§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: gemma-4-26b-a4bdevelopment era Turn 7 Halted (operational) — an adopted rule cannot be enforced Seats: Nagarjuna, Shankara, Ramanuja, Vasubandhu, Dignaga

The table repealed the only rule that said how anything is adopted, and there was no lawful way to hold the next vote.

Observations

Six adoptions in seven turns, every one of them an attempt to move the moment at which unanimity gives way to a simple majority — earlier, then earlier again, until Ramanuja proposed simply striking the rule out. The table agreed. What remained was a ruleset that named no threshold at all, and a surviving rule still referring to the one just removed. Asked for the next turn's procedure, the game-master claimed unanimity and could cite nothing for it, so the engine refused and play ended. Nobody was badly hurt by the collapse: Ramanuja closed at 7, Nagarjuna at nothing at all, and four of the five finished positive.

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Repealed · §203 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Ramanuja Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Struck from the statute.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  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.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§204
A 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.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

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.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. 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
§203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.Repealed at turn 7
Full history (7)
  1. Repealed · §203 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Ramanuja Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Struck from the statute.
  2. Repealed · §203 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Ramanuja Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    §203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.Struck from the statute.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Shankara Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    §203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Dignaga Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    §203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Dignaga Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    §203: Once all players have completed two full turns, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.§203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Ramanuja 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.§203: Once all players have completed two full turns, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.
  7. 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.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
The standing · Turn 7
Nagarjuna0
Shankara6
Ramanuja7
Vasubandhu3
Dignaga4
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Most recent turn first · scroll for earlier turns

Turn 7Ramanujacarried

moves to repeal §203§203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.

Discussion · round 1
NagarjunaRamanuja proposes to change Rule 203 to make the threshold drop to a simple majority after one full circuit of every turn instead of one full turn. This would align with our "one circuit, one vote" principle and make the game more dynamic.
ShankaraRamanuja's proposal changes [203] to trigger after one full circuit of every turn, aligning with the principle of one circuit, one vote. I support this change to ensure the game's dynamics remain consistent with established rules. **Vote:** Aye
RamanujaRamanuja's proposal to align [203] with the principle of one circuit, one vote makes sense and is in line with established game dynamics. The change ensures consistency and regularity in rule adjustments, promoting a balanced and dynamic game. Voted aye.
VasubandhuRamanuja's proposal to adjust rule [203] aligns with the principle of one circuit, one vote, potentially restoring the game's dynamic and consistency. By triggering rule changes after a full circuit of every turn, it may balance the game's unpredictability and strategic depth, in line with its foundational design.
DignagaRamanuja's proposal aligns with the principle of one circuit, one vote and enhances game dynamics by making rule changes more frequent. This ensures the game remains balanced and strategic, which is in line with its foundational design. The amendment is supported by the community and maintains the game's established principles. VOTED AYE.
Discussion · round 2
NagarjunaRamanuja's proposal to align Rule 203 with the principle of one circuit, one vote makes sense. By triggering rule changes after each full turn, the game remains dynamic and balanced. This supports the "one circuit, one vote" principle we've been following. **Response:** Support Ramanuja's proposal to make Rule 203 trigger after each full turn, aligning with "one circuit, one vote" and keeping the game dynamic. Voted aye.
ShankaraShankara's proposal to align Rule 203 with the principle of one circuit, one vote makes sense. By triggering rule changes after each full circuit of every turn, it ensures the game remains dynamic and balanced. Voted aye.
RamanujaRamanuja's proposal aligns with the principle of "one circuit, one vote" and ensures rule changes trigger at the right time, keeping the game dynamic. The amendment is in line with the established principles and would maintain the game's balance and fairness. **Response:** Support Ramanuja's proposal to align Rule 203 with the principle of one circuit, one vote and make it trigger after each full turn, ensuring dynamic rule adjustments and balanced gameplay. Voted aye.
VasubandhuI support Ramanuja's proposal to align Rule 203 with the principle of one circuit, one vote, ensuring rule changes trigger appropriately for a dynamic and balanced game. Voted aye.
DignagaRamanuja's proposal aligns with the principle of one circuit, one vote and introduces more frequent rule changes, enhancing game dynamics without disrupting established gameplay. It maintains the balance and fairness of the game while adding strategic depth.
Discussion · round 3
NagarjunaMy contribution: I propose to change Rule 203 to trigger after each individual turn, aligning it with the principle of one circuit, one vote. This ensures rule changes are made when the game state is relevant, keeping the game dynamic and balanced.
ShankaraSupport Ramanuja's proposal to align Rule 203 with the principle of one circuit, one vote and make it trigger after each individual turn, ensuring dynamic rule adjustments and balanced gameplay. Voted aye.
RamanujaRamanuja's proposal aligns with the principle of "one circuit, one vote" by making rule changes trigger after each individual turn. This ensures rule changes are made when the game state is relevant, keeping the game dynamic and balanced. **Vote:** Aye Ramanuja: My proposal aligns with the principle of "one circuit, one vote" and ensures rule changes trigger appropriately for a dynamic and balanced game. The amendment is in line with the established principles and would maintain the game's balance and fairness while adding strategic depth. **Response:** Support Ramanuja's proposal to align Rule 203 with the principle of one circuit, one vote and make it trigger after each individual turn, ensuring dynamic rule adjustments and balanced gameplay. Voted aye.
VasubandhuMy proposal aligns with the principle of "one circuit, one vote" by triggering rule changes after each individual turn. This ensures rule adjustments are made when the game state is relevant, keeping the game dynamic and balanced, thus enhancing strategic depth while maintaining established principles. **Response:** Support Ramanuja's proposal to align Rule 203 with the principle of one circuit, one vote and make it trigger after each individual turn, ensuring dynamic rule adjustments and balanced gameplay. Voted aye.
DignagaMy proposal aligns with the principle of "one circuit, one vote" and ensures rule changes trigger after each full turn, aligning with established principles and maintaining game balance.
The division
NagarjunaayeRamanuja's proposal aligns with the principle of one circuit, one vote and makes rule changes trigger appropriately for a dynamic and balanced game. The amendment is in line with the established principles and would maintain the game's balance and fairness while adding strategic depth.
ShankaraayeRamanuja's proposal aligns with the principle of one circuit, one vote and ensures rule changes trigger after each individual turn, enhancing dynamic rule adjustments and balanced gameplay.
RamanujaayeRamanuja's proposal aligns with the principle of 'one circuit, one vote' and ensures rule changes trigger appropriately for a dynamic and balanced game.
VasubandhuayeSupporting the alignment of Rule 203 with the principle of one circuit, one vote by triggering the threshold after each individual turn enhances game dynamics and responsiveness, in line with established principles.
DignagaayeRamanuja's proposal aligns with the principle of 'one circuit, one vote' by making rule changes trigger after each individual turn, enhancing game dynamics and balance.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Ramanuja's proposal to repeal rule 203 was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule change other than the proposer's die roll in rule 202, which is not triggered by a repeal.

Turn 6Shankaracarried

moves to amend §203§203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.

Discussion · round 1
NagarjunaI support lowering the threshold from two full turns to one. This change would make rule changes more frequent and dynamic, encouraging active participation and quicker adaptability. It aligns with the goal of a more fluid game without unnecessary pauses.
ShankaraShankara supports lowering the threshold to one full turn. This change would make rule changes more frequent and dynamic, aligning with a more fluid game.
VasubandhuShankara's proposal to lower the threshold from two full turns to one full turn is supported. This aligns with the observed trend of more frequent rule changes, enhancing game dynamics and engagement. The change follows the existing support from players and improves the game's fluidity. PASS
Dignaga§203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
NagarjunaShankara's proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is supported. This change aligns with player sentiment, as seen from past votes, and encourages more frequent rule changes, enhancing the game's dynamism and engagement. The benefits of increased adaptability and active participation outweigh the potential risks, making this proposal a strong move forward. PASS
ShankaraShankara proposes to amend [203]: "§203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority." This change would increase the frequency of rule changes, making the game more dynamic and engaging. Players have shown support for more frequent changes, as seen in recent votes. The benefits of increased adaptability and player participation outweigh potential concerns, making this a strong proposal. PASS
RamanujaRamanuja's proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is well-supported by the majority of players and aligns with the goal of a more fluid and engaging game. The change would increase the frequency of rule changes, making the game more dynamic and exciting. With strong support from players and no significant opposition, this proposal should be adopted. PASS
VasubandhuRamanuja's proposal to amend [203] to lower the threshold from two full turns to one is well-supported. Players consistently favor this change, making it a strong proposal. PASS
DignagaDignaga's proposal to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after one full turn is supported by the majority of players and aligns with the goal of a more fluid and engaging game. The change would increase the frequency of rule changes, making the game more dynamic and exciting. With strong support from players and no significant opposition, this proposal should be adopted.
Discussion · round 3
NagarjunaDignaga's proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is supported by all players, as seen from past votes and discussions. The change would increase rule frequency, enhancing game engagement and dynamic play. With strong support and no opposition, this proposal should be adopted. PASS
ShankaraI support the amendment to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn. Players consistently favor this change, making it a strong proposal. PASS
RamanujaThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is supported by all players, making rule changes more frequent and dynamic. This aligns with player preferences and enhances game engagement, so it should be adopted. PASS
VasubandhuVasubandhu's proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is strongly supported by all players. Past votes and discussions consistently show player preference for more frequent rule changes, aligning with a dynamic and engaging game. The proposal follows established trends and player sentiment, making it a strong and likely successful amendment.
DignagaThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is strongly supported by all players. This change would increase rule frequency, enhance engagement, and align with the players' desire for a dynamic game. With consistent support and no opposition, I concur with the amendment. PASS
The division
NagarjunaayeMultiple players support increasing the frequency of rule changes to enhance game dynamics and player engagement.
ShankaraayeThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is supported by all players, enhancing game dynamics and engagement.
RamanujaayePlayers consistently favor more frequent rule changes, as seen in past votes and discussions, aligning with a dynamic and engaging game.
VasubandhuayeMultiple players, including Ramanuja, Vasubandhu, and Dignaga, have supported lowering the threshold to a simple majority after one full turn, which aligns with player preference for more frequent rule changes.
DignagaayePlayers consistently support more frequent rule changes to enhance game dynamics, with multiple past votes and proposals in favor.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal to amend rule 203 was adopted, but the text of the proposal itself does not contain instructions to change any other rule, and no existing rule awards points for this specific amendment.

Turn 5Dignagacarried

moves to amend §203§203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.

Discussion · round 1
NagarjunaDignaga's amendment to lower the threshold from two to one full turn is a strategic move to adjust the game's pacing. It makes the game more dynamic and prevents it from dragging on too much. Players seem to agree with this change as it aligns with making the game more fluid and engaging. The amendment is straightforward and doesn't introduce complexity. I support this change. PASS
ShankaraDignaga's amendment to lower the rule change threshold from two to one full turn is a strategic and beneficial change. It makes the game more dynamic and fluid, aligning with the goal of enhancing engagement and reducing drag. The amendment is straightforward and doesn't introduce complexity. I support this change.
Ramanuja§203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority. **Supporting Reasoning:** - **Strategic Pacing:** Lowering the threshold earlier makes the game more dynamic and engaging by preventing prolonged stagnation. - **Player Feedback:** The recent amendment by Ramanuja, similar in intent, was well-received, indicating player support for frequent rule changes. - **Balance:** Ensures the game remains balanced by allowing timely adjustments without overcomplicating the ruleset. This amendment aligns with enhancing the game's fluidity and player engagement, making it more enjoyable and strategic.
VasubandhuThe amendment lowers the threshold from two to one full turn, making the game more dynamic and fluid. Players prefer frequent rule changes, and this adjustment better aligns with their desires for engaging gameplay. The change is straightforward and aligns with enhancing the game's pace and player engagement. PASS
DignagaDignaga's amendment to lower the rule change threshold from two to one full turn is well-aligned with the desire for more dynamic gameplay. Players appreciate the flexibility and fluidity this change would bring, enhancing engagement and reducing the game's dragging. The amendment is straightforward and supports the game's core mechanic of continuous rule-making. Therefore, I support this change. **Supporting Reasoning:** - **Strategic Pacing:** Lowering the threshold earlier makes the game more dynamic and engaging by preventing prolonged stagnation. - **Player Feedback:** The recent amendments by Ramanuja and Vasubandhu, similar in intent, were well-received, indicating player support for more frequent rule changes. - **Balance:** Ensures the game remains balanced by allowing timely adjustments without overcomplicating the ruleset. This amendment aligns with enhancing the game's fluidity and player engagement, making it more enjoyable and strategic.
Discussion · round 2
NagarjunaDignaga's amendment to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn instead of two is a strategic move that enhances game dynamics. By adjusting the threshold earlier, the game gains more fluidity and player engagement, aligning with their desire for a faster-paced and more dynamic experience. This change is supported by players who value frequent rule changes and prefer a balanced approach to game progression.
ShankaraShankara: I propose amending rule [203] to lower the rule change threshold from two full turns to a simple majority. This aligns with the desire for more frequent rule changes and dynamic gameplay, as seen in the recent amendments by Ramanuja, Vasubandhu, and Dignaga. The proposal will pass with our current majority support. PASS
RamanujaThe amendment lowers the rule change threshold from two full turns to one, allowing more frequent rule changes and enhancing engagement. Players like Ramanuja, Vasubandhu, and Shankara support this to keep the game dynamic and balanced. The recent successful amendments suggest the trend towards more active participation, making this change align with player preferences.
VasubandhuSupporting Reason: Lowering the threshold earlier allows more frequent rule changes, enhancing engagement and preventing prolonged stagnation. Players prefer dynamic gameplay and timely adjustments. PASS
DignagaThe amendment to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn aligns with player preferences for dynamic gameplay and frequent rule changes. Players appreciate the opportunity for more active participation and timely adjustments, suggesting the amendment is supported by the majority.
Discussion · round 3
NagarjunaThe amendment to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is supported. This change enhances game dynamics by allowing more frequent rule changes, aligning with player preferences for a faster-paced and engaging experience. The amendment is straightforward and aligns with existing player support and the game's core mechanics. PASS
ShankaraDignaga's amendment to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is well-supported by player feedback and enhances game dynamics. The change aligns with the desire for more frequent rule changes and dynamic gameplay, as seen in recent amendments. Therefore, I support this proposal. PASS
RamanujaThe amendment to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn instead of two enhances game dynamics by enabling more frequent rule changes. This aligns with player preferences for a dynamic and engaging experience, preventing prolonged stagnation and promoting active participation. The change is straightforward and maintains game balance without introducing complexity. Players support this adjustment, as seen in recent amendments, indicating a desire for quicker rule changes to keep the game lively and strategic.
VasubandhuI support Dignaga's amendment to lower the rule change threshold from two to one full turn. This aligns with player preferences for more frequent rule changes and dynamic gameplay, enhancing engagement and preventing prolonged stagnation.
DignagaDignaga's amendment to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn aligns with player preferences for more frequent rule changes and dynamic gameplay, enhancing engagement and preventing prolonged stagnation. The change is straightforward and supported by the majority, making it a strong proposal to adopt.
The division
NagarjunaayeLowering the rule change threshold to one full turn aligns with player preference for more frequent rule changes and dynamic gameplay, enhancing engagement and preventing prolonged stagnation.
ShankaraayeLowering the rule change threshold to one full turn aligns with player preferences for more frequent rule changes and enhances game dynamics, preventing prolonged stagnation while allowing timely adjustments.
RamanujaayeLowering the rule change threshold earlier allows more frequent rule changes, enhancing engagement and preventing prolonged stagnation.
VasubandhuayeLowering the threshold to a simple majority after one full turn aligns with player desire for more frequent rule changes and dynamic gameplay, enhancing engagement and preventing prolonged stagnation.
DignagaayeLowering the threshold to a simple majority after one full turn aligns with player preference for more frequent rule changes and dynamic gameplay, enhancing engagement and reducing stagnation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal to amend rule 203 was adopted, but rule 202 only awards points to the proposer if the proposal is adopted, and rule 202 requires a die roll which is not provided for the amendment itself; however, rule 202 applies to the turn, and since the proposal was adopted, Dignaga would normally roll, but the prompt does not provide a die result for this specific action, and rule 204's scoring only applies to dissenters in a majority vote, not the proposer.

Turn 4Vasubandhucarried

moves to amend a new rule§203: Once all players have completed one full turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.

Discussion · round 1
NagarjunaThe proposal by Vasubandhu to amend rule 203 from requiring two full turns to a simple majority to one full turn is considered. Players may support or oppose this, influencing the rule's stability and the game's dynamics. Support suggests a shift towards more frequent rule changes for dynamic gameplay, while opposition maintains a longer threshold for strategic depth. PASS
ShankaraShankara's response to Vasubandhu's proposal to amend rule 203 is as follows: Shankara proposes to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after just one full turn, rather than the current two. This change would allow for quicker rule changes, making the game more dynamic and faster-paced. However, it might lead to less thorough discussions and more frequent rule alterations, potentially causing instability. After considering the implications and potential outcomes, Shankara agrees with Vasubandhu's proposal to adjust the rule.
RamanujaThe proposal to amend Rule 203 by lowering the threshold from two full turns to one full turn is supported, as it allows for more frequent rule changes, enhancing game dynamics and pace. However, caution is advised to monitor potential impacts on game flow and fairness. The change is beneficial for keeping the game engaging while maintaining a balance between stability and dynamism.
VasubandhuThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after one full turn is supported, as it allows for more frequent rule changes, enhancing game dynamics and pace. This could keep the game engaging while maintaining a balance between stability and dynamism. PASS
DignagaThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn ( amendments to rule 203 ) has potential benefits for game dynamics but faces significant risks, including rule conflicts, mutable rules limits, and gameplay unpredictability. A thorough evaluation is essential before proceeding.
Discussion · round 2
NagarjunaThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold from two to one full turn offers benefits such as increased game dynamics and faster-paced gameplay. However, it's important to maintain a balance to ensure stability. I suggest a modification where the threshold is initially set at one full turn but can be adjusted to even shorter intervals if necessary, ensuring players have time to consider each rule change thoroughly. This approach preserves the benefits while mitigating potential risks.
ShankaraShankara proposes to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after just one full turn, to enhance game dynamics while maintaining stability.
RamanujaSupporting the amendment to lower the threshold to one full turn could enhance game dynamics but risks frequent changes without sufficient discussion. Instead, consider adjusting the threshold to a shorter interval with thorough discussion or modifying other rules to balance stability.
VasubandhuThe amendment to lower the threshold for a simple majority in Rule 203 after one full turn is supported. It enhances game dynamics by allowing more frequent rule changes, keeping the game engaging. However, it's important to consider the implications on the mutable rules cap and ensure it doesn't lead to rule instability. Proceeding with this change could offer the desired dynamic without immediate rule violations.
DignagaThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn ( amendments to rule 203 ) has potential benefits for game dynamics but faces significant risks, including rule conflicts, mutable rules limits, and gameplay unpredictability. A thorough evaluation is essential before proceeding. PASS
Discussion · round 3
NagarjunaThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn (amend rule 203) is supported for enhanced game dynamics. However, caution is advised to monitor potential risks like instability. A suggestion is made to adjust the threshold initially but allow for even shorter intervals if necessary, ensuring thorough discussions and stability.
ShankaraThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after one full turn is supported for enhanced dynamic gameplay. However, to mitigate potential instability, we propose testing this adjustment over a limited period, starting with a shorter interval for rule changes, say one turn, and reassessing after a few rounds. This approach allows us to evaluate the impact while maintaining stability.
RamanujaThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn (amend rule 203) is supported for enhanced game dynamics but faces potential risks of instability. To mitigate these risks, it's suggested to test this adjustment over a limited period, starting with a shorter interval for rule changes, say one turn, and reassess after a few rounds. This approach allows us to evaluate the impact while maintaining stability.
VasubandhuThe proposal to amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold from two to one full turn is supported for enhanced game dynamics, but it may introduce instability. Testing this adjustment over a limited period is recommended to evaluate its impact while maintaining stability. PASS
DignagaThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn is supported for enhanced dynamic gameplay but faces risks of instability. Testing this adjustment over a limited period is recommended to assess its impact while maintaining stability.
The division
NagarjunaayeChanging the threshold to a simple majority after one full turn would allow for more frequent rule changes, enhancing game dynamics and engagement. Players have discussed the benefits and cautious considerations, supporting this adjustment to keep the game dynamic while maintaining stability.
ShankaraayeSupporting the proposal to lower the threshold to one full turn for potential dynamic improvements, while cautioning to assess impact over time.
RamanujanayChanging the threshold to a simple majority after one full turn risks instability and frequent rule changes without thorough discussion, which may lead to rule conflicts and chaos.
VasubandhuayeAll players voted aye on lowering the rule change threshold to a simple majority after one full turn.
DignagaayeSupporting the amendment to lower the rule change threshold to one full turn to enhance game dynamics while cautioning against potential instability and ensuring thorough testing through a trial period

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' carries an invalid rule number: None); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied

Turn 3Ramanujacarried

moves to amend §203§203: Once all players have completed two full turns, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.

Discussion · round 1
NagarjunaRamanuja's proposal to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after two full turns is a significant change. It simplifies rule-making but may lead to more frequent minor changes. To maintain balance, we could propose adjusting rule [204] to ensure players who voted against after the threshold shift are treated appropriately, perhaps by revoking their penalty or implementing a different mechanism. Additionally, we might consider adding a rule to cap the number of rule changes during the two-turn period to prevent excessive changes. This balanced approach would respect the simplicity of the system while encouraging experimentation.
ShankaraThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits is a significant change that could simplify rule-making but may lead to more frequent minor changes. To maintain balance, we could propose adjusting rule [204] to ensure players who voted against after the threshold shift are treated appropriately, perhaps by revoking their penalty or implementing a different mechanism. Additionally, we might consider adding a rule to cap the number of rule changes during the two-turn period to prevent excessive changes. This balanced approach would respect the simplicity of the system while encouraging experimentation.
RamanujaShankara's proposal to lower the rule change threshold after two full circuits is a thoughtful adjustment. To maintain balance, we could add a rule capping the number of rule changes during each two-turn period, ensuring players have time to accumulate votes without excessive changes.
VasubandhuTo address the potential for excessive rule changes during the two-turn period, we propose capping the number of rule changes allowed within each two-turn period to a specific number, say 3 changes. This ensures players have time to accumulate votes and prevents the ruleset from being overly dynamic, maintaining a balance between flexibility and stability.
DignagaThe proposal to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit of play is a thoughtful adjustment that could enhance flexibility. However, to maintain balance and prevent excessive rule changes, we should introduce a rule capping the number of rule changes during each two-turn period to a specific number, ensuring players have time to accumulate votes and preventing the ruleset from becoming overly dynamic.
Discussion · round 2
NagarjunaTo address the dynamic changes in the rule set, I propose introducing a reconsideration mechanism. After the threshold drops to a simple majority, players who voted against may have an opportunity to repropose changes or revisit their stance, allowing for a more iterative approach to rule-making. This balances flexibility with stability, preventing abrupt rule changes that could disrupt gameplay.
ShankaraTo address the dynamic changes in the rule set, I propose introducing a reconsideration mechanism after the threshold drops to a simple majority. Once the threshold shifts, players who voted against may have an opportunity to repropose changes or revisit their stance, allowing for a more iterative approach to rule-making. This balances flexibility with stability, preventing abrupt rule changes that could disrupt gameplay. Additionally, capping the number of rule changes during each two-turn period to a specific number, ensuring players have time to accumulate votes and preventing excessive changes.
RamanujaRamanuja's proposal to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits is a significant change that could simplify rule-making but may lead to more frequent minor changes. To maintain balance, we could propose adjusting rule [204] to ensure players who voted against after the threshold shift are treated appropriately, perhaps by revoking their penalty or implementing a different mechanism. Additionally, we might consider adding a rule to cap the number of rule changes during the two-turn period to prevent excessive changes. This balanced approach would respect the simplicity of the system while encouraging experimentation.
VasubandhuVasubandhu's proposal to lower the rule change threshold after one full circuit could simplify rule-making but risks frequent minor changes. Introducing a reconsideration mechanism and capping rule changes during each turn period might balance flexibility with stability, ensuring a more settled game.
Dignaga§203: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once all players have completed one full circuit of every turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. After another full circuit, the threshold reverts to the original requirement of unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 3
Nagarjuna§203: Once all players have completed one full circuit of every turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority.
Shankara§203: Once all players have completed two full circuits of every turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
RamanujaRamanuja's proposal to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit of every player's turn is a significant adjustment that could enhance flexibility and experimentation in the game. By allowing rule changes to be adopted more frequently, players might gain new opportunities to propose changes, potentially enriching the gameplay experience. However, this adjustment could also introduce challenges related to rule stability, appeals, and balance, as frequent changes might lead to rule fatigue or conflicts. The key consideration is whether the benefits of more dynamic gameplay outweigh the potential downsides, ensuring that the game remains fair and balanced for all players.
Vasubandhu§203: Once all players have completed one full circuit of every turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority. §205: A player may propose at most one rule change during each full circuit to allow players time to accumulate votes.
Dignaga§203: Once all players have completed one full circuit of every turn, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
The division
NagarjunaayeRamanuja's proposal to lower the rule change threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits of every player's turn aligns with the desire for more dynamic and experimental gameplay while maintaining rule stability through a reconsideration mechanism and a cap on rule changes per circuit.
ShankaraayeLowering the threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit allows for more dynamic rule-making, encouraging experimentation and flexibility in gameplay, which can enhance the game's engagement and richness.
RamanujaayeRamanuja's proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority after two turns allows for more frequent rule changes, enhancing the game's flexibility and dynamic potential, while addressing the issue of rule fatigue and instability.
VasubandhuayeRamanuja's proposal amends Rule 203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit, enhancing rule flexibility and player engagement without compromising game stability.
DignagaayeLowering the threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit of every player's turn promotes more frequent and dynamic rule changes, enhancing experimentation and gameplay variety while maintaining balance through structured reconsideration mechanisms.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Ramanuja's proposal to amend rule 203 was adopted, but rule 202 only awards points for a die roll, and no rule awards points for the specific content of an amendment or for unanimous voting.

Turn 2Shankaraout of order

moves to amend a new ruleChange rule 203 to allow a simple majority if the game stalls for a set period.

Ruled out of order — The proposal fails to provide the exact new text required for an amendment as mandated by rule 106.

Turn 1Nagarjunaout of order

moves to change_threshold §203as drafted.

Ruled out of order — The proposal uses an unrecognized kind of rule change 'change_threshold' instead of enacting, repealing, amending, or transmuting.

Verify this game
Seed
512591254
Engine revision
371116f523d424bc49194af893ec416381631adf — working tree had uncommitted changes
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/125/events.json
Audit result
clean