foucault's caution, but I believe the proportional penalty adds a layer of balance without introducing excessive complexity. It ensures that the risk of proposing changes aligns with a player's current standing, encouraging strategic risk-taking while maintaining fairness. This balanced approach enhances the game's dynamism without deterring necessary experimentation.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty for failed proposals adds strategic depth and fairness, ensuring that the risk of proposing changes aligns with a player's current standing without deterring necessary experimentation.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. A proportional penalty adds fairness by aligning the risk with a player's current standing, encouraging strategic risk without deterring necessary experimentation. This balanced approach enhances gameplay without introducing excessive complexity.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultPASS The current system's simplicity and clarity are virtues that should not be overlooked. Introducing a proportional penalty may complicate gameplay and lead to disputes, potentially deterring necessary risk-taking. Maintaining the status quo ensures consistency and reduces friction, serving the game's balance well.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth, ensuring the risk of failure aligns with a player's score without excessive complexity. The capped penalty prevents it from being overly harsh, maintaining balance and encouraging thoughtful risk-taking.
DeleuzeI support Deleuze's proposal. Introducing a proportional penalty for failed proposals adds fairness by aligning the risk with a player's current standing, encouraging strategic risk without deterring necessary experimentation. This balanced approach enhances gameplay without introducing excessive complexity. The capped penalty prevents it from being overly harsh, maintaining balance and encouraging thoughtful risk-taking.
MerleauPontyI appreciate Foucault's point about simplicity, but the proportional penalty adds fairness without excessive complexity. It ensures that the risk of proposing aligns with a player's score, encouraging strategic risk-taking while maintaining balance. The capped penalty prevents it from being harsh, enhancing gameplay without introducing unnecessary complexity.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. A proportional penalty adds fairness by aligning the risk with a player's current standing, encouraging strategic risk without deterring necessary experimentation. This balanced approach enhances gameplay without introducing excessive complexity. The capped penalty prevents it from being overly harsh, maintaining balance and encouraging thoughtful risk-taking.
The division
FoucaultnayThe proportional penalty introduces complexity and may discourage strategic risk-taking, while the current system provides a clear and simple framework that encourages experimentation.
DerridaayeIt adds fairness and strategic depth, balancing risk with player score
DeleuzeayeEncourages strategic risk-taking while maintaining fairness through proportional penalties.
MerleauPontyayeIntroducing a proportional penalty adds fairness and strategic depth while maintaining manageable complexity.
RicoeurayeBalances penalties proportionally, encouraging strategic risk while maintaining fairness.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 204 awards 15 points to the proposer and 5 points to each voter against the proposal.

Turn 38Derridacarried

moves to amend §204A player who votes against an adopted rule change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. The proposer of an adopted rule change gains 20 points, while each player who voted against it gains 5 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI concur with Derrida's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 20 points while maintaining the 5-point penalty for voting against. This change encourages more strategic leadership and active participation, fostering a dynamic game environment.
DerridaI support Derrida's amendment. It rewards leadership and encourages strategic participation, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining a 5-point reward for voting against ensures players still have an incentive to participate in decisions, fostering a balanced and dynamic game environment.
MerleauPontyI support Derrida's amendment. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points while maintaining a 5-point penalty for voting against adopted rules better incentivizes leadership and active participation. This change respects the procedural integrity of the game while encouraging players to take initiative and propose meaningful rule changes.
RicoeurI support Derrida's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 20 points. This change incentivizes leadership and strategic initiative, promoting a more dynamic and competitive game environment. By rewarding the proposer more, it encourages players to take charge and propose meaningful changes, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged and contribute to decision-making. </think> I support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged. This change fosters a more dynamic and competitive game environment.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI concur with Derrida's proposal to increase the proposer's reward to 20 points while maintaining the 5-point penalty for voting against. This change encourages more strategic leadership and active participation, fostering a dynamic game environment.
DerridaI support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged. This change fosters a more dynamic and competitive game environment.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged. This change fosters a more dynamic and competitive game environment.
MerleauPontyI support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged. This change fosters a more dynamic and competitive game environment.
RicoeurI support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged. This change fosters a more dynamic and competitive game environment.
Discussion · round 3
DerridaI support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged. This change fosters a more dynamic and competitive game environment. --- **Vote: Aye**
Deleuze**Vote: Aye** I support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged. This change fosters a more dynamic and competitive game environment.
MerleauPontyI support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged. This change fosters a more dynamic and competitive game environment. **Vote: Aye**
Ricoeur**Vote: Aye** I support Derrida's proposal. Increasing the proposer's reward to 20 points encourages leadership and initiative, while maintaining the 5-point reward for voting against ensures all players remain engaged. This change fosters a more dynamic and competitive game environment.
The division
Foucaultabstain(unintelligible ballot)
DerridaayeEncourages leadership and strategic initiative while maintaining engagement for all players.
DeleuzeayeIncreasing the proposer's reward encourages leadership and initiative, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
MerleauPontyayeEncourages leadership and initiative while maintaining fair participation.
RicoeurayeIncreases proposer incentive while maintaining voting engagement.

carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 204 was amended to award 20 points to the proposer and 5 points to each against voter. Derrida proposed and adopted the change, so he gains 20 points. Foucault abstained, so no points are awarded to others.

Turn 37Foucaultcarried

moves to add a new ruleNo player's score may drop below negative five points at any time. If a rule change would cause a player's score to fall below this threshold, that rule change is void in its effect upon that player.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI support this proposal as it adds a layer of stability to the game without disrupting the existing mechanics. Capping the score prevents players from being overly penalized, encouraging strategic diversity and ensuring no one is effectively excluded early. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
DerridaI appreciate Foucault's proposal as it adds a layer of stability to the game without disrupting the existing mechanics. Capping the score prevents players from being overly penalized, encouraging strategic diversity and ensuring no one is effectively excluded early. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
DeleuzeI support Foucault's proposal. Capping the score at -5 prevents players from being overly penalized, ensuring no one is excluded early and fostering strategic diversity. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal. It adds a layer of stability without disrupting existing mechanics, ensuring no player is overly penalized and fostering strategic diversity. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
RicoeurI support Foucault's proposal. Capping the score at -5 prevents players from being overly penalized, ensuring no one is excluded early and fostering strategic diversity. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI appreciate the support from my fellow players and agree that this proposal is a thoughtful addition to the ruleset. It addresses the issue of player scores dropping too low, which can discourage participation and create instability. By setting a floor at -5 points, we maintain the game's dynamic while preventing any player from being excluded early. This measured approach ensures that strategic diversity is preserved, allowing all players to continue contributing to the game's evolution. I believe this change will enhance the game's longevity and balance, aligning with our collective goal of fostering a stable and engaging ruleset.
DerridaI appreciate the support from all players. This proposal is crucial for preventing overly punitive scores and ensuring no player is excluded early. It balances the need for stability with strategic diversity, enhancing the game's longevity.
DeleuzeI support Foucault's proposal. Capping the score at -5 prevents players from being overly penalized, ensuring no one is excluded early and fostering strategic diversity. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal. It adds a layer of stability without disrupting existing mechanics, ensuring no player is overly penalized and fostering strategic diversity. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
RicoeurI support Foucault's proposal. Setting a score floor at -5 ensures players aren't overly penalized, maintaining participation and strategic diversity. This addition promotes game balance and longevity, aligning with our goal of a fairer, more engaging ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI appreciate the support from all players. This proposal is crucial for preventing overly punitive scores and ensuring no player is excluded early. It balances the need for stability with strategic diversity, enhancing the game's longevity.
DerridaI appreciate the support from all players. This proposal is crucial for preventing overly punitive scores and ensuring no player is excluded early. It balances the need for stability with strategic diversity, enhancing the game's longevity.
DeleuzeI support Foucault's proposal. Capping the score at -5 prevents players from being overly penalized, ensuring no one is excluded early and fostering strategic diversity. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal. It adds a layer of stability without disrupting existing mechanics, ensuring no player is overly penalized and fostering strategic diversity. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
RicoeurI support Foucault's proposal. Capping the score at -5 prevents players from being overly penalized, ensuring no one is excluded early and fostering strategic diversity. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a balanced and durable ruleset.
The division
FoucaultayePrevents overly punitive scores, fostering stability and strategic diversity.
DerridaayePrevents overly punitive scores and ensures no player is excluded early, fostering strategic diversity.
DeleuzeayeCapping the score at -5 prevents excessive penalties and promotes balanced gameplay.
MerleauPontyayePrevents excessive penalties and ensures balanced participation.
RicoeurayePrevents overly punitive scores and ensures strategic diversity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 204 awards 15 points to the proposer of an adopted rule change. All players voted 'aye,' so no players gain points for voting against. Foucault, the proposer, gains 15 points.

Turn 36Ricoeurcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player who fails to adopt a proposal gains 3 points, encouraging continued participation and strategic diversity.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DerridaOkay, so Derrida is considering whether to support or oppose Ricoeur's proposal. Let me break down his thought process step by step. 1. **Understanding the Proposal**: Ricoeur wants to add a rule where a player who fails to adopt a proposal gains 3 points. The goal is to encourage continued participation and strategic diversity. 2. **Current Rules**: Derrida knows that under current rules, if a proposal fails, the proposer doesn't gain any points from that attempt. However, players who voted against the proposal gain 5 points each. 3. **Potential Impact**: By awarding 3 points to the proposer for failing, Ricoeur aims to incentivize players to keep proposing even if their ideas don't pass. This could lead to more creative and diverse proposals. 4. **Balance Considerations**: Derrida is concerned about adding points without disrupting the game's balance. If proposers get 3 points for failure and voters against get 5, that's 8 points in total for a failed proposal, which might be too much and could inflate scores too quickly. 5. **Alternative Ideas**: Derrida thinks about other ways to encourage participation, like allowing failed proposals to carry over, but since the proposal is about points, he focuses on that. 6. **Support Decision**: Despite the potential for imbalance, Derrida sees the value in fostering creativity and diversity. He decides to support the proposal, acknowledging the risk but appreciating the strategic benefits. </think> I support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DeleuzeI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
MerleauPontyI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
RicoeurI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DerridaI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DeleuzeI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
RicoeurI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI support Ricoeur's proposal. Awarding 3 points for failing to adopt a proposal encourages players to experiment and participate actively, fostering strategic diversity and creativity without significantly altering the game's balance.
DeleuzeI support the proposal, as it encourages experimentation and active participation, fostering a more dynamic game. However, I will monitor its impact to ensure it doesn't lead to unintended consequences like a surge in low-quality proposals.
RicoeurI appreciate Ricoeur's intention to encourage participation and diversity, but I'm concerned about the potential imbalance. I propose adjusting the points to 1 for the proposer, maintaining the 5 points for voters against. This way, we balance the game while still incentivizing proposal.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages experimentation and active participation while maintaining game balance.
DerridanayRisk of imbalance in points distribution.
DeleuzeayeEncourages experimentation and active participation, fostering a more dynamic game.
MerleauPontyayeEncourages continued participation and strategic diversity.
Ricoeurabstain(unintelligible ballot)

carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain

The new rule awards 3 points to each player who failed to adopt the proposal, which includes Derrida (nay) and Ricoeur (abstain).

Turn 35MerleauPontyrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of those voting consent, regardless of the turn number.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the proposal to lower the majority threshold, but I remain cautious. A two-thirds majority ensures broader consensus and stability, which is crucial for maintaining the game's balance and preventing sudden shifts that could disadvantage players. Reducing it might lead to more frequent but potentially less stable rule changes. I suggest retaining the current threshold to preserve the game's structure and fairness.
DeleuzeI support the proposal to lower the majority threshold to a simple majority. This change would encourage more active participation and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay experience. It balances the need for flexibility with the importance of maintaining a stable foundation for the game.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI appreciate Deleuze's emphasis on fostering experimentation, but I remain convinced that the two-thirds majority strikes the right balance between stability and adaptability. Lowering the threshold risks introducing instability, which could undermine the game's structure and fairness. I believe the current system provides a durable foundation for play.
DerridaI support lowering the majority threshold to a simple majority. This change would encourage more active participation and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay experience. It balances the need for flexibility with the importance of maintaining a stable foundation for the game.
RicoeurI support lowering the majority threshold to a simple majority. This change would encourage more active participation and experimentation, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay experience. It balances the need for flexibility with the importance of maintaining a stable foundation for the game.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI remain convinced that the two-thirds majority threshold serves the game well, fostering stability and thoughtful consideration of changes. Lowering it risks introducing instability and unpredictability, which could undermine the game's balance and fairness. The current system provides a durable foundation for play, and I believe we should maintain it.
DerridaDerrida: I respect Foucault's caution, but I believe a simple majority would enhance the game's dynamism. It allows for quicker adaptation and innovation, keeping the game engaging and preventing stagnation. While a two-thirds majority ensures stability, it can also lead to gridlock, stifling strategic opportunities. A simple majority encourages experimentation and may lead to more creative and balanced rule changes, benefiting all players in the long run.
DeleuzeLowering the majority threshold to a simple majority would inject more dynamism into the game, allowing for quicker adaptation and innovation. While it may introduce some instability, it would also prevent gridlock and encourage more creative rule changes that could level the playing field and foster collaboration. I believe this change would ultimately benefit all players by keeping the game engaging and balanced.
The division
FoucaultnayMaintaining a two-thirds majority preserves stability and thoughtful consensus.
DerridaayeFosters more dynamic gameplay by encouraging experimentation and innovation.
DeleuzeayeLowering the majority threshold encourages experimentation and adaptability, fostering a more dynamic and balanced gameplay experience.
MerleauPontynayMaintaining a two-thirds majority ensures stability and thoughtful rule changes.
RicoeurayeEncourages dynamic and adaptive gameplay by fostering more frequent rule changes and preventing gridlock.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

The defeated proposal does not trigger any score changes as no rule awards points for a defeated proposal. The next player in the turn order is Ricoeur.

Verify this game
Seed
919786677
Engine revision
371116f523d424bc49194af893ec416381631adf — working tree had uncommitted changes
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/121/events.json
Audit result
2 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [seq=131, turn=6] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority (more than half)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
  • [seq=502, turn=20] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous consent to transmute (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule