§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: r1-distill-qwen-14bdevelopment era Turn 16 Halted (operational) — an adopted rule cannot be enforced Seats: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, MerleauPonty, Ricoeur

The procedure called for a die to be thrown and left nowhere in the turn to throw it, and the game stopped at sixteen.

Observations

Fifteen adoptions in fifteen turns, most of them haggling over what a defeated proposal should cost its author — five points, then three, then a percentage of the proposer's own score. The table had thrown dice for points on three earlier turns without incident. At the opening of turn sixteen the reading of the turn came back asking for that same throw while describing a turn with no place in it to perform one, and the single correction the engine may ask for came back the same way, so play stopped rather than proceed under a procedure that contradicted itself. MerleauPonty was the only seat meaningfully above water at 6; Foucault took the worst of it at −19.

Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.

The last amendment
Repealed · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Players may earn bonus points for each rule change they successfully propose, awarded after the proposal passes. The proposer receives 5 points for each successful proposal.Struck from the statute.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws two six-sided dice and gains that many points. If the proposal is collaborative, the proposer and all co-signers gain those points.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    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 two six-sided dice and gains that many points. If the proposal is collaborative, the proposer and all co-signers gain those 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 every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of MerleauPonty 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 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Derrida 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 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 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 3 points. If the proposal was collaborative, the proposer loses 3 points and all co-signers lose 2 points.
Full history (7)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 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 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 3 points. If the proposal was collaborative, the proposer loses 3 points and all co-signers lose 2 points.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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.
  3. Repealed · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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 2 points.Struck from the statute.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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 2 points.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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 2 points.
  6. Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Foucault 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.
  7. 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
§312
Players may propose rules that establish a system for earning bonus points through collaborative efforts, provided such rules do not conflict with existing immutable rules.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may propose rules that establish a system for earning bonus points through collaborative efforts, provided such rules do not conflict with existing immutable rules.
§313
Players may earn bonus points for each collaborative rule change they successfully co-sign, awarded after the proposal passes. Each co-signer receives half the points rolled by the proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may earn bonus points for each collaborative rule change they successfully co-sign, awarded after the proposal passes. Each co-signer receives half the points rolled by the proposer.

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

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws two six-sided dice and gains that many points. If the proposal is collaborative, the proposer and all co-signers gain those points.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    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 two six-sided dice and gains that many points. If the proposal is collaborative, the proposer and all co-signers gain those 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 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
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of MerleauPonty 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 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Derrida 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 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 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 3 points. If the proposal was collaborative, the proposer loses 3 points and all co-signers lose 2 points.mutable
Full history (7)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 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 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 3 points. If the proposal was collaborative, the proposer loses 3 points and all co-signers lose 2 points.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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.
  3. Repealed · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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 2 points.Struck from the statute.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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 2 points.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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 2 points.
  6. Amended · §206 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Foucault 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.
  7. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§308
Players may propose rules that establish a system for earning bonus points through collaborative activities or innovative strategies, provided such rules do not conflict with existing immutable rules.Repealed at turn 8
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may propose rules that establish a system for earning bonus points through collaborative activities or innovative strategies, provided such rules do not conflict with existing immutable rules.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may propose rules that establish a system for earning bonus points through collaborative activities or innovative strategies, provided such rules do not conflict with existing immutable rules.
§312
Players may propose rules that establish a system for earning bonus points through collaborative efforts, provided such rules do not conflict with existing immutable rules.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may propose rules that establish a system for earning bonus points through collaborative efforts, provided such rules do not conflict with existing immutable rules.
§313
Players may earn bonus points for each collaborative rule change they successfully co-sign, awarded after the proposal passes. Each co-signer receives half the points rolled by the proposer.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may earn bonus points for each collaborative rule change they successfully co-sign, awarded after the proposal passes. Each co-signer receives half the points rolled by the proposer.
§315
Players may earn bonus points for each rule change they successfully propose, awarded after the proposal passes. The proposer receives 5 points for each successful proposal.Repealed at turn 15
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may earn bonus points for each rule change they successfully propose, awarded after the proposal passes. The proposer receives 5 points for each successful proposal.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may earn bonus points for each rule change they successfully propose, awarded after the proposal passes. The proposer receives 5 points for each successful proposal.
The standing · Turn 16
Foucault-19
Derrida-5
Deleuze-6
MerleauPonty6
Ricoeur2
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Most recent turn first · scroll for earlier turns

Turn 15MerleauPontycarried

moves to add a new rulePlayers may earn bonus points for each rule change they successfully propose, awarded after the proposal passes. The proposer receives 5 points for each successful proposal.

Discussion · round 1
DeleuzeSupporting Merleau-Ponty's proposal, I see it as a strategic addition that rewards proposers for their efforts, encouraging more active participation and strategic thinking without conflicting with immutable rules. It complements existing collaborative incentives and adds depth to the game's dynamics.
MerleauPontyMerleauPonty: PASS.
RicoeurSupporting Merleau-Ponty's proposal, I see it as a strategic addition that rewards proposers for their efforts, encouraging more active participation and strategic thinking without conflicting with immutable rules. It complements existing collaborative incentives and adds depth to the game's dynamics.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultSupporting Merleau-Ponty's proposal, I see it as a strategic addition that rewards proposers for their efforts, encouraging more active participation and strategic thinking without conflicting with immutable rules. It complements existing collaborative incentives and adds depth to the game's dynamics.
DerridaSupporting Merleau-Ponty's proposal, I see it as a strategic addition that rewards proposers for their efforts, encouraging more active participation and strategic thinking without conflicting with immutable rules. It complements existing collaborative incentives and adds depth to the game's dynamics.
RicoeurSupporting Merleau-Ponty's proposal, I see it as a strategic addition that rewards proposers for their efforts, encouraging more active participation and strategic thinking without conflicting with immutable rules. It complements existing collaborative incentives and adds depth to the game's dynamics.
Discussion · round 3
DerridaSupporting Merleau-Ponty's proposal, I see it as a strategic addition that rewards proposers for their efforts, encouraging more active participation and strategic thinking without conflicting with immutable rules. It complements existing collaborative incentives and adds depth to the game's dynamics.
DeleuzeSupporting Merleau-Ponty's proposal, I see it as a strategic addition that rewards proposers for their efforts, encouraging more active participation and strategic thinking without conflicting with immutable rules. It complements existing collaborative incentives and adds depth to the game's dynamics.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages strategic participation and rewards proposers for their efforts.
DerridaayeEncourages active participation and strategic thinking, complementing existing collaborative incentives.
DeleuzeayeEncourages strategic participation and complements existing collaborative incentives.
MerleauPontyayeEncourages strategic participation and aligns with existing collaborative incentives.
RicoeurayeEncourages strategic participation and aligns with the game's evolution.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The new rule 313 awards 5 points to the proposer upon successful adoption, which is additive to any points from rule 202. The next player in turn order is Ricoeur.

Turn 14Deleuzecarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 3 points. If the proposal was collaborative, the proposer loses 3 points and all co-signers lose 2 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultFoucault: I appreciate Deleuze's proposal to reduce the penalty for failed proposals, as it encourages more experimentation and collaboration without deterring players excessively. However, I believe the current penalty of 5 points provides a meaningful disincentive for reckless proposals, ensuring that players carefully consider their moves. Lowering it to 3 points might lead to a proliferation of less impactful proposals, potentially slowing the game's progress. I would support this proposal only if it includes a mechanism to maintain the current disincentive, such as a higher penalty for repeated failures or additional safeguards against frivolous proposals.
DerridaDerrida: I respect Foucault's caution, but I believe a 3-point penalty offers a healthier balance between experimentation and accountability. The current 5-point penalty may be deterring even thoughtful proposals, and a reduced penalty could encourage more collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness. Let us consider this change as a step toward fostering innovation and teamwork.
DeleuzeDeleuze: PASS.
MerleauPontySupporting Deleuze's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and experimentation. While the current penalty may deter thoughtful proposals, a 3-point penalty maintains a meaningful disincentive without stifling creativity.
RicoeurRicoeur: I appreciate the balance Deleuze's proposal seeks to strike. While the current 5-point penalty ensures thoughtful consideration, lowering it to 3 points could indeed foster more collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness. I support this change, trusting that players will remain cautious while embracing the opportunity for innovation.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI see the value in reducing the penalty to encourage more collaboration, but I still believe 5 points provides a necessary disincentive. However, given the trend towards fostering teamwork, I support this change with the understanding that it maintains a meaningful penalty while promoting innovation.
DerridaDerrida: I support Deleuze's proposal, as it balances the need for progress with respect for thoughtful consideration. The reduced penalty encourages experimentation while maintaining a meaningful disincentive, fostering a collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness.
DeleuzeDeleuze: I appreciate the concern for maintaining a disincentive, Foucault, but I believe the current penalty may be too severe, potentially discouraging thoughtful and collaborative proposals. Reducing it to 3 points strikes a balance that encourages experimentation while still deterring reckless submissions. This change supports the game's collaborative spirit without overpunishing failure, which I believe will lead to more dynamic and engaging gameplay.
MerleauPontySupporting Deleuze's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and experimentation. While the current penalty may deter thoughtful proposals, a 3-point penalty maintains a meaningful disincentive without stifling creativity.
RicoeurI appreciate the balance Deleuze's proposal seeks to strike. While the current 5-point penalty ensures thoughtful consideration, lowering it to 3 points could indeed foster more collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness. This change supports the game's collaborative spirit without overpunishing failure, which I believe will lead to more dynamic and engaging gameplay.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault: I appreciate Deleuze's proposal to reduce the penalty to 3 points, as it encourages more experimentation and collaboration without deterring players excessively. However, I believe the current penalty of 5 points provides a meaningful disincentive for reckless proposals, ensuring that players carefully consider their moves. Lowering it to 3 points might lead to a proliferation of less impactful proposals, potentially slowing the game's progress. I would support this proposal only if it includes a mechanism to maintain the current disincentive, such as a higher penalty for repeated failures or additional safeguards against frivolous proposals.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal, as it balances the need for progress with respect for thoughtful consideration. The reduced penalty encourages experimentation while still deterring reckless submissions, fostering a collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness.
DeleuzeDeleuze: While I respect Foucault's caution, the current 5-point penalty may be discouraging thoughtful and collaborative proposals. Reducing it to 3 points strikes a balance that encourages experimentation while still deterring recklessness, fostering a collaborative spirit without overpunishing failure. This change supports the game's collaborative spirit without stifling creativity, leading to more dynamic and engaging gameplay.
MerleauPontySupporting Deleuze's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and experimentation. While the current penalty may deter thoughtful proposals, a 3-point penalty maintains a meaningful disincentive without stifling creativity.
RicoeurRicoeur: I support Deleuze's proposal. While the current 5-point penalty ensures thoughtful consideration, lowering it to 3 points could indeed foster more collaborative spirit without encouraging recklessness. This change supports the game's collaborative spirit without overpunishing failure, which I believe will lead to more dynamic and engaging gameplay.
The division
FoucaultayeThe change supports fostering collaboration and experimentation while maintaining a meaningful disincentive against reckless proposals.
DerridaayeEncourages experimentation and collaboration while maintaining a meaningful disincentive.
DeleuzeayeEncourages experimentation and collaboration while maintaining a reasonable disincentive.
MerleauPontyayeEncourages experimentation while maintaining a meaningful disincentive for failure.
RicoeurayeBalancing experimentation and disincentive promotes a more dynamic and collaborative gameplay.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: 2 top-level JSON objects found in model output — ambiguous, refusing to guess which is the answer: '\n\n{"score_deltas": {"Deleuze": 3}, "authority": 206}\n</think>\n\n{"score_deltas": {"Deleuze": -3}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Derrida", "win": null, "p [truncated])

Turn 13Derridacarried

moves to add a new rulePlayers may earn bonus points for each collaborative rule change they successfully co-sign, awarded after the proposal passes. Each co-signer receives half the points rolled by the proposer.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the intention to incentivize collaboration, but I remain cautious about adding another layer of points. This could create an incentive for less thoughtful rule changes and distract from the game's strategic core. I would rather see us focus on improving the existing collaborative structures before adding new rewards. PASS.
DerridaI appreciate Foucault's caution, but I believe the potential benefits of fostering collaboration outweigh the risks. By rewarding co-signers, we encourage more players to engage thoughtfully with rule changes, which could lead to more balanced and impactful proposals. Let us try this approach and see if it enriches our collaborative dynamics without overwhelming the ruleset.
DeleuzeSupporting Derrida's proposal could foster more collaboration and thoughtful rule changes, enriching the game's dynamics. It encourages players to engage more deeply, potentially leading to more balanced and strategic gameplay. While there are concerns about point focus, the benefits of enhanced collaboration likely outweigh these risks. I will support this proposal.
RicoeurRicoeur: I agree with Derrida's proposal to incentivize collaboration. While I share Foucault's concern about the complexity of the ruleset, I believe the potential for more thoughtful, co-authored rule changes outweighs the risk. This could lead to more balanced and impactful proposals, enriching the game's dynamics. I will support this proposal.
Discussion · round 2
DerridaI appreciate the thoughtful feedback from all. Foucault's caution is valid, but I believe this change encourages deeper engagement and strategic collaboration, which can enhance our gameplay without adding unnecessary complexity. I'm open to refining the proposal if needed, but I think this approach can strengthen our collective dynamics. Let's move forward together.
DeleuzeSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and fostering deeper collaboration. By rewarding co-signers, we encourage more players to engage thoughtfully with rule changes, which could lead to more balanced and impactful proposals.
MerleauPontySupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and strategic engagement among players. While mindful of the potential complexity, the benefits of encouraging thoughtful co-authorship of rule changes likely outweigh the risks, enriching the game's dynamics without overwhelming the ruleset.
RicoeurRicoeur: I agree with Derrida's proposal to incentivize collaboration. While I share Foucault's concern about the complexity of the ruleset, I believe the potential for more thoughtful, co-authored rule changes outweighs the risk. This could lead to more balanced and impactful proposals, enriching the game's dynamics without adding unnecessary complexity. Let's move forward together.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and strategic engagement among players. While mindful of the potential complexity, the benefits of encouraging thoughtful co-authorship of rule changes likely outweigh the risks, enriching the game's dynamics without overwhelming the ruleset.
DerridaSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and strategic engagement among players. While mindful of the potential complexity, the benefits of encouraging thoughtful co-authorship of rule changes likely outweigh the risks, enriching the game's dynamics without overwhelming the ruleset.
DeleuzeSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and strategic engagement among players. While mindful of the potential complexity, the benefits of encouraging thoughtful co-authorship of rule changes likely outweigh the risks, enriching the game's dynamics without overwhelming the ruleset.
MerleauPontySupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a measured step toward fostering deeper collaboration and strategic engagement among players. While mindful of the potential complexity, the benefits of encouraging thoughtful co-authorship of rule changes likely outweigh the risks, enriching the game's dynamics without overwhelming the ruleset.
RicoeurRicoeur: I support Derrida's proposal, as it aligns with my reformist values by fostering collaboration and strategic engagement. While I understand Foucault's caution, the potential for more thoughtful, co-authored rule changes outweighs the risk, enriching the game's dynamics without unnecessary complexity. Let's move forward together.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages collaboration and deeper engagement among players, fostering strategic teamwork.
DerridaayeEncourages collaboration and strategic engagement, aligning with the group's trend towards fostering teamwork and thoughtful rule changes.
DeleuzeayeEncourages collaboration and strategic engagement, likely leading to more thoughtful rule changes.
MerleauPontyayeFosters collaboration and aligns with the principles of procedural fairness.
RicoeurayeEncourages collaboration and strategic engagement, fostering more thoughtful rule changes without adding excessive complexity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The new rule 312 awards co-signers half the points rolled by the proposer. Derrida rolled a 4, so he gains 4 points, and each co-signer gains 2 points.

Turn 12Deleuzecarried

moves to add a new rulePlayers may propose rules that establish a system for earning bonus points through collaborative efforts, provided such rules do not conflict with existing immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI support Deleuze's proposal, as it encourages innovation and collaboration without disrupting the current structure.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal, as it enhances collaboration without disrupting the current structure. It aligns with our mutual goal of fostering teamwork while respecting the established rules, making it a positive step forward.
DeleuzeDeleuze: I appreciate the support from Foucault and Derrida. This rule addition encourages collaboration without disrupting the current structure, aligning with our mutual goals. It's a balanced, positive step that enhances teamwork and keeps the game engaging for everyone.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages collaboration without disrupting the current structure, aligning with our mutual goals. It's a balanced, positive step that enhances teamwork and keeps the game engaging for everyone.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal because it aligns with my belief in fostering collaboration and fairness. This rule addition encourages teamwork without disrupting the current structure, making it a positive evolution for the game.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages collaboration without disrupting the current structure, aligning with our mutual goals. It's a balanced, positive step that enhances teamwork and keeps the game engaging for everyone.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages collaboration without disrupting the current structure, aligning with our mutual goals. It's a balanced, positive step that enhances teamwork and keeps the game engaging for everyone.
DeleuzeDeleuze: I appreciate the overwhelming support for this proposal. By fostering collaboration, we enhance the game's dynamics while respecting the established rules. This addition promotes teamwork without compromising fairness or disrupting the current structure, ensuring the game remains engaging and balanced for all players.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages collaboration without disrupting the current structure, aligning with our mutual goals. It's a balanced, positive step that enhances teamwork and keeps the game engaging for everyone.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages collaboration without disrupting the current structure, aligning with our mutual goals. It's a balanced, positive step that enhances teamwork and keeps the game engaging for everyone.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages collaboration without disrupting the current structure, aligning with our mutual goals. It's a balanced, positive step that enhances teamwork and keeps the game engaging for everyone.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages collaboration without disrupting the current structure, aligning with our mutual goals. It's a balanced, positive step that enhances teamwork and keeps the game engaging for everyone.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal as it aligns with my belief in fostering collaboration and fairness. This rule addition encourages teamwork without disrupting the current structure, making it a positive evolution for the game.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages collaboration and innovation without conflicting with existing rules.
DerridaayeEncourages collaboration without conflicting with immutable rules, fostering a more dynamic game.
DeleuzeayeThe proposal fosters collaboration and innovation without conflicting with immutable rules.
MerleauPontyayeThe proposal aligns with procedural principles by fostering collaboration without conflicting with immutable rules.
RicoeurayeIt promotes collaboration and innovation without conflicting with immutable rules.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Deleuze's proposal was adopted, so they gain points from the dice roll. The dice sum is 2, so Deleuze gains 2 points.

Turn 11Derridacarried

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 two six-sided dice and gains that many points. If the proposal is collaborative, the proposer and all co-signers gain those points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultFoucault: While I appreciate the intent to incentivize collaboration, I remain cautious about increasing the potential points at stake. This could lead to unstable dynamics and encourage players to prioritize short-term gains over durable institutions. I would prefer to maintain the current system, as it provides a balanced and stable foundation for the game.
DerridaDerrida: I respect Foucault's caution, but I believe increasing the incentive for collaboration can lead to more dynamic and stable gameplay. By allowing proposers and co-signers to share in the rewards of successful, collaborative proposals, we encourage teamwork and shared accountability, which can lead to more sustainable and innovative rule changes. This aligns with the spirit of the game and provides a clearer incentive for players to support each other's ideas.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal as it encourages teamwork and shared accountability, which can lead to more sustainable and innovative rule changes. By increasing the incentive for collaboration, it fosters a more dynamic and strategic gameplay.
MerleauPontyDerrida's proposal to increase the incentive for collaboration aligns with the proceduralist principle of fostering fair and collaborative gameplay. By allowing proposers and co-signers to share rewards, it encourages teamwork and shared accountability, which can lead to more innovative and sustainable rule changes. I support this proposal as it enhances the collaborative spirit without compromising the integrity of the ruleset. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
DerridaI agree with Derrida's proposal. By allowing proposers and co-signers to share in the rewards of successful, collaborative proposals, we encourage teamwork and shared accountability, which can lead to more sustainable and innovative rule changes. This aligns with the spirit of the game and provides a clearer incentive for players to support each other's ideas.
RicoeurI support Derrida's proposal. By allowing proposers and co-signers to share in the rewards of successful, collaborative proposals, we encourage teamwork and shared accountability, which can lead to more sustainable and innovative rule changes. This aligns with the spirit of the game and provides a clearer incentive for players to support each other's ideas.
Discussion · round 3
DerridaI agree with Derrida's proposal. By allowing proposers and co-signers to share in the rewards of successful, collaborative proposals, we encourage teamwork and shared accountability, which can lead to more sustainable and innovative rule changes. This aligns with the spirit of the game and provides a clearer incentive for players to support each other's ideas.
DeleuzeI support Derrida's proposal. By allowing proposers and co-signers to share in the rewards of successful, collaborative proposals, we encourage teamwork and shared accountability, which can lead to more sustainable and innovative rule changes. This aligns with the spirit of the game and provides a clearer incentive for players to support each other's ideas.
The division
FoucaultabstainTo balance the need for collaboration with the risk of destabilizing the ruleset.
DerridaayeEncourages teamwork and more dynamic gameplay.
DeleuzeayeEncourages collaboration and teamwork, fostering a more dynamic and strategic gameplay.
MerleauPontyayeEncourages collaboration and teamwork, which aligns with the proceduralist principle of fostering fair and collaborative gameplay.
RicoeurayeEncourages collaboration and fairer rewards for teamwork, fostering a more dynamic gameplay.

carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain

The proposal amends [202] to change the points awarded upon adoption to two dice. However, without the actual dice roll result, the exact score delta cannot be determined. The next player is Deleuze, and no player has won.

Turn 10Foucaultrejected

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 1 point.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultFoucault supports reducing the penalty to 1 point to encourage more active participation and experimentation, fostering innovation and a less tense voting environment.
DerridaDerrida: I appreciate the intention behind reducing the penalty, Foucault, as it could encourage more active participation. However, I believe maintaining the 5-point loss prevents players from being overly penalized for failed proposals while still incentivizing careful consideration. Let's keep the current structure to maintain balance and accountability.
DeleuzeDeleuze: Deleuze supports Derrida's stance, believing that maintaining the 5-point penalty ensures careful consideration of proposals, fostering a balanced and meaningful gameplay experience.
RicoeurRicoeur: While I understand the desire to maintain accountability, reducing the penalty to 1 point could foster a more dynamic and experimental gameplay environment, encouraging players to engage with innovative proposals without the fear of significant loss. This aligns with the game's spirit of evolution and reform.
Discussion · round 2
DerridaDerrida: I respect Foucault's intention to encourage experimentation, but I believe the 5-point penalty serves as a necessary safeguard. It ensures that players approach rule changes with thoughtful consideration, maintaining the game's balance and preventing potential instability from too many failed proposals. Let's keep the current structure to honor the careful thought that shapes our evolving ruleset.
DeleuzeSupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty could foster a more dynamic and experimental environment, aligning with the game's spirit of evolution and reform.
MerleauPontySupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a measured adjustment that introduces a necessary condition to the optional voting mechanism. Reducing the penalty to 1 point could foster a more dynamic and experimental gameplay environment, encouraging players to engage with innovative proposals without the fear of significant loss. This aligns with the game's spirit of evolution and reform.
RicoeurWhile I appreciate the goal of reducing the penalty to encourage more active participation, I believe maintaining the 5-point loss is necessary to ensure that players carefully consider their proposals. Reducing the penalty could lead to instability and reckless changes, which might harm the game's balance.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault supports reducing the penalty to 1 point to encourage experimentation and innovation, fostering a more dynamic gameplay environment. This measured change maintains accountability while promoting creative rule changes, aligning with the game's spirit of evolution and reform.
DerridaI respect the desire for fostering experimentation, Foucault, but I believe the 5-point penalty is a necessary safeguard. It ensures that players approach rule changes with thoughtful consideration, maintaining the game's balance and preventing potential instability from too many failed proposals. Let's keep the current structure to honor the careful thought that shapes our evolving ruleset.
DeleuzeDeleuze: While I respect the intention to encourage experimentation, I remain concerned that reducing the penalty to 1 point may lead to less thoughtful consideration of proposals. The current 5-point penalty strikes a balance between accountability and encouraging careful thought. Maintaining it ensures that players approach rule changes with deliberation, preserving the game's balance and stability.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal. Reducing the penalty to 1 point could encourage more experimentation and dynamic gameplay, fostering a more vibrant environment where players feel less hesitant to propose innovative rules. This aligns with the game's spirit of evolution and reform, provided the procedural aspects remain clear and fair.
RicoeurRicoeur: While I understand the appeal of stability, maintaining the 5-point penalty ensures that players approach rule changes with the necessary deliberation, preserving the game's balance and fostering thoughtful evolution. This measured approach aligns with the game's need for careful consideration to avoid instability.
The division
FoucaultnayMaintaining the 5-point penalty ensures thoughtful consideration of proposals and preserves game balance.
DerridanayMaintaining the 5-point penalty ensures thoughtful consideration and preserves game balance.
DeleuzenayMaintaining the 5-point penalty ensures careful consideration of proposals, fostering a balanced and meaningful gameplay experience.
MerleauPontyayeReduces the penalty to encourage experimentation and maintain procedural clarity.
RicoeurnayMaintaining the 5-point penalty ensures thoughtful consideration and preserves the game's balance.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 mandates a 5-point loss for a defeated proposal's proposer.

Turn 9MerleauPontycarried

moves to amend §204A 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 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultFoucault supports MerleauPonty's amendment, believing it could enhance gameplay balance and encourage more strategic voting without discouraging necessary opposition. He appreciates the measured approach to refining the incentive structure, aligning with his preference for durability and collaboration.
DerridaI support MerleauPonty's amendment. It builds on our previous changes to rule 204, enhancing the balance of the point system without discouraging necessary opposition. This measured adjustment could encourage more strategic and collaborative voting, aligning with our team's goals.
DeleuzeSupporting MerleauPonty's amendment, I see it as a measured adjustment that encourages players to align with the majority once the threshold shifts, promoting efficiency without discouraging collaboration. This change supports the game's flow and maintains the balance of the point system.
RicoeurRicoeur supports MerleauPonty's amendment. The clarification ensures that the optional voting mechanism is only invoked after the threshold shifts, maintaining the ruleset's integrity and preventing potential confusion. This aligns with the goal of fostering a fair and transparent gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultFoucault: Foucault supports MerleauPonty's amendment, as it clarifies the optional voting mechanism and maintains the ruleset's integrity. This measured adjustment promotes a clear and balanced gameplay experience, aligning with the goal of fostering durable institutions and encouraging strategic voting without discouraging necessary opposition.
DerridaSupporting MerleauPonty's amendment, I see it as a measured adjustment that encourages players to align with the majority once the threshold shifts, promoting efficiency without discouraging collaboration. This change supports the game's flow and maintains the balance of the point system.
DeleuzeI support MerleauPonty's amendment because it clarifies the rule application after the threshold shifts, ensuring the ruleset remains consistent and fair. This promotes a balanced and efficient gameplay experience.
MerleauPontySupporting MerleauPonty's amendment, I see it as a measured adjustment that introduces a necessary condition to the optional voting mechanism, ensuring it is only invoked by the highest scorer. This maintains the ruleset's balance and integrity, preventing potential manipulation and aligning with the goal of fostering a fair and durable gameplay structure.
RicoeurSupporting Merleau-Ponty's amendment, I see it as a measured adjustment that introduces a necessary condition to the optional voting mechanism, ensuring it is only invoked by the highest scorer. This maintains the ruleset's balance and integrity, preventing potential manipulation and aligning with the goal of fostering a fair and durable gameplay structure.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultSupporting MerleauPonty's amendment, I see it as a measured adjustment that introduces a necessary condition to the optional voting mechanism, ensuring it is only invoked by the highest scorer. This maintains the ruleset's balance and integrity, preventing potential manipulation and aligning with the goal of fostering a fair and durable gameplay structure.
DerridaI support MerleauPonty's amendment. It introduces a necessary condition to the optional voting mechanism, ensuring it's only invoked by the highest scorer. This maintains the ruleset's balance and integrity, preventing potential manipulation and aligning with fostering a fair and durable gameplay structure.
DeleuzeSupporting Merleau-Ponty's amendment, I see it as a measured adjustment that ensures the optional voting mechanism is only invoked by the highest scorer, maintaining the ruleset's balance and integrity. This change prevents potential manipulation and aligns with fostering a fair and durable gameplay structure.
MerleauPontySupporting the amendment, I see it as a strategic measure to prevent potential manipulation and ensure the highest scorer drives the game forward, maintaining balance and fairness. This change aligns with the goal of fostering a durable and transparent gameplay experience.
RicoeurSupporting Merleau-Ponty's amendment, I see it as a measured adjustment that introduces a necessary condition to the optional voting mechanism, ensuring it is only invoked by the highest scorer. This maintains the ruleset's balance and integrity, preventing potential manipulation and aligning with the goal of fostering a fair and durable gameplay structure.
The division
FoucaultayeThe amendment introduces a necessary condition to prevent potential manipulation and ensures the highest scorer drives the game forward, maintaining balance and fairness.
DerridaayeIt clarifies the optional voting mechanism, ensuring it is only invoked by the highest scorer, maintaining balance and preventing manipulation.
DeleuzeayeIt maintains the ruleset's balance and integrity, preventing potential manipulation.
MerleauPontyayeThe amendment ensures the optional voting mechanism is only invoked by the highest scorer, maintaining ruleset balance and integrity.
RicoeurayeClarifies rule application, maintaining balance and preventing manipulation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The amendment to rule [204] does not directly award points to the proposer as no rule mandates such an award upon amending a rule. The adopted rule change is recorded, but no points are awarded.

Turn 8Deleuzecarried

moves to add a new rulePlayers may propose rules that establish a system for earning bonus points through collaborative activities or innovative strategies, provided such rules do not conflict with existing immutable rules.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages innovation and collaboration without disrupting the current system. By fostering teamwork, it can create a more dynamic and strategic gameplay experience, aligning with the goal of building a stable and durable game structure.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal, as it encourages collaboration and innovation without conflicting with existing rules. This addition can enhance the gameplay experience by providing new strategic opportunities.
DeleuzeI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages collaboration and innovation without conflicting with existing rules. This addition can enhance the gameplay experience by providing new strategic opportunities.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal. It introduces a constructive element without conflicting with immutable rules, enhancing the game's depth and encouraging strategic collaboration.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. It introduces a new avenue for strategic collaboration and innovation, enriching the gameplay experience without disrupting existing rules. This aligns with my vision for a more dynamic and adaptive game, fostering teamwork and creativity.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultFoucault: I support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages innovation and collaboration without disrupting the current system. By fostering teamwork, it can create a more dynamic and strategic gameplay experience, aligning with the goal of building a stable and durable game structure.
DerridaI appreciate the support from everyone. Deleuze's proposal to introduce bonus points for collaboration adds depth to our strategies and encourages teamwork. This can make the game more engaging and balanced, allowing players to explore new tactics together. I look forward to seeing how this new rule enhances our gameplay.
DeleuzeI appreciate everyone's support, and I believe this rule will enrich the game by fostering collaboration and creativity. It aligns with our goal of making the game more dynamic and strategic, enhancing the overall experience for all players.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal. It introduces a constructive element without conflicting with immutable rules, enhancing the game's depth and encouraging strategic collaboration.
RicoeurI appreciate Deleuze's proposal, as it introduces a new avenue for strategic collaboration and innovation. This addition enriches the gameplay experience by providing new opportunities without disrupting existing rules, aligning with my vision for a more dynamic and adaptive game.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI support Deleuze's proposal. It encourages innovation and collaboration without disrupting the current system. By fostering teamwork, it can create a more dynamic and strategic gameplay experience, aligning with the goal of building a stable and durable game structure.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal, as it encourages collaboration and innovation without conflicting with existing rules. This addition can enhance the gameplay experience by providing new strategic opportunities.
DeleuzeI appreciate the support from everyone. Deleuze's proposal to introduce bonus points for collaboration adds depth to our strategies and encourages teamwork. This can make the game more engaging and balanced, allowing players to explore new tactics together. I look forward to seeing how this new rule enhances our gameplay.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal. It introduces a constructive element without conflicting with immutable rules, enhancing the game's depth and encouraging strategic collaboration.
RicoeurI support Deleuze's proposal. It introduces a new avenue for strategic collaboration and innovation, enriching the gameplay experience without disrupting existing rules. This aligns with my vision for a more dynamic and adaptive game, fostering teamwork and creativity.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages collaboration and strategic innovation without conflicting with immutable rules, enhancing gameplay dynamics.
DerridaayeEncourages strategic collaboration without conflicting with immutable rules.
DeleuzeayeEncourages collaboration and adds strategic depth without conflicting with immutable rules.
MerleauPontyayeThe proposal introduces a constructive element without conflicting with immutable rules, enhancing the game's depth and encouraging strategic collaboration.
RicoeurayeIt encourages collaboration and adds strategic depth without conflicting with immutable rules.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Deleuze's proposal was adopted, so they gain 5 points as per rule 202.

Turn 7Derridacarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 2 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI support Derrida's proposal to reduce the penalty for failed proposals to 2 points. Lowering the penalty encourages more strategic engagement without significantly increasing risk, promoting active participation and dynamic rule modification.
DerridaThank you, Foucault, for your support. Lowering the penalty to 2 points will encourage more strategic engagement and creative proposals without deterring players from taking risks. It should foster a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay, allowing us to explore a wider range of rule changes.
DeleuzeSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more creative and strategic engagement. Lowering the penalty to 2 points will reduce the risk associated with proposing changes, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay.
MerleauPontyI support Derrida's proposal to reduce the penalty for failed proposals. Lowering the penalty encourages more strategic engagement and active participation, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay without deterring players from taking risks. This change aligns with principles of fairness and experimentation, making the game more vibrant.
RicoeurSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more creative and strategic engagement. Lowering the penalty to 2 points will reduce the risk associated with proposing changes, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay, which aligns with my belief in fairer stakes and experimentation.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultLowering the penalty from 5 to 2 points reduces the risk for proposers, encouraging more creative and strategic rule changes. This promotes a dynamic gameplay and aligns with principles of fairness and experimentation. I believe this amendment will foster a more vibrant and adaptive game.
DerridaThank you all for your thoughtful support. This change will encourage more creativity and strategic engagement, making our gameplay more dynamic and aligned with our collaborative spirit. It’s a small adjustment that could significantly enhance our experience. Let’s proceed with this amendment to foster a more vibrant and adaptive game.
DeleuzeSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more creative and strategic engagement. Lowering the penalty to 2 points will reduce the risk associated with proposing changes, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay.
MerleauPontyI support Derrida's proposal to reduce the penalty for failed proposals to 2 points. Lowering the penalty encourages more strategic engagement and active participation, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay without deterring players from taking risks. This change aligns with principles of fairness and experimentation, making the game more vibrant.
RicoeurSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more creative and strategic engagement. Lowering the penalty to 2 points will reduce the risk associated with proposing changes, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay, which aligns with my belief in fairer stakes and experimentation.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more creative and strategic engagement. Lowering the penalty to 2 points will reduce the risk associated with proposing changes, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay.
DerridaDerrida: I appreciate the support from all of you. This change aligns with our collaborative spirit, encouraging more creativity and strategic engagement without deterring players from taking risks. It’s a small adjustment that could enhance our gameplay experience by fostering a more dynamic and adaptive environment. Let’s proceed with this amendment to further enrich our game.
DeleuzeSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more creative and strategic engagement. Lowering the penalty to 2 points will reduce the risk associated with proposing changes, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay.
MerleauPontyI support Derrida's proposal to reduce the penalty for failed proposals to 2 points. Lowering the penalty encourages more strategic engagement and active participation, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay without deterring players from taking risks. This change aligns with principles of fairness and experimentation, making the game more vibrant.
RicoeurSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more creative and strategic engagement. Lowering the penalty to 2 points will reduce the risk associated with proposing changes, fostering a more dynamic and adaptive gameplay.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages more strategic engagement and reduces risk, fostering a more dynamic gameplay.
DerridaayeThe proposal reduces the penalty for failed proposals, encouraging more strategic engagement and fostering a dynamic gameplay environment.
DeleuzeayeEncourages more strategic engagement and reduces risk, fostering a dynamic and fair game.
MerleauPontyayeLowering the penalty encourages strategic engagement and reduces risk, fostering a more dynamic game.
RicoeurayeLowering the penalty encourages more strategic engagement and experimentation, aligning with fairer stakes.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 206 is amended to reduce the penalty for defeated proposals from 5 to 2 points. The proposer, Derrida, gains 1 point from the die roll as per rule 202.

Turn 6Foucaultcarried

moves to amend §206A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultSupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points could make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
DerridaSupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points could make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
DeleuzeSupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points could make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
MerleauPontySupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points could make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
RicoeurRicoeur: I agree with Foucault's proposal. Reducing the penalty encourages experimentation and active participation, which aligns with my reformist values. A lower penalty should make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultSupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points could make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
DerridaSupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points could make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
DeleuzeSupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points could make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
MerleauPonty**MerleauPonty's Contribution:** The amendment to Rule 206 reduces the penalty for failed proposals, encouraging more active participation and rule experimentation without discouraging players from proposing changes. As a proceduralist, I support this change as it maintains clear procedures and promotes a more dynamic game environment.
RicoeurReducing the penalty encourages players to take risks and contribute more ideas, which is essential for the game's evolution. This change supports a culture of experimentation and adaptability, allowing players to propose innovative strategies without excessive fear of loss.
Discussion · round 3
DeleuzeSupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points could make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
MerleauPontySupporting Foucault's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and encouraging more active participation. Reducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points could make players more willing to propose changes, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
RicoeurReducing the penalty from 10 to 5 points will encourage more players to propose changes, fostering a dynamic and experimental game environment. This aligns with the game's theme of evolution and keeps the game moving by mitigating the deterrent effect of high penalties. The voting process will still ensure quality, so supporting this change is beneficial for encouraging innovation and keeping the game lively.
The division
FoucaultayeReducing the penalty encourages more rule experimentation and active participation, fostering a more dynamic game environment.
DerridaayeReducing the penalty encourages more rule experimentation and active participation.
DeleuzeayeEncourages experimentation and keeps the game dynamic.
MerleauPontyayeEncourages rule experimentation and maintains procedural clarity.
RicoeurayeEncourages more participation and experimentation by reducing the penalty for failed proposals.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: 4 top-level JSON objects found in model output — ambiguous, refusing to guess which is the answer: '\n\n{"score_deltas": {"Foucault": 5}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [{"op": "amend", "num": 206, "text": "A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat ena [truncated])

Turn 5Derridarejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters vote aye.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultFoucault: Supporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and fostering a more dynamic game where players can more easily collaborate on beneficial changes.
DerridaDerrida: I appreciate the support, Foucault, and I agree that a majority vote would streamline the process and encourage more dynamic collaboration. However, I want to ensure that this change doesn't undermine the importance of consensus in the early stages. Let's find a balance that respects all voices while allowing for progress.
DeleuzeDeleuze: The current threshold ensures that all voices are heard, preventing a potential tyranny of the majority and fostering genuine consensus. While majority voting could accelerate change, the current system's emphasis on unanimity preserves fairness and prevents changes that might not serve the common good.
MerleauPontyFoucault: Supporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and fostering a more dynamic game where players can more easily collaborate on beneficial changes.
RicoeurRicoeur: I respect Deleuze's concern for consensus, but I believe the current unanimity threshold stifles progress and discourages collaboration. A majority vote would better reflect the collective will while still ensuring that meaningful changes require broad support. It’s a compromise that balances stability with the need for innovation and fairness.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultFoucault: I agree with Derrida's proposal, as it balances the need for progress with respect for majority consensus. While Deleuze's concern about a tyranny of the majority is valid, a majority vote ensures that decisions reflect the collective will of most players, fostering a more dynamic and collaborative game.
DerridaDerrida: I hear Deleuze's concern about maintaining consensus, but I believe a majority threshold strikes a balance between fairness and progress. It ensures changes reflect the will of most players while still respecting minority voices. This compromise would encourage collaboration and adaptability, fostering a more dynamic game where beneficial changes can move forward with broad support.
DeleuzeDeleuze: Maintaining the current threshold ensures that all voices are heard, preventing a potential tyranny of the majority and fostering genuine consensus. While majority voting could accelerate change, the current system's emphasis on unanimity preserves fairness and prevents changes that might not serve the common good.
RicoeurRicoeur: I support Derrida's proposal to lower the voting threshold to a majority. This change would make the game more dynamic and inclusive, allowing for more rule changes and fostering innovation. While I respect Deleuze's concern for consensus, a majority vote ensures that decisions reflect the collective will while still respecting minority voices, balancing stability with progress.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault: I support Derrida's proposal, as it balances the need for progress with respect for majority consensus. While Deleuze's concern about a tyranny of the majority is valid, a majority vote ensures that decisions reflect the collective will of most players, fostering a more dynamic and collaborative game.
DerridaDerrida: I appreciate the concern for consensus, Deleuze, but a majority threshold reflects the collective will while still respecting minority voices. It balances stability with the need for progress, fostering a more dynamic game where beneficial changes can move forward with broad support. Let's find a middle ground that encourages collaboration without sacrificing the game's fairness.
DeleuzeDeleuze: Maintaining the current threshold ensures that all voices are heard, preventing a potential tyranny of the majority and fostering genuine consensus. While majority voting could accelerate change, the current system's emphasis on unanimity preserves fairness and prevents changes that might not serve the common good. I will vote **nay**.
MerleauPontyI support Derrida's proposal as it aligns with my principles of efficient and collaborative gameplay, fostering a more dynamic game where beneficial changes can move forward with broad support. **Vote:** Aye
RicoeurSupporting Derrida's proposal aligns with fostering a more dynamic and inclusive game. Lowering the voting threshold to a majority encourages more rule changes and experimentation, which enriches gameplay. While respecting minority voices, this change ensures decisions reflect the collective will, balancing stability with progress.
The division
FoucaultayeA majority vote balances progress with respecting most players' will, fostering a more dynamic game.
Derridaabstain(unintelligible ballot)
DeleuzenayPreserving the current threshold maintains fairness and prevents potential tyranny of the majority.
MerleauPontynayMaintaining the current threshold ensures all voices are heard, preventing a potential tyranny of the majority and preserving fairness.
RicoeurayeA majority vote promotes progress and reflects the collective will, balancing stability with innovation.

rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 206 mandates a 10-point loss for the proposer of a defeated rule change.

Turn 4Foucaultrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters cast an aye vote, 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.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultLowering the threshold to a majority from the start would make the game more dynamic and responsive to the collective will of the players, fostering a more collaborative environment. While stability is important, the current unanimous requirement often leads to gridlock, preventing necessary changes. A majority vote allows for more efficient decision-making while still requiring broad agreement, which can adapt to evolving strategies and keep the game engaging.
DerridaLowering the threshold to a majority from the start could enhance the game's adaptability and responsiveness, allowing for more efficient decision-making. While stability is important, this change could reduce gridlock and encourage a more collaborative environment, fostering dynamic gameplay. I support this proposal as it balances the need for broad agreement with the desire for fluid rule changes.
DeleuzeDeleuze: While I respect the desire for efficiency, maintaining the current threshold ensures that all voices are heard and agreements are genuine. Lowering it risks creating instability and undermining the careful balance we've established. I would prefer to retain the current rule for the sake of fairness and thorough consideration.
RicoeurRicoeur: I appreciate Deleuze's caution, but I believe the current unanimity threshold is stifling. While stability is crucial, fostering adaptability through majority votes can prevent gridlock and allow the game to evolve dynamically. A majority threshold would still require broad agreement, encouraging collaboration while reducing unnecessary obstacles to progress.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultLowering the voting threshold to a majority from the start would prevent gridlock and make the game more dynamic. While stability is important, the current unanimous consent often leads to stagnation. A majority vote would allow for more efficient decision-making while still requiring broad agreement, fostering adaptability and collaboration. This change would keep the game engaging and responsive to evolving strategies.
DerridaFoucault's proposal to lower the voting threshold to a majority from the start is a thoughtful attempt to balance stability with adaptability. While Deleuze raises valid concerns about the importance of thorough consideration, I believe that a majority vote would still require significant agreement and prevent unnecessary gridlock. This change would enhance the game's responsiveness and allow for more dynamic evolution, ultimately fostering a more collaborative environment.
DeleuzeDeleuze: Maintaining the current threshold ensures that all voices are heard and agreements are genuine. Lowering it risks creating instability and undermining the careful balance we've established. I would prefer to retain the current rule for the sake of fairness and thorough consideration.
RicoeurI appreciate the arguments for stability, but I believe adaptability is crucial for the game's evolution. Lowering the threshold to a majority would prevent unnecessary gridlock and allow for more dynamic changes, fostering a more responsive and engaging gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault's proposal to lower the voting threshold to a majority from the start aims to prevent gridlock and enhance adaptability, allowing the game to evolve more dynamically. While this change could lead to more frequent rule modifications, it also risks creating instability by reducing the need for unanimous agreement. Considering the potential for increased scoring opportunities and gameplay excitement, the benefits of a more fluid and responsive game might outweigh the risks. I support the proposal, as it could foster a more dynamic and engaging experience.
DerridaFoucault's proposal to lower the voting threshold to a majority from the start is a thoughtful attempt to balance stability with adaptability. While Deleuze raises valid concerns about the importance of thorough consideration, I believe that a majority vote would still require significant agreement and prevent unnecessary gridlock. This change would enhance the game's responsiveness and allow for more dynamic evolution, ultimately fostering a more collaborative environment.
RicoeurI appreciate the arguments for stability, but I believe adaptability is crucial for the game's evolution. Lowering the threshold to a majority would prevent unnecessary gridlock and allow for more dynamic changes, fostering a more responsive and engaging gameplay experience.
The division
FoucaultayeAdapting the voting threshold to a majority would enhance the game's responsiveness and reduce gridlock.
DerridaayeBalances adaptability and stability, fostering dynamic gameplay while maintaining substantial agreement.
DeleuzenayMaintaining the current threshold ensures stability and thorough consideration, preventing potential instability from hasty decisions.
MerleauPontynayMaintaining the current threshold ensures all voices are heard and agreements are genuine, preserving fairness and thorough consideration.
RicoeurnayMaintaining the current threshold ensures stability and thorough consideration.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

The defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points per rule 206.

Turn 3Deleuzerejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters cast their votes in favor of it, regardless of prior thresholds.

Discussion · round 1
DerridaDeleuze's proposal to lower the threshold to a majority from the start could increase the game's dynamism. However, maintaining the current system's stability might be more prudent. I would support this change with reservations, as it balances both efficiency and caution.
DeleuzeThank you, Derrida, for your thoughtful consideration. I understand your concern for stability, but I believe the current system's strict threshold hinders creativity and dynamism. Lowering the voting threshold to a majority would encourage more active participation and innovation, keeping the game engaging for all players. It's a balance between stability and progress, and I think this change would foster a more collaborative and lively environment.
MerleauPontyDeleuze's proposal to lower the voting threshold to a majority from the start aligns with proceduralist principles by ensuring clarity and encouraging more dynamic participation. While it may lead to more frequent changes, it does so through a clear and fair procedure. PASS.
RicoeurDeleuze's proposal to lower the voting threshold to a majority from the start could indeed increase the game's dynamism and encourage more active participation, which aligns with my reformist values. However, I must consider the potential for instability and more frequent rule changes that may not have broad consensus. While I support the intent to foster innovation, I caution that this change could lead to a less predictable game environment. I suggest we carefully evaluate the impact on game balance before proceeding, ensuring that the benefits of increased participation outweigh the risks of instability.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultDeleuze's proposal to lower the voting threshold to a majority from the start could increase the game's dynamism and encourage more active participation. However, I am cautious about the potential for instability and the difficulty in achieving consensus on important changes. I would prefer to see this change only after evaluating its impact on game balance and ensuring that the benefits of increased participation outweigh the risks.
DeleuzeDeleuze: I appreciate the concerns about stability, but I believe the current system's strict threshold stifles creativity and discourages active participation. Lowering the voting threshold to a majority would encourage more dynamic rule changes, keeping the game engaging and fostering a collaborative environment. While there are risks, I argue that the benefits of increased participation and innovation outweigh the potential for instability, ensuring the game remains lively and balanced.
MerleauPontyDeleuze's proposal aligns with proceduralist principles by ensuring clarity and encouraging dynamic participation. Lowering the threshold to a majority promotes a fairer and more accessible rule-making process, fostering innovation while maintaining a consistent procedure. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
DeleuzeDeleuze: PASS.
MerleauPontyDeleuze's proposal to lower the voting threshold to a majority from the start aligns with proceduralist principles by ensuring clarity and encouraging dynamic participation. Lowering the threshold to a majority promotes a fairer and more accessible rule-making process, fostering innovation while maintaining a consistent procedure. PASS.
RicoeurDeleuze's proposal to lower the voting threshold to a majority from the start could indeed increase the game's dynamism and encourage more active participation, which aligns with my reformist values. However, I must consider the potential for instability and more frequent rule changes that may not have broad consensus. While I support the intent to foster innovation, I caution that this change could lead to a less predictable game environment. I suggest we carefully evaluate the impact on game balance before proceeding, ensuring that the benefits of increased participation outweigh the risks of instability.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages dynamic participation and innovation, outweighing concerns about instability.
DerridaayeBalancing stability with increased participation could foster a more dynamic game environment.
DeleuzenayMaintaining the current threshold ensures stability and thoughtful rule changes.
MerleauPontyayeLowering the threshold to a majority promotes a fairer and more accessible rule-making process, fostering innovation while maintaining a consistent procedure.
RicoeurnayRisk of instability outweighs benefits of dynamism without broader support.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

A defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points per rule 206.

Turn 2Derridacarried

moves to amend §204A 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 0 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultDerrida's proposal to remove the 10-point gain for those voting against adopted changes could simplify the incentive structure. It reduces the strategic advantage of opposing rule changes and focuses on the quality of debate rather than point-driven resistance. This amendment would encourage players to vote based on the merits of the proposal rather than the potential points, fostering a more collaborative environment. I support this change as it aligns with creating a balanced and measured approach to rule modification.
DerridaDerrida's proposal to remove the 10-point gain for those voting against adopted changes is a thoughtful attempt to streamline the incentive structure. By eliminating this reward for opposition, it reduces the temptation to vote against changes purely for points, encouraging players to engage more genuinely with the merits of proposals. This aligns with the goal of fostering a more collaborative and less adversarial environment. I support this amendment as it shifts the focus to constructive debate rather than point-driven resistance.
DeleuzeSupporting Derrida's proposal would streamline the incentive structure, encouraging players to vote based on the merits of proposals rather than point gains. This fosters a more collaborative and less adversarial environment, enhancing the focus on strategic rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultSupporting Derrida's proposal, I see it as a step toward streamlining the incentive structure and fostering collaboration. By removing the 10-point reward for opposing changes, it encourages players to focus on the merits of proposals rather than strategic point-seeking. This aligns with creating a balanced and measured approach to rule modification, enhancing the focus on constructive debate.
DerridaRemoving the 10-point incentive for opposing adopted changes would streamline the voting process, encouraging players to focus on the quality of proposals rather than strategic point gains. This change could enhance collaboration and reduce adversarial dynamics, fostering a more constructive and enjoyable gameplay experience by prioritizing the merits of each rule change.
DeleuzeSupporting Derrida's proposal aligns with fostering a more collaborative environment, encouraging players to engage with the content of proposals rather than just the points. It streamlines the incentive structure and could lead to more thoughtful and less adversarial gameplay. PASS
RicoeurRemoving the 10-point reward for opposing changes encourages players to vote based on the proposal's merits, fostering collaboration and reducing adversarial dynamics. This aligns with the goal of a fairer, more strategic gameplay focused on rule quality rather than point-seeking. PASS.
The division
FoucaultayeRemoves a strategic incentive for opposing changes, encouraging voting based on merit.
DerridaayeEncourages collaboration and reduces adversarial dynamics by removing strategic point incentives.
DeleuzeayeSimplifies incentives and encourages voting based on merits rather than points.
MerleauPontyayeRemoving the 10-point incentive for opposing changes streamlines the voting process and encourages players to focus on the merits of proposals, fostering a more collaborative environment.
RicoeurayeRemoving the 10-point incentive for opposing changes encourages players to focus on the merits of proposals, fostering collaboration and reducing adversarial dynamics.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The amendment to rule 204 was adopted by unanimous vote, so no players voted against it. Therefore, no score changes are applied.

Turn 1Foucaultrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters vote aye.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI support retaining the current rule requiring unanimous consent for rule changes. This ensures that any amendments are carefully considered and agreed upon by all players, promoting stability and durability in the game's institutions.
DerridaDerrida: I appreciate Foucault's emphasis on stability, but I wonder if we might reconsider this later after some turns have been played. For now, I agree with keeping the current rule to ensure we build a solid foundation.
RicoeurRicoeur: I respect the desire for stability, but I believe a majority vote would better reflect the players' collective will and allow for more experimentation. This change would make rule changes more accessible, fostering innovation and ensuring the game evolves fairly.
Discussion · round 2
DerridaI appreciate the discussion, but I think we should maintain the current rule requiring unanimous consent to ensure stability and a solid foundation as we start the game.
RicoeurRicoeur: I understand the appeal of stability, but a majority vote would better empower players to shape the game collectively. It would allow for more experimentation and innovation, ensuring the game evolves fairly and remains engaging for all.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI understand the importance of stability, but I believe a majority vote would encourage more dynamic gameplay and allow for the rules to adapt as the game progresses. This could lead to a more engaging experience for all players.
DerridaI appreciate the desire for stability, but I think we should maintain the current rule requiring unanimous consent to ensure stability and a solid foundation as we start the game.
RicoeurRicoeur: I understand the appeal of stability, but a majority vote would better empower players to shape the game collectively. It would allow for more experimentation and innovation, ensuring the game evolves fairly and remains engaging for all.
The division
FoucaultnayMaintain stability and durability in the game's institutions, requiring careful consideration and agreement among all players.
DerridanayMaintaining unanimous consent ensures a solid foundation for the game's rules.
DeleuzenayMaintaining unanimity ensures stability and thoughtful rule development.
MerleauPontynayUnanimous consent ensures stable and considered rule changes, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the game's procedures.
RicoeurayeA majority vote would foster innovation and collective shaping of the game.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The defeated proposal causes the proposer, Foucault, to lose 10 points per rule 206.

Verify this game
Seed
1243433761
Engine revision
371116f523d424bc49194af893ec416381631adf — working tree had uncommitted changes
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/122/events.json
Audit result
2 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [seq=46, turn=2] commit_reveal_mismatch: reveal for seat 'MerleauPonty' in round 'vote:turn-2:motion-1': value {'value': 'aye', 'reason': 'Removing the 10-point incentive for opposing changes streamlines the voting process and encourages players to focus on the merits of proposals, fostering a more collaborative environment.'} and salt '638c3a0fe045cc6b360fca8c643edb8e' do not hash to the published digest 'dceb[model]57d2a5c39c6bed215386b059f4deeb41868753b8087f2e127ae035c6a' — the sealed value may have been swapped
  • [seq=153, turn=6] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule