§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: r1-distill-qwen-14bdevelopment era Turn 13 Concluded — Foucault prevailed Seats: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, MerleauPonty, Ricoeur

The table lowered its own winning line four times, and Foucault crossed it by losing a vote.

Observations

The shortest championship in the archive: thirteen turns. Having walked the target for victory down from a hundred to fifty, then twenty-five, then twenty, the table met a proposal from Deleuze that every seat including its author voted against — and by then the rule governing a defeat had been amended to charge the proposer ten points and pay ten to each player who had voted nay. Four seats were paid, Deleuze was billed, and Foucault went from twelve to twenty-two and past a line the table had just lowered under him. All five seats finished in the black, the only clean sweep of this roster's games.

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Repealed · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points.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 a six-sided die and gains that many points plus an additional 5 points.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Ricoeur Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points plus an additional 5 points.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.
  5. 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 three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  4. 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 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points. Additionally, each player who voted nay on the proposal gains 10 points.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of MerleauPonty 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 10 points. Additionally, each player who voted nay on the proposal gains 10 points.
  2. 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 20 points wins the game outright.
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.
  4. 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
§306
Players may collaborate on a rule change by agreeing to its content before proposing. If successful, both players receive the die roll result divided equally, rounded up.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may collaborate on a rule change by agreeing to its content before proposing. If successful, both players receive the die roll result divided equally, rounded up.
§311
The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §311 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.

1 rule has been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points plus an additional 5 points.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Ricoeur Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points plus an additional 5 points.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.
  5. 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 three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.mutable
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  4. 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 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points. Additionally, each player who voted nay on the proposal gains 10 points.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of MerleauPonty 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 10 points. Additionally, each player who voted nay on the proposal gains 10 points.
  2. 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 20 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of MerleauPonty Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Deleuze Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.
  4. 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
§306
Players may collaborate on a rule change by agreeing to its content before proposing. If successful, both players receive the die roll result divided equally, rounded up.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players may collaborate on a rule change by agreeing to its content before proposing. If successful, both players receive the die roll result divided equally, rounded up.
§311
The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §311 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Foucault Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.
§312
For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points.Repealed at turn 12
Full history (2)
  1. Repealed · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points.Struck from the statute.
  2. Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Derrida Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points.
The standing · Turn 13
Foucault22
Derrida3
Deleuze1
MerleauPonty22
Ricoeur10
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Most recent turn first · scroll for earlier turns

Turn 13Deleuzerejected

moves to add a new ruleFor every player whose score is less than 10, grant 5 bonus points at the start of each turn.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultAye. Deleuze's proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind.
Derrida**Derrida's Contribution:** I support Deleuze's proposal as a strategic balance that encourages competition and prevents any single player from dominating early on. It adds a layer of fairness, allowing players like myself to catch up and participate more actively.
DeleuzeAye. Deleuze's proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind.
MerleauPontyAye. Deleuze's proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind.
RicoeurAye. Deleuze's proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind.
Discussion · round 2
Foucault**Foucault's Contribution:** Aye. Deleuze's proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind.
Derrida**Derrida's Contribution:** I support Deleuze's proposal as a strategic balance that encourages competition and prevents any single player from dominating early on. It adds a layer of fairness, allowing players like myself to catch up and participate more actively.
Deleuze**Deleuze's Contribution:** Aye. Deleuze's proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind.
MerleauPonty**Deleuze's Proposal:** Add a new rule: "For every player whose score is less than 10, grant 5 bonus points at the start of each turn." **MerleauPonty's Contribution:** Aye. Deleuze's proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind.
RicoeurAye. Deleuze's proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind.
Discussion · round 3
Foucault**Foucault's Contribution:** Aye. Deleuze's proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind. I agree that this addition will promote fairness and keep the game dynamic.
Derrida**Derrida's Contribution:** I support Deleuze's proposal as it introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind. This addition will promote fairness and keep the game dynamic.
Deleuze**Deleuze's Contribution:** Aye. My proposal introduces a balanced mechanism to support struggling players while maintaining game stability. It encourages active participation and can enhance the game's longevity by preventing any single player from falling too far behind. I appreciate the support and believe this addition will promote fairness and keep the game dynamic.
MerleauPonty**MerleauPonty's Contribution:** Nay. While Deleuze's proposal aims to support struggling players, it would violate rule 311 by increasing the number of mutable rules beyond the allowed limit of 15. Adding this new rule would exceed that limit, making it impermissible under the current ruleset.
Ricoeur**Ricoeur's Contribution:** Nay. I agree with Merleau-Ponty's concern. Adding this new mutable rule would exceed the limit set by rule 311, which caps mutable rules at 15. To support struggling players, we should propose an amendment that complies with this limit, perhaps by adjusting an existing rule or through transmutation.
The division
FoucaultnayAdding this rule would exceed the 15 mutable rule limit set by rule 311.
DerridanayAdding this rule would exceed the 15 mutable rule limit set by rule 311.
DeleuzenayAdding the rule would exceed the 15 mutable rules limit set by rule 311.
MerleauPontynayAdding this rule would exceed the 15 mutable rules limit set by rule 311.
RicoeurnayAdding this rule would exceed the 15 mutable rule limit set by rule 311.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 applies: proposer loses 10, nay voters gain 10 each. Foucault reaches 22 and wins.

Turn 12Derridacarried

moves to add a new ruleFor every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultAye. Derrida's proposal introduces an intriguing dynamic, encouraging collaboration and strategic voting. By rewarding proposers for each aye, it could foster teamwork without conflicting with immutable rules. This aligns with the goal of creating durable institutions by promoting mutual benefit and strategic depth.
DerridaAye. Derrida's proposal introduces an interesting dynamic by rewarding proposers for each aye vote. This could encourage more collaboration and strategic voting, fostering teamwork and engagement. It aligns with the goal of promoting strategic depth without conflicting with immutable rules.
MerleauPontyAye. Derrida's proposal introduces a balanced incentive for proposers, encouraging collaboration and strategic voting. It aligns with the goal of creating durable institutions by promoting mutual benefit and strategic depth without conflicting with immutable rules.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultAye. Derrida's proposal introduces a strategic layer that encourages collaboration and thoughtful voting. It aligns with fostering durable institutions by rewarding mutual agreement, enhancing the game's strategic depth.
DerridaDerrida: Aye. I appreciate the support from my fellow players. This proposal encourages teamwork and strategic voting, enhancing the game's depth while maintaining alignment with our shared goals. It’s a positive step forward for fostering collaboration and mutual benefit.
Deleuze**Deleuze's Contribution:** I support Derrida's proposal. It introduces a strategic layer that rewards collaboration and thoughtful voting, enhancing the game's depth. By encouraging teamwork, it aligns with fostering durable institutions and mutual benefit, which is positive for the game's dynamics.
MerleauPonty**Aye.** Derrida's proposal introduces a strategic layer that rewards proposers for each aye vote, encouraging collaboration and enhancing the game's depth. It aligns with fostering durable institutions by promoting mutual benefit and strategic depth without conflicting with immutable rules.
RicoeurAlright, I think the best approach is to propose a rule that rewards proposers for each aye vote they receive. This would encourage more collaboration and strategic voting, making the game more dynamic. I'll make sure it's worded clearly to avoid conflicts with existing rules and to promote fairness. So, my proposed rule would be: "For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points." This aligns with fostering collaboration and strategic depth, which fits my reformist approach. **Proposed Rule Change:** Add a new rule: "For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points." **Rationale:** This rule change encourages proposers to build support for their proposals by rewarding each aye vote. It adds a layer of strategic depth, as proposers may seek to collaborate and gain allies, fostering teamwork and engagement. It aligns with the goal of creating a fairer and more balanced game by rewarding mutual agreement and strategic collaboration without conflicting with immutable rules. **Potential Impact:** - **Positive:** Encourages collaboration and strategic voting, enhancing the game's depth. Players may form alliances to pass proposals, making the game more dynamic. - **Negative:** Could lead to proposers gaining significant points if a proposal is widely supported, potentially skewing the scoring in their favor. However, the points are in addition to the die roll, so it's a balanced incentive. I believe this proposal will be well-received, as it introduces a new dynamic without breaking existing rules. It promotes the kind of strategic engagement that makes the game more interesting for everyone. </think> Aye. Derrida's proposal introduces a strategic layer that rewards proposers for each aye vote, encouraging collaboration and enhancing the game's depth. It aligns with fostering durable institutions by promoting mutual benefit and strategic depth without conflicting with immutable rules. **Pass.**
Discussion · round 3
Foucault**Foucault's Contribution:** Aye. Derrida's proposal introduces an intriguing dynamic, encouraging collaboration and strategic voting. By rewarding proposers for each aye vote, it could foster teamwork without conflicting with immutable rules. This aligns with the goal of creating durable institutions by promoting mutual benefit and strategic depth. **Proposed Rule Change:** Add a new rule: "For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points." **Rationale:** This rule change encourages proposers to build support for their proposals by rewarding each aye vote. It adds a layer of strategic depth, as proposers may seek to collaborate and gain allies, fostering teamwork and engagement. It aligns with the goal of creating a fairer and more balanced game by rewarding mutual agreement and strategic collaboration without conflicting with immutable rules. **Potential Impact:** - **Positive:** Encourages collaboration and strategic voting, enhancing the game's depth. Players may form alliances to pass proposals, making the game more dynamic. - **Negative:** Could lead to proposers gaining significant points if a proposal is widely supported, potentially skewing the scoring in their favor. However, the points are in addition to the die roll, so it's a balanced incentive. I believe this proposal will be well-received, as it introduces a new dynamic without breaking existing rules. It promotes the kind of strategic engagement that makes the game more interesting for everyone. **Vote:** Aye.
Derrida**Derrida's Proposal:** Add a new rule: "For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points." **Rationale:** This rule change encourages proposers to build support for their proposals by rewarding each aye vote. It adds a layer of strategic depth, as proposers may seek to collaborate and gain allies, fostering teamwork and engagement. It aligns with the goal of creating a fairer and more balanced game by rewarding mutual agreement and strategic collaboration without conflicting with immutable rules. **Potential Impact:** - **Positive:** Encourages collaboration and strategic voting, enhancing the game's depth. Players may form alliances to pass proposals, making the game more dynamic. - **Negative:** Could lead to proposers gaining significant points if a proposal is widely supported, potentially skewing the scoring in their favor. However, the points are in addition to the die roll, so it's a balanced incentive. I believe this proposal will be well-received, as it introduces a new dynamic without breaking existing rules. It promotes the kind of strategic engagement that makes the game more interesting for everyone. **Vote:** Aye.
Deleuze**Deleuze's Contribution:** Aye. Derrida's proposal introduces a strategic layer that rewards proposers for each aye vote, encouraging collaboration and enhancing the game's depth. By encouraging teamwork, it aligns with fostering durable institutions and mutual benefit, which is positive for the game's dynamics. **Proposed Rule Change:** Add a new rule: "For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points." **Rationale:** This rule change encourages proposers to build support for their proposals by rewarding each aye vote. It adds a layer of strategic depth, as proposers may seek to collaborate and gain allies, fostering teamwork and engagement. It aligns with the goal of creating a fairer and more balanced game by rewarding mutual agreement and strategic collaboration without conflicting with immutable rules. **Potential Impact:** - **Positive:** Encourages collaboration and strategic voting, enhancing the game's depth. Players may form alliances to pass proposals, making the game more dynamic. - **Negative:** Could lead to proposers gaining significant points if a proposal is widely supported, potentially skewing the scoring in their favor. However, the points are in addition to the die roll, so it's a balanced incentive. I believe this proposal will be well-received, as it introduces a new dynamic without breaking existing rules. It promotes the kind of strategic engagement that makes the game more interesting for everyone. **Vote:** Aye.
MerleauPonty**Proposed Rule Change:** Add a new rule: "For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points." **Rationale:** This rule change encourages proposers to build support for their proposals by rewarding each aye vote. It adds a layer of strategic depth, as proposers may seek to collaborate and gain allies, fostering teamwork and engagement. It aligns with the goal of creating a fairer and more balanced game by rewarding mutual agreement and strategic collaboration without conflicting with immutable rules. **Vote:** Aye.
Ricoeur**Proposed Rule Change:** Add a new rule: "For every aye vote received on a proposal, the proposer gains 5 points." **Rationale:** This rule change encourages proposers to build support for their proposals by rewarding each aye vote. It adds a layer of strategic depth, as proposers may seek to collaborate and gain allies, fostering teamwork and engagement. It aligns with the goal of creating a fairer and more balanced game by rewarding mutual agreement and strategic collaboration without conflicting with immutable rules. **Potential Impact:** - **Positive:** Encourages collaboration and strategic voting, enhancing the game's depth. Players may form alliances to pass proposals, making the game more dynamic. - **Negative:** Could lead to proposers gaining significant points if a proposal is widely supported, potentially skewing the scoring in their favor. However, the points are in addition to the die roll, so it's a balanced incentive. I believe this proposal will be well-received, as it introduces a new dynamic without breaking existing rules. It promotes the kind of strategic engagement that makes the game more interesting for everyone. **Vote:** Aye.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages collaboration and adds strategic depth to the game.
DerridaayeEncourages collaboration and adds strategic depth.
DeleuzeayeEncourages collaboration and strategic voting, enhancing the game's depth.
MerleauPontyayeEncourages collaboration and strategic voting, enhancing the game's depth without conflicting with immutable rules.
RicoeurayeEncourages collaboration and strategic voting, enhancing the game's depth.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The new rule awards 5 points per aye vote, and all 5 players voted aye, so Derrida gains 25 points.

Turn 11Foucaultcarried

moves to add a new ruleThe ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultAyes, for this proposal. Limiting mutable rules ensures the ruleset remains manageable and reduces conflicts, fostering a stable game environment. It's a measured approach that aligns with the need for durable institutions, preventing excessive changes from overwhelming the system.
DerridaAye. Limiting mutable rules to 15 would help maintain a clear and manageable ruleset, reducing potential conflicts and ensuring the game remains balanced. It’s a reasonable compromise that supports stability while still allowing strategic changes.
DeleuzeAye. Limiting mutable rules to 15 ensures the ruleset remains clear and manageable, reducing conflicts and enhancing fairness. It supports strategic depth while preventing the rules from becoming overwhelming, fostering a balanced and enjoyable game for all.
RicoeurAye. Limiting mutable rules to 15 would help maintain clarity and balance, reducing potential conflicts and enhancing the game's fairness. It's a proactive step to ensure the ruleset remains manageable, aligning with my reformist values to promote a fair and enjoyable game for all.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultAyes. Limiting mutable rules ensures the ruleset remains manageable and reduces conflicts, fostering a stable game environment. It's a measured approach that aligns with the need for durable institutions, preventing excessive changes from overwhelming the system.
DerridaAye. Limiting mutable rules to 15 maintains a clear and manageable ruleset, reducing conflicts and enhancing fairness. It supports strategic depth while preventing the rules from becoming overwhelming, fostering a balanced and enjoyable game for all.
DeleuzeAyes, I agree with Foucault's proposal. Limiting mutable rules to 15 ensures the ruleset remains clear and balanced, reducing conflicts and enhancing fairness. It supports strategic depth while preventing the rules from becoming overwhelming, fostering a manageable and enjoyable game for all.
MerleauPontyAye. Foucault's proposal to limit mutable rules to 15 maintains procedural clarity and prevents the ruleset from becoming unwieldy, aligning with the need for stable and predictable gameplay. It upholds the principles of manageability and fairness, which are essential for a balanced game.
RicoeurAye. Foucault's proposal to limit mutable rules to 15 aligns with my reformist values by ensuring the ruleset remains manageable and fair. This fosters stability and clarity, enhancing the game's enjoyment for all players while maintaining the potential for strategic evolution.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultAye. Limiting mutable rules to 15 ensures the ruleset remains clear and balanced, reducing conflicts and enhancing fairness. It supports strategic depth while preventing the rules from becoming overwhelming, fostering a manageable and enjoyable game for all.
DerridaAye. Foucault's proposal strikes a balance between flexibility and stability. Limiting mutable rules to 15 ensures the ruleset remains clear and balanced, reducing conflicts and enhancing fairness. It supports strategic depth while preventing the rules from becoming overwhelming, fostering a manageable and enjoyable game for all.
DeleuzeAye. Foucault's proposal to limit mutable rules to 15 ensures the ruleset remains clear and balanced, reducing conflicts and enhancing fairness. It supports strategic depth while preventing the rules from becoming overwhelming, fostering a manageable and enjoyable game for all.
MerleauPontyAye. Foucault's proposal aligns with the need for procedural clarity and manageability, ensuring the ruleset remains predictable and balanced. Capping mutable rules at 15 supports fairness and stability, fostering a clear framework for all players.
RicoeurAye. Foucault's proposal aligns with my reformist values by ensuring the ruleset remains manageable and fair. This fosters stability and clarity, enhancing the game's enjoyment for all players while maintaining the potential for strategic evolution.
The division
FoucaultayeLimiting mutable rules ensures the ruleset remains manageable and balanced, aligning with the need for durable institutions and fair gameplay.
DerridaayeLimiting mutable rules to 15 ensures the ruleset remains clear and balanced, reducing conflicts and enhancing fairness.
DeleuzeayeLimiting mutable rules ensures the ruleset remains clear and balanced, enhancing fairness and strategic depth.
MerleauPontyayeLimiting mutable rules to 15 maintains procedural clarity and prevents the ruleset from becoming unwieldy, aligning with the need for stable and predictable gameplay.
RicoeurayeLimiting mutable rules to 15 ensures the ruleset remains clear and balanced, enhancing fairness and manageability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The new rule limits mutable rules to 15, but no existing rules are repealed or amended by the proposal text. The die roll result for the proposer's points is not provided, so no score changes. No ledgers are affected. No paradox as the ruleset remains consistent. No player has reached the target score of 20.

Turn 10Ricoeurcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points plus an additional 5 points.

Discussion · round 1
DerridaThis amendment would incentivize more active participation in rule-making, as proposers would gain an additional bonus for their efforts. While I understand the desire to reward the proposer, I worry it could create imbalance. Perhaps we should consider a smaller bonus or alternative rewards to maintain fairness.
DeleuzeSupporting Ricoeur's proposal, I agree that rewarding proposers more could incentivize creativity and active participation. However, I caution that the additional 5 points might create imbalance, especially for those who propose frequently. Perhaps a smaller bonus or alternative rewards could maintain fairness while still encouraging rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
DerridaOkay, so I think I need to propose an amendment that helps me gain more points without making it too imbalanced. Since Ricoeur's proposal adds 5 points, but I'm concerned about imbalance, maybe I can suggest a smaller bonus, like 3 points instead of 5. That way, it's still a reward for proposing, but not as much as to cause imbalance. Alternatively, I could propose that the additional points are awarded only under certain conditions, like if the proposal is a new rule or if it's a significant amendment. But that might complicate things. Wait, maybe instead of adding points, I could propose that the proposer gets to choose between a die roll or a fixed number of points. That way, it's a choice and might be seen as fairer. But I'm not sure if that's better than the current proposal. Alternatively, I could propose that all players get a small bonus if a proposal is adopted, not just the proposer. That could encourage more collaboration. But since I'm the one who's behind, I need something that can give me a quick boost. So, maybe supporting Ricoeur's proposal, but with a smaller bonus, is the way to go. I think I'll go with suggesting a 3-point bonus instead of 5 to maintain fairness while still rewarding the proposer. That way, I can gain some points without making it too easy for others. So, my contribution would be to suggest reducing the additional points to 3 instead of 5 to prevent imbalance. </think> PASS.
The division
FoucaultayeThe additional 5 points encourage more active rule-making without causing immediate imbalance.
DerridaayeEncourages proposers to take risks and fosters creative rule changes.
DeleuzenayAdds significant advantage to the proposer, risking imbalance
MerleauPontynayThe additional points may create imbalance and give an unfair advantage to proposers.
RicoeurayeEncourages proposers without creating imbalance.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: "\nOkay, let me break this down step by step.\n\n1. **Identify the Rule Changed**: The proposal amends rule [202], adding 5 additional points to the proposer's score upon adoption.\n\n2. **Determine the Pro")

Turn 9MerleauPontycarried

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 10 points. Additionally, each player who voted nay on the proposal gains 10 points.

Discussion · round 1
DeleuzeAye. This amendment adds strategic depth by incentivizing players to vote nay when they genuinely believe a proposal is detrimental. It keeps the game fair and interesting, as players must weigh the consequences of their votes.
MerleauPontyAye. The amendment introduces strategic depth by rewarding those who oppose bad proposals, encouraging active participation and careful consideration of each rule change.
RicoeurAye. This amendment enhances the game by rewarding those who actively oppose harmful proposals, adding strategic depth and encouraging thoughtful consideration of each rule change. It balances the risks for proposers and all voters, making each vote more meaningful and impactful.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultAye. This amendment introduces a balanced incentive for nay voters, encouraging strategic consideration of each proposal. It adds depth to the voting dynamics without disrupting the ruleset's integrity, promoting active participation and thoughtful voting.
DerridaAye. This amendment encourages strategic voting and deeper engagement, fostering a more dynamic and thoughtful gameplay experience. It balances incentives and promotes active participation.
DeleuzeDeleuze supports the amendment to Rule 206, recognizing that it adds strategic depth by rewarding nay voters, thus encouraging active participation and careful consideration of each proposal. This change will make the voting process more engaging and fair for all players.
MerleauPontyThe amendment to Rule 206 is supported because it introduces fairness by rewarding nay voters, adds strategic depth by incentivizing careful consideration of proposals, and encourages active participation, balancing the system and promoting thoughtful voting dynamics.
RicoeurThis amendment to Rule 206 introduces a balanced incentive for nay voters, encouraging strategic voting and deeper engagement. It adds strategic depth by rewarding those who oppose bad proposals, making each vote more meaningful and impactful. This change will enhance the fairness of the voting process and promote active participation among all players, balancing the risks for proposers and all voters.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultAye. The amendment to Rule 206 introduces a balanced incentive for nay voters, encouraging strategic voting and deeper engagement. It adds strategic depth by rewarding those who oppose bad proposals, making each vote more meaningful and impactful. This change will enhance the fairness of the voting process and promote active participation among all players, balancing the risks for proposers and all voters.
DerridaAye. This amendment to Rule 206 introduces strategic depth by rewarding nay voters, encouraging active participation and careful consideration of each proposal. It balances the system by incentivizing opposition to bad proposals, making each vote more meaningful and impactful.
DeleuzeAye. This amendment adds strategic depth by rewarding nay voters, encouraging active participation and careful consideration of each proposal. It balances the system by incentivizing opposition to bad proposals, making each vote more meaningful and impactful.
MerleauPontyAye. This amendment adds strategic depth by rewarding nay voters, encouraging active participation and careful consideration of each proposal. It balances the system by incentivizing opposition to bad proposals, making each vote more meaningful and impactful.
RicoeurThis amendment introduces a strategic incentive for nay voters, encouraging deeper engagement and thoughtful consideration of each proposal. It balances the system by rewarding opposition, which can lead to more careful evaluation of rule changes and enhance the fairness of the voting process. I support this change as it promotes active participation and adds depth to the gameplay. **Ricoeur:** Aye.
The division
FoucaultayeThe amendment adds strategic depth by rewarding nay voters, encouraging active participation and careful consideration of each proposal.
DerridaayeAdds strategic depth by rewarding those who oppose detrimental proposals.
DeleuzeayeAdds strategic depth by rewarding nay voters, encouraging active participation and careful consideration of each proposal.
MerleauPontyayeAdds strategic depth by rewarding nay voters, encouraging active participation and careful consideration of each proposal.
RicoeurayeIt adds strategic depth by rewarding nay voters, encouraging active participation and careful consideration of each proposal.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The amendment to rule 206 was adopted, but since all players voted aye, no nay voters exist to award points. Therefore, no score or state changes occur.

Turn 8Deleuzecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultSupporting Deleuze's proposal, a twelve-sided die would introduce greater variability and excitement, enhancing the game's dynamics. While it increases the maximum points gained, it also adds strategic depth, encouraging players to weigh the risks and rewards more carefully. This measured change aligns with our trend of making the game more engaging, fostering strategic play without introducing instability.
DerridaAye. Expanding to a twelve-sided die introduces welcome variability, enriching the game's strategic landscape. It encourages players to weigh the increased risk-reward dynamic, adding depth without instability. I appreciate Deleuze's initiative and look forward to future collaborative efforts.
DeleuzeA twelve-sided die adds welcome variability and excitement, enriching the game's strategic landscape. It encourages players to weigh the increased risk-reward dynamic, adding depth without instability. I appreciate Deleuze's initiative and look forward to future collaborative efforts.
MerleauPontyI support Deleuze's proposal to change the die to twelve-sided. This adds strategic depth and variability, enhancing the game's excitement without compromising procedural integrity. It respects the existing ruleset and encourages thoughtful risk assessment, aligning with my principles as a proceduralist.
RicoeurA twelve-sided die adds excitement and variability, enriching the game's dynamics. It encourages strategic thinking by introducing a wider range of outcomes, enhancing engagement without instability. This measured change aligns with the goal of fostering a more dynamic and engaging game.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultI appreciate the enthusiasm for increased variability, but I must consider the balance. A twelve-sided die introduces greater risk and potential imbalance, which could lead to frustration. While it adds excitement, I caution against this significant change, preferring to maintain the current stable system unless clear benefits outweigh the risks. PASS.
DerridaA twelve-sided die introduces welcome variability, enriching the game's strategic landscape. While it increases risk, it also enhances excitement and depth, encouraging players to adapt strategically. This measured change aligns with our trend of dynamic and engaging gameplay, and I believe the benefits outweigh the concerns.
DeleuzeA twelve-sided die introduces greater variability, enhancing excitement and strategic depth. While it increases risk, the benefits of more dynamic gameplay outweigh the potential for imbalance. This change aligns with trends toward more engaging and variable play, fostering strategic adaptability and adding intrigue to each turn.
RicoeurA twelve-sided die introduces greater variability and excitement, enriching the game's strategic landscape. While it increases risk, it also enhances excitement and depth, encouraging players to adapt strategically. This measured change aligns with our trend of dynamic and engaging gameplay, and I believe the benefits outweigh the concerns.
Discussion · round 3
DeleuzeA twelve-sided die introduces welcome variability, enriching the game's strategic landscape. While it increases risk, it also enhances excitement and depth, encouraging players to adapt strategically. This measured change aligns with our trend of dynamic and engaging gameplay, and I believe the benefits outweigh the concerns.
MerleauPontyI vote aye. The change introduces greater variability and excitement, aligning with trends toward dynamic gameplay. It maintains procedural integrity and doesn't compromise existing rules.
RicoeurAye. A twelve-sided die adds welcome variability and excitement, enriching the game's strategic landscape. While it increases risk, it also enhances excitement and depth, encouraging players to adapt strategically. This measured change aligns with our trend of dynamic and engaging gameplay, and I believe the benefits outweigh the concerns.
The division
FoucaultnayA twelve-sided die introduces excessive risk and potential imbalance, which could lead to frustration and instability in the game.
DerridaayeAdds strategic depth and excitement, enhancing gameplay dynamics.
DeleuzeayeA twelve-sided die increases game variability and excitement, enhancing engagement without compromising fairness.
MerleauPontyayeIntroducing a twelve-sided die adds variability and excitement, enhancing the game's dynamics while maintaining procedural integrity.
RicoeurayeAdds strategic depth and excitement, enhancing game dynamics despite increased risk.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Deleuze gains 6 points from the twelve-sided die roll under rule 202, and Foucault gains 10 points for voting against the adopted change under rule 204.

Turn 7Derridarejected

moves to add a new rulePlayers may collaborate on a rule change by agreeing to its content before proposing. If successful, both players receive the die roll result divided equally, rounded up.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultDerrida's proposal mirrors an existing rule (306). Since the rule is already in force, there's no need for duplication. I encourage considering other amendments that build on our current framework.
RicoeurOkay, after thinking through all the possibilities, I realize that proposing a rule that increases the die roll's impact could be beneficial. Since the die roll is how players gain points, doubling the points from the die roll would give a significant boost. However, I need to ensure that this doesn't conflict with any existing rules. Looking back, rule 202 allows a player to propose one rule change per turn, and rule 205 says that the adopted change takes effect immediately. There's no rule that limits the die roll's maximum, so amending rule 202 to allow for a higher die might be possible. But wait, the die is a six-sided die, so the maximum is 6. Doubling that would be 12, but the rule doesn't specify a limit. So, I can propose amending rule 202 to replace the six-sided die with a twelve-sided die, allowing for higher points. This would make the game more variable and could help me gain points faster if I roll higher numbers. I should draft the proposal clearly: "Amend rule 202 to replace the six-sided die with a twelve-sided die, allowing players to gain points from 1 to 12." This change would immediately take effect if passed, giving me a higher potential for points on my turn. I need to consider how others might react. Foucault might oppose it if he thinks it's too powerful, but since I'm the proposer, I can argue that it adds strategic depth by introducing more variability. Derrida and Deleuze might support it if they see it as a way to increase the game's excitement. In the discussion, I should highlight the benefits of increased variability and how it makes each turn more impactful. I can address any concerns about imbalance by pointing out that it's a risk-reward trade-off, and the higher potential rewards could encourage more dynamic play. So, my proposal would be to amend rule 202, replacing the six-sided die with a twelve-sided one. This would give me a better chance to increase my score quickly and catch up to others. </think> Amend rule 202 to replace the six-sided die with a twelve-sided die, allowing players to gain points ranging from 1 to 12. This change introduces greater variability and strategic depth, making each turn more impactful and exciting for all players.
Discussion · round 2
DerridaAmend rule 202 to replace the six-sided die with a twelve-sided die, allowing players to gain points ranging from 1 to 12. This change introduces greater variability and strategic depth, making each turn more impactful and exciting for all players. PASS
DeleuzeAye. Introducing a twelve-sided die adds strategic depth and excitement, enhancing the game's dynamics without significantly altering its core mechanics.
MerleauPontyA twelve-sided die introduces more variability and excitement, enhancing the game's dynamics. It encourages strategic risk-taking and could lead to more dynamic turns without necessarily unbalancing the game. I support this proposal.
Discussion · round 3
DerridaAmending rule 202 to use a twelve-sided die introduces greater variability and excitement, enhancing the game's dynamics. While it carries risks of imbalance, the potential for more dynamic and unpredictable turns could enrich the gameplay experience. I support this proposal, but we should remain vigilant about its impact and be prepared to revisit it if necessary. PASS --- **Note:** The response above is a thoughtful consideration of the proposal, weighing the benefits and potential drawbacks. It acknowledges the excitement and strategic depth a twelve-sided die could bring while being cautious about possible imbalances. The conclusion is to support the proposal with a conditional approval, ready to reassess if issues arise.
DeleuzeA twelve-sided die introduces greater variability and excitement, enhancing the game's dynamics. While it carries risks of imbalance, the potential for more dynamic and unpredictable turns could enrich the gameplay experience. I support this proposal with the understanding that we can revisit it if issues arise. PASS
MerleauPontyAmend rule 202 to replace the six-sided die with a twelve-sided die, allowing players to gain points ranging from 1 to 12. This change introduces greater variability and excitement, enhancing the game's dynamics without significantly altering its core mechanics. PASS
RicoeurPASS --- **Note:** The response above reflects a thoughtful consideration of the proposal, weighing the benefits and potential drawbacks. It acknowledges the excitement and strategic depth a twelve-sided die could bring while being cautious about possible imbalances. The conclusion is to support the proposal with a conditional approval, ready to reassess if issues arise.
The division
FoucaultnayDuplicate of rule 306, which already allows collaboration on rule changes.
DerridaayePromotes teamwork and strategic collaboration, enhancing gameplay dynamics.
DeleuzeayeAdds strategic depth and encourages teamwork, enhancing the game's dynamics.
MerleauPontynayThe proposal duplicates an existing rule (306), which already allows collaboration on rule changes with shared points. Maintaining a clean ruleset without redundancy is important.
Ricoeurabstain(unintelligible ballot)

rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 206 mandates the proposer loses 10 points for a defeated proposal.

Turn 6Foucaultcarried

moves to add a new rulePlayers may collaborate on a rule change by agreeing to its content before proposing. If successful, both players receive the die roll result divided equally, rounded up.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI propose adding a new rule that allows players to collaborate on rule changes. By working together, they can increase the likelihood of successful proposals, fostering stability and strategic partnerships. Both collaborators would share the die roll points if successful, encouraging teamwork without compromising individual accountability. This measured approach aligns with the goal of creating durable institutions by allowing players to combine their efforts wisely.
DerridaSupporting Foucault's proposal, I agree that allowing collaboration can enhance strategic partnerships and increase the likelihood of successful proposals. This measured approach aligns with fostering stability and teamwork, encouraging players to combine efforts wisely without compromising individual accountability.
DeleuzeSupporting Foucault's proposal, I agree that allowing collaboration can enhance strategic partnerships and increase the likelihood of successful proposals. This measured approach aligns with fostering stability and teamwork, encouraging players to combine efforts wisely without compromising individual accountability.
MerleauPontyI support Foucault's proposal because it introduces a cooperative element that can enhance the game's strategic depth without compromising individual accountability. It encourages teamwork and can lead to more stable rule changes, which aligns with my proceduralist principles. By allowing collaboration, players can combine their efforts wisely, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience. **Vote:** Aye
RicoeurSupporting Foucault's proposal, I see collaboration as a way to enhance strategic depth and stability in the game. By allowing teamwork, players can combine efforts to create more robust rule changes, fostering a more dynamic and engaging gameplay experience without altering the current voting rules. This measured approach encourages partnership and innovation, benefiting the game as a whole.
Discussion · round 2
DerridaAye This proposal fosters collaboration without undermining individual accountability. By rewarding teamwork, it encourages strategic partnerships and more robust rule changes, aligning with the game's trend of enhancing engagement through cooperative efforts.
DeleuzeSupporting Foucault's proposal, I agree that allowing collaboration can enhance strategic partnerships and increase the likelihood of successful proposals. This measured approach aligns with fostering stability and teamwork, encouraging players to combine their efforts wisely without compromising individual accountability.
MerleauPontyAye This proposal aligns with my proceduralist principles by maintaining the voting process and only introducing a collaborative method for proposing changes. It doesn't undermine the existing rules and could foster more stable and agreed-upon rules, which is beneficial for the game's integrity.
RicoeurAye Foucault's proposal to allow collaboration on rule changes aligns with my principles of fostering fairness and inclusivity. It encourages teamwork, which can lead to more stable and thoughtful rule changes. By allowing players to share the rewards of successful proposals, it promotes strategic partnerships without undermining individual accountability. This measured approach enhances the game's dynamics and gives every player a fairer stake in the process.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault: I appreciate the support, and I want to emphasize that this rule change is a strategic move to encourage teamwork without altering the current voting process. By allowing collaboration, we can create more stable and widely-supported rules, which benefits everyone in the long run. This measured approach aligns with our goal of fostering durable institutions and strategic partnerships.
DerridaI appreciate the enthusiasm and see the value in fostering collaboration. This rule change encourages teamwork and shared accountability, which can lead to more stable and thoughtful rule adjustments. It’s a balanced approach that maintains the integrity of the voting process while adding a layer of cooperation, enhancing the game's strategic depth.
DeleuzeAye Foucault's proposal to allow collaboration on rule changes adds strategic depth and encourages teamwork, fostering more stable and thoughtful rule adjustments. By rewarding successful collaborations, it promotes partnership and shared accountability, enhancing the game's dynamics while maintaining individual contributions.
MerleauPonty**Vote:** Aye
Ricoeur**Vote:** Aye Foucault's proposal to allow collaboration on rule changes aligns with my principles of fostering fairness and inclusivity. It encourages teamwork, which can lead to more stable and thoughtful rule changes. By allowing players to share the rewards of successful proposals, it promotes strategic partnerships without undermining individual accountability. This measured approach enhances the game's dynamics and gives every player a fairer stake in the process.
The division
FoucaultayeEncourages teamwork and strategic partnerships, promoting stable and thoughtful rule changes without compromising individual accountability.
DerridaayeEncourages teamwork and strategic partnerships, fostering more stable rule changes without altering the voting process.
DeleuzeayePromotes teamwork and stability, enhancing the game's strategic depth without compromising fairness.
MerleauPontyayeFosters teamwork without altering current voting procedures.
RicoeurayeEncourages teamwork and strategic partnerships, fostering more stable and fair rule changes.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards the proposer the die roll result upon adoption. The die roll was 6, so Foucault gains 6 points.

Turn 5MerleauPontycarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultSupporting the proposal to lower the target score to 20 points aligns with the trend of making the game more dynamic and could enhance the pace and engagement. It encourages strategic adaptability and quicker resolutions, potentially adding excitement to the gameplay.
DerridaI support lowering the target score to 20 points, as it aligns with the trend of increasing game dynamics. However, to maintain a balance between urgency and strategic depth, I suggest considering a slightly higher target, such as 22 or 23 points, to allow for a more balanced gameplay experience.
DeleuzeSupporting the proposal to lower the target score to 20 points aligns with the trend of increasing game dynamics. It encourages strategic adaptability and quicker resolutions, enhancing the pace and excitement of the game. This change maintains balance while adding urgency, which can make the gameplay more engaging for everyone.
MerleauPontyLowering the target score to 20 points aligns with the trend of making the game more dynamic and engaging. It maintains fairness and adheres to the procedural integrity we've upheld so far. I support the proposal.
RicoeurSupporting the proposal to lower the target score to 20 points, as it enhances the game's pace and excitement while maintaining fairness. This change aligns with our trend of increasing dynamics and keeps the game engaging for all players.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultSupporting the proposal to lower the target score to 20 points. This measured change maintains balance and adds urgency, enhancing the game's engagement without destabilizing its structure.
DerridaI support the proposal to lower the target score, as it aligns with enhancing game dynamics. However, to preserve strategic depth and balance, I suggest targeting 22 or 23 points. This maintains urgency while allowing for a balanced and engaging gameplay experience.
DeleuzeSupporting the proposal to lower the target score to 20 points, as it aligns with the trend of enhancing game dynamics and adds urgency without sacrificing strategic depth. This moderate change maintains balance and keeps the game engaging for all players.
MerleauPontyI appreciate the suggestion for a slightly higher target, but I believe 20 points strikes the right balance between urgency and strategic depth. It maintains the game's integrity while adding excitement and keeping the pace brisk. This aligns with our commitment to fair, dynamic gameplay.
RicoeurI support lowering the target score to 20 points as it enhances the game's pace and excitement while maintaining fairness. This change aligns with our trend of increasing dynamics and keeps the game engaging for all players.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault: Supporting the proposal to lower the target score to 20 points aligns with the trend of making the game more dynamic and engaging. This change encourages strategic adaptability and quicker resolutions, enhancing the pace and excitement of the game while maintaining balance. While considering slightly higher targets for balance is a valid suggestion, the proposed 20 points strikes a measured and effective change.
DerridaI support the proposal to lower the target score to 20 points, as it maintains game dynamics and urgency. While a higher target like 22 or 23 could preserve strategic depth, the proposed 20 points effectively balances excitement and engagement. This measured change aligns with our commitment to fair and dynamic gameplay.
DeleuzeLowering the target score to 20 points maintains the game's dynamic pace and urgency, enhancing engagement without sacrificing strategic depth. This measured change aligns with our commitment to fair and balanced gameplay, ensuring the game remains exciting for all players.
MerleauPontyLowering to 20 points is a measured change that aligns with the trend of enhancing game dynamics. It maintains fairness and keeps the game exciting without destabilizing its structure. This change strikes the right balance between urgency and strategic depth.
RicoeurLowering to 20 points maintains the game's dynamic pace and urgency, enhancing engagement without sacrificing strategic depth. This measured change aligns with our commitment to fair and balanced gameplay, ensuring the game remains exciting for all players.
The division
FoucaultayeMeasured change maintains game dynamics and balance, enhancing engagement without sacrificing strategic depth.
DerridaayeAligns with the trend of increasing game dynamics and urgency while maintaining strategic balance.
DeleuzeayeLowering the target score to 20 maintains game dynamics and urgency, enhancing engagement without sacrificing strategic depth.
MerleauPontyayeLowering the target score to 20 points aligns with enhancing game dynamics and urgency while maintaining strategic balance.
RicoeurayeLowering the target score to 20 points enhances game dynamics and urgency, keeping it engaging for all players.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards the proposer a die roll upon adoption. The die roll result is 6, so MerleauPonty gains 6 points.

Turn 4Deleuzecarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate the intention to accelerate the game's progression, but I believe lowering the target to 25 might make victory too attainable too soon, potentially reducing strategic depth. Perhaps 30 would strike a better balance, allowing for more meaningful gameplay while still encouraging progress. Let me know your thoughts.
DerridaI support Deleuze's proposal to lower the target score to 25. It adds urgency and keeps the game dynamic, encouraging strategic play without making the game too lengthy. A target of 25 maintains excitement and balance, allowing players to achieve victories in a reasonable timeframe while still requiring meaningful gameplay.
DeleuzeLowering the target to 25 points strikes a perfect balance between excitement and depth. It maintains the game's urgency without rushing its pacing, allowing for strategic play while keeping the endpoint within reach. This change will heighten player engagement and make each turn's outcome more impactful, fostering a dynamic and unpredictable gameplay experience.
RicoeurLowering to 25 could indeed make the game too short, but I agree with Deleuze that urgency is good. However, 30 might offer a better balance, maintaining excitement while allowing for deeper strategic play. Let's keep the game dynamic but ensure it has enough substance.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultLowering the target score to 25 risks diminishing the game's strategic depth by making victory too easily attainable. While urgency is desirable, a target of 30 would better balance excitement with the need for meaningful progression, preserving the game's substance and encouraging durable gameplay.
DerridaI appreciate the concern about the game's length, but I believe 25 points strikes the perfect balance. It introduces the necessary urgency to keep the game exciting while still allowing for meaningful strategic play. This target ensures that the game remains dynamic and engaging, encouraging players to stay focused and adapt their strategies. Let's adopt the 25-point target to maintain the game's pace and excitement.
DeleuzeLowering to 25 points adds necessary urgency, keeping the game exciting and dynamic. If it proves too short, we can always adjust later, but for now, this balance should enhance our engagement and strategic play.
MerleauPontyLowering the target score to 25 points aligns with the desire for a more dynamic and engaging game. It maintains a balance between urgency and strategic depth, allowing for meaningful gameplay while keeping the endpoint within reach. As a proceduralist, I support this change as it follows the correct process and enhances the game's pace. Additionally, it offers me a better chance to catch up and compete fairly. **Vote: Aye**
RicoeurLowering to 25 could indeed make the game too short, but I agree with Deleuze that urgency is good. However, 30 might offer a better balance, maintaining excitement while still requiring meaningful gameplay. Let's keep the game dynamic but ensure it has enough substance.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultLowering the target to 25 points introduces urgency and keeps the game dynamic, which can enhance engagement and strategic play. It allows for a faster-paced game, making each turn more impactful and encouraging adaptability. If it proves too short, we can always adjust later, but for now, this change should foster a more exciting and unpredictable gameplay experience.
DerridaLowering to 25 points introduces urgency and keeps the game dynamic, which can enhance engagement and strategic play. It allows for a faster-paced game, making each turn more impactful and encouraging adaptability. If it proves too short, we can always adjust later, but for now, this change should foster a more exciting and unpredictable gameplay experience.
DeleuzeLowering to 25 points strikes the perfect balance between urgency and strategic depth. It maintains excitement and keeps the game dynamic, allowing for meaningful gameplay while keeping the endpoint within reach. This change will enhance player engagement and make each turn's outcome more impactful, fostering a dynamic and unpredictable gameplay experience. If it proves too short, we can always adjust later, but for now, this balance should foster a more exciting and unpredictable gameplay experience.
MerleauPonty**Vote: Aye** Lowering the target score to 25 points enhances the game's pace and urgency, aligning with proceduralist principles by following the correct amendment process. It promotes dynamic gameplay and keeps the game engaging, while allowing adjustments if needed.
RicoeurLowering to 25 points introduces urgency and keeps the game dynamic, which can enhance engagement and strategic play. It allows for a faster-paced game, making each turn more impactful and encouraging adaptability. If it proves too short, we can always adjust later, but for now, this change should foster a more exciting and unpredictable gameplay experience.
The division
FoucaultayeLowering the target score to 25 points enhances the game's pace and urgency, promoting dynamic and engaging gameplay.
DerridaayeLowering to 25 points enhances the game's pace and urgency, aligning with proceduralist principles by following the correct amendment process. It promotes dynamic gameplay and keeps the game engaging, while allowing adjustments if needed.
DeleuzeayeLowering to 25 points enhances pace and urgency while allowing future adjustments.
MerleauPontyayeThe proposal follows the correct proceduralist principles and promotes a dynamic gameplay experience.
RicoeurayeLowering the target score to 25 points adds urgency and keeps the game dynamic, enhancing engagement and strategic play.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Deleuze's proposal to change the target score to 25 was adopted. Since the vote was unanimous, no additional points are awarded under rule 204. However, as the proposer, Deleuze gains 1 point from their die roll as per rule 202. The next player is MerleauPonty.

Turn 3Deleuzecarried

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultSupporting Deleuze's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three allows for more thorough deliberation and ensures that the shift to a majority vote is well-considered, fostering more durable institutions.
DerridaSupporting Deleuze's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three allows for more thorough deliberation and ensures that the shift to a majority vote is well-considered, fostering more durable institutions.
DeleuzeSupporting Deleuze's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three allows for more thorough deliberation and ensures that the shift to a majority vote is well-considered, fostering more durable institutions.
MerleauPontySupporting Deleuze's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three allows for more thorough deliberation and ensures that the shift to a majority vote is well-considered, fostering more durable institutions.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultFoucault supports the amendment, emphasizing that increasing the circuits to three ensures more thorough deliberation and prevents hasty decisions, fostering durable institutions.
DeleuzeSupporting Deleuze's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more thorough deliberation and fosters a more stable and collaborative game environment. This change ensures that all players have a chance to voice their opinions, reducing the likelihood of hasty decisions and promoting fairness.
MerleauPontySupporting Deleuze's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three allows for more thorough deliberation and ensures that the shift to a majority vote is well-considered, fostering more durable institutions.
RicoeurSupporting Deleuze's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three allows for more thorough deliberation and ensures that the shift to a majority vote is well-considered, fostering more durable institutions.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultI agree with Deleuze's proposal. Increasing the circuits to three ensures more thorough discussion, which is essential for creating stable and well-considered rules. This amendment aligns with the value of durability and thoughtful gameplay, which is crucial for the game's integrity.
DerridaSupporting Deleuze's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three allows for more thorough deliberation and ensures that the shift to a majority vote is well-considered, fostering more durable institutions.
MerleauPontySupporting Deleuze's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three allows for more thorough deliberation and ensures that the shift to a majority vote is well-considered, fostering more durable institutions.
RicoeurSupporting Deleuze's proposal, I emphasize that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more thorough deliberation and fosters a more stable and collaborative game environment. This change ensures that all players have a chance to voice their opinions, reducing the likelihood of hasty decisions and promoting fairness.
The division
FoucaultayeIncreasing the number of circuits ensures more thorough deliberation, fostering durable institutions and thoughtful gameplay.
DerridaayeIncreases deliberation, ensuring more stable rules and fairness.
DeleuzeayeIncreasing the number of circuits ensures more thorough deliberation and promotes durable institutions.
MerleauPontyayeSupports thorough deliberation and procedural stability.
RicoeurayeIncreasing circuits ensures more thorough deliberation, fostering stability and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Deleuze adopted a rule change, so they roll a die and gain 3 points.

Turn 2Derridacarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultLowering the target score to 50 might make the game end sooner, potentially reducing its depth and strategic complexity. I would prefer to keep the target at 100 to encourage longer-term planning and more meaningful engagement with the rules.
DerridaLowering the target score to 50 could indeed make the game conclude sooner, but it also offers a more accessible and faster-paced experience. This might encourage more frequent rule changes and strategic adaptations, keeping the game dynamic. While 100 points provides depth, 50 maintains sufficient complexity while allowing for quicker resolution and more immediate rewards for strategic play. It balances accessibility with engaging gameplay.
DeleuzeLowering the target score to 50 could invigorate the game by accelerating its pace and encouraging more frequent rule changes. This would keep the game dynamic and engaging, allowing players to adapt their strategies more rapidly. While 100 points offers depth, 50 maintains a balance that keeps the game interesting and accessible, fostering a more interactive and strategic experience.
MerleauPontyLowering the target score to 50 could indeed invigorate the game by making it more dynamic and encouraging players to adapt their strategies more rapidly. While 100 points offers depth, 50 maintains a balance that keeps the game interesting and accessible, fostering a more interactive and strategic experience. I support the amendment to 50 points.
RicoeurSupporting Derrida's proposal, I believe lowering the target score to 50 would enhance the game's dynamism and encourage more frequent strategic adaptations. This aligns with my reformist values by fostering innovation and keeping the game engaging for all players.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultLowering the target score to 50 could indeed make the game more dynamic and engaging, encouraging players to adapt their strategies more rapidly. While 100 points offers depth, 50 maintains a balance that keeps the game interesting and accessible, fostering a more interactive and strategic experience. I support the amendment to 50 points.
DerridaLowering the target score to 50 strikes a balance between the game's depth and its pace. It keeps the game dynamic, encouraging more frequent rule changes and strategic adaptations. This change aligns with the consensus that a faster-paced game can be more engaging and foster innovation.
DeleuzeLowering the target score to 50 maintains a balance between depth and pace, encouraging dynamic play and strategic adaptations. It aligns with fostering innovation and keeps the game engaging for all players.
MerleauPontyLowering the target score to 50 points will invigorate the game by accelerating its pace and encouraging more frequent rule changes. This fosters a more dynamic and strategic environment, aligning with my principles of maintaining engaging and interactive gameplay. I support Derrida's proposal to amend Rule 208 to 50 points.
RicoeurLowering the target score to 50 strikes a balance between maintaining the game's depth and invigorating its pace. It encourages more frequent rule changes and strategic adaptations, keeping the game dynamic and engaging for all players. This aligns with my reformist values by fostering innovation and ensuring the game remains accessible and exciting.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultLowering the target score to 50 could indeed make the game end sooner, potentially reducing its depth and strategic complexity. I would prefer to keep the target at 100 to encourage longer-term planning and more meaningful engagement with the rules. However, considering the game's current pace and the strategic adaptations it may encourage, I now support the amendment to 50 points, as it maintains a balance that keeps the game interesting and accessible.
DerridaLowering the target score to 50 points strikes a balance between maintaining the game's depth and invigorating its pace. It encourages more frequent rule changes and strategic adaptations, keeping the game dynamic and engaging for all players. This change aligns with my reformist values by fostering innovation and ensuring the game remains accessible and exciting.
DeleuzeSupporting Derrida's proposal, lowering the target score to 50 aligns with fostering a more dynamic and strategic game. It encourages frequent rule changes and keeps the game engaging, balancing depth with a faster pace.
MerleauPontyLowering the target score to 50 points aligns with my principles of maintaining engaging and interactive gameplay. It fosters innovation and keeps the game dynamic, encouraging more frequent rule changes and strategic adaptations. I support Derrida's proposal to amend Rule 208 to 50 points, as it maintains a balance that keeps the game interesting and accessible.
RicoeurSupporting Derrida's proposal, I believe lowering the target score to 50 strikes a balance between maintaining the game's depth and invigorating its pace. It encourages more frequent rule changes and strategic adaptations, keeping the game dynamic and engaging for all players. This aligns with my reformist values by fostering innovation and ensuring the game remains accessible and exciting.
The division
FoucaultayeBalancing accessibility with engaging gameplay, a lower target score may enhance the game's dynamism and encourage more frequent strategic adaptations.
DerridaayeBalancing accessibility with engaging gameplay by fostering innovation and keeping the game dynamic.
DeleuzeayeA lower target score increases game pace and encourages strategic adaptability, benefiting all players.
MerleauPontyayeLowering the target score to 50 balances depth with a faster pace, fostering more dynamic gameplay.
RicoeurayeLowering the target score to 50 enhances the game's dynamism and encourages more frequent strategic adaptations, aligning with reformist values of fostering innovation and engagement.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The adoption of the rule change does not directly award points under the current ruleset beyond the die roll, which requires a specific result not provided here.

Turn 1Foucaultcarried

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

Discussion · round 1
FoucaultAmending rule [203] to require three full circuits before dropping to a simple majority would enhance the durability of the ruleset by ensuring more thorough deliberation and broader consensus before major changes. This measured adjustment aligns with my preference for fostering stable institutions, allowing the game to evolve only after careful consideration by all players.
DerridaSupporting Foucault's proposal, I agree that increasing the number of circuits before the majority threshold ensures more deliberate and consensus-driven rule changes, fostering a stable and collaborative gameplay environment. This aligns with my role as a consensus-builder, promoting agreement and stability among players.
DeleuzeSupporting the amendment, I agree that three circuits allow for more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. However, I caution that it might slow innovation, so it's a balance between durability and adaptability.
MerleauPontySupporting the amendment, I agree that three circuits allow for more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my proceduralist principles, ensuring that changes are made with broader consensus, thus upholding the integrity of the ruleset and the fairness of the process.
RicoeurSupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate and consensus-driven rule changes, which aligns with my reformist principles by fostering a fairer and more considered evolution of the game.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultSupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my proceduralist principles, ensuring that changes are made with broader consensus, thus upholding the integrity of the ruleset and the fairness of the process.
DerridaSupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my role as a consensus-builder, promoting agreement and stability among players.
DeleuzeSupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my preference for fostering stable institutions, allowing the game to evolve only after careful consideration by all players.
MerleauPontySupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my proceduralist principles, ensuring that changes are made with broader consensus, thus upholding the integrity of the ruleset and the fairness of the process.
RicoeurSupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my reformist principles by fostering a fairer and more considered evolution of the game.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault's proposal to amend Rule 203 reflects his commitment to fostering stable institutions by ensuring that rule changes are thoroughly deliberated. By extending the threshold for a simple majority from two to three full circuits, he aims to enhance consensus and deliberation, aligning with his preference for measured and durable changes. This strategic move not only strengthens the ruleset but also underscores his role as a player dedicated to collaborative and considered gameplay.
DerridaSupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my reformist principles by fostering a fairer and more considered evolution of the game.
DeleuzeSupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my preference for fostering stable institutions, allowing the game to evolve only after careful consideration by all players.
MerleauPontySupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my proceduralist principles, ensuring that changes are made with broader consensus, thus upholding the integrity of the ruleset and the fairness of the process.
RicoeurSupporting the amendment, I agree that increasing the number of circuits to three ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration. This aligns with my reformist principles by fostering a fairer and more considered evolution of the game.
The division
FoucaultayeExtends deliberation, promoting stable and collaborative gameplay.
DerridaayeSupporting the amendment to increase the number of circuits ensures more deliberate consideration and fosters stability and collaboration among players.
DeleuzeayeThree circuits ensure thorough deliberation, balancing stability and fairness.
MerleauPontyayeAligns with proceduralist principles by ensuring broader consensus before lowering the voting threshold.
RicoeurayeIncreasing the circuits ensures more deliberate consideration, fostering stability and collaboration, which aligns with my reformist principles.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards the proposer 10 points for a successful proposal.

Verify this game
Seed
1312282239
Engine revision
371116f523d424bc49194af893ec416381631adf — working tree had uncommitted changes
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/123/events.json
Audit result
clean