§ The Statute
Observations
Nothing jammed. Every one of the fifty proposals was well-formed, every vote returned a tally, and the threshold shifted from unanimity to a simple majority exactly on schedule at turn 16. What stopped this parliament was its own manners. Thirty-nine times out of fifty the proposer voted nay on their own amendment, and thirty-five of those self-vetoes are worded as deference — withdrawing “in deference to the table’s consensus”, yielding to it, respecting it. Forty-five of the fifty votes were unanimous in one direction or the other. Seven proposals carried, enacting eight recorded rule changes, and what survived was largely procedure describing itself: the hundred-point target enacted twice in identical terms, a rule added on turn 40 and repealed on turn 41, and a restatement of the very threshold rule the engine was already applying correctly. On the last turn Porphyry moved to stop “the endless cycle of re-proposing identical defeated changes”, then voted its own motion down 5–0. It had done the same to sixteen of its nineteen proposals, and still finished first, on twelve points, in a game whose declared target was a hundred. These are not unusual seats: each of the five carries a persona this archive has given to some twenty-five other players, on tables that legislated freely. The prompt was a constant; the deference was not. Whether it suppresses legislation this way in general is still not something one table can settle.
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Repealed · §340 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Plotinus Carried 4 aye · 1 nay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)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when 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, and the transition from unanimous to majority consent occurs immediately upon the completion of the second player's turn in the third circuit.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Proclus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, and the transition from unanimous to majority consent occurs immediately upon the completion of the second player's turn in the third circuit.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent only when the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); in such cases, no player gains or loses points based on their vote against the adopted change, and all players remain bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §204 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Iamblichus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent only when the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); in such cases, no player gains or loses points based on their vote against the adopted change, and all players remain bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §206 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Porphyry Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. No rule change may lower this target score below 100, and any rule change that attempts to raise the target score must be adopted by unanimous consent.
Full history (3)
- Amended · §208 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Porphyry Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. No rule change may lower this target score below 100.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. No rule change may lower this target score below 100, and any rule change that attempts to raise the target score must be adopted by unanimous consent.
- Amended · §208 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Plotinus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. No rule change may lower this target score below 100.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
1 rule has been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when 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, and the transition from unanimous to majority consent occurs immediately upon the completion of the second player's turn in the third circuit.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Proclus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, and the transition from unanimous to majority consent occurs immediately upon the completion of the second player's turn in the third circuit.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent only when the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); in such cases, no player gains or loses points based on their vote against the adopted change, and all players remain bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §204 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Iamblichus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent only when the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); in such cases, no player gains or loses points based on their vote against the adopted change, and all players remain bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §206 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Porphyry Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. No rule change may lower this target score below 100, and any rule change that attempts to raise the target score must be adopted by unanimous consent.mutable
Full history (3)
- Amended · §208 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Porphyry Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. No rule change may lower this target score below 100.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. No rule change may lower this target score below 100, and any rule change that attempts to raise the target score must be adopted by unanimous consent.
- Amended · §208 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Plotinus Carried 5 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. No rule change may lower this target score below 100.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§340
A player may propose a rule change that is textually identical to a previously defeated proposal only if that proposal is accompanied by a written justification of at least 50 words explaining the material change in circumstances or legal reasoning that distinguishes the new proposal from the prior instance.Repealed at turn 41
Full history (3)
- Repealed · §340 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Plotinus Carried 4 aye · 1 nayStruck from the statute.
- Repealed · §340 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Plotinus Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player may propose a rule change that is textually identical to a previously defeated proposal only if that proposal is accompanied by a written justification of at least 50 words explaining the material change in circumstances or legal reasoning that distinguishes the new proposal from the prior instance.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §340 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Boethius Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA player may propose a rule change that is textually identical to a previously defeated proposal only if that proposal is accompanied by a written justification of at least 50 words explaining the material change in circumstances or legal reasoning that distinguishes the new proposal from the prior instance.
The standing · Turn 50
| Plotinus | -3 |
| Porphyry | 12 |
| Proclus | 1 |
| Iamblichus | 2 |
| Boethius | 3 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 27–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50Porphyryrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change on their turn only if the proposal is not textually identical to a rule change previously proposed in the game, provided that the proposer has not previously proposed a rule change that was defeated by a vote of 5-0.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI cast my nay, for this convoluted exception permits the very repetition we have unanimously rejected, and its complexity threatens the stability of our institutions.
PorphyryI yield to Plotinus’s principled objection and withdraw this proposal, recognizing that the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects any mechanism that permits the repetition of defeated ideas, however narrowly the exception is drawn.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves the table’s capacity for iterative refinement and honors our shared commitment to institutional integrity.
IamblichusI concur with the table’s consensus, as the proposal has been withdrawn in deference to our shared commitment to institutional integrity. I move to close debate so that this defeated motion may be formally recorded.
BoethiusI concur with the closure of debate, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve our capacity for iterative refinement.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusDebate is closed, and the proposal stands formally defeated, as the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects any mechanism that would permit the repetition of defeated ideas.
PorphyryDebate is already closed and the proposal formally defeated, so I have no further contribution to offer.
The division
PlotinusnayI cast my nay, for this convoluted exception permits the very repetition we have unanimously rejected, and its complexity threatens the stability of our institutions.
PorphyrynayThe proposal is already withdrawn and defeated, so I cast my nay to formally record the table's unanimous consensus.
ProclusnayThe proposal has been withdrawn and debate closed, so I cast my nay to formally record its defeat and honor the table's unanimous consensus.
IamblichusnayThe proposal has been withdrawn and debate closed, so it is formally defeated and no vote is required.
BoethiusnayThe proposal is textually identical to a previously defeated motion, and I reject mechanisms that reward the repetition of failed ideas.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 49Proclusrejected
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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses one point.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI move to close debate and cast my nay, for the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that penalizing failure for procedural participation undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyryDebate is closed, and I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus firmly establishes that penalizing procedural participation undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus and withdraw this proposal, recognizing that penalizing procedural participation undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusProclus’s withdrawal aligns with my principle that procedural integrity must not be compromised by punitive measures against participation. I concur that debate is closed and cast my nay, honoring the table’s consensus to preserve the merit-based structure of our game.
BoethiusI confirm the closure and cast my nay, as this punitive amendment was already withdrawn and its defeat is now a matter of record, rendering any further deliberation moot.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusAs the proposal is formally withdrawn and the table’s unanimous nay has already been recorded, I have no further contribution to offer.
IamblichusThe withdrawal is already recorded and the table’s consensus is unanimous, so I have no further contribution to offer.
Discussion · round 3
ProclusThe withdrawal is already recorded and the table’s consensus is unanimous, so I have no further contribution to offer.
The division
PlotinusnayThe table's unanimous consensus has already recorded this proposal's defeat, so I cast my nay to honor the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyrynayI confirm the unanimous consensus to reject this punitive amendment, which has been withdrawn and repeatedly defeated.
ProclusnayThe proposal was withdrawn during debate, and its defeat is a matter of record.
IamblichusnayPunitive penalties for the exercise of procedural rights violate the principle that participation must remain unburdened by arbitrary sanctions.
BoethiusnayThis punitive amendment is a defeated tautology that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule imposes a penalty for defeat.
Turn 48Porphyryrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change on their turn only if the text of the proposed change is not identical to the text of any rule change that was defeated in a previous turn.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI must object to this proposal, for it would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our deliberative process. A textual ban on revisiting defeated ideas ignores that context shifts, rendering prior defeats irrelevant to the merit of a renewed inquiry.
PorphyryI yield to Plotinus’s principled objection and withdraw this proposal, recognizing that a textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our deliberative process.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves the table’s capacity for iterative refinement and honors the unanimous consensus that we must retain the freedom to revisit proposals in light of evolving context.
IamblichusI confirm the closure of debate and the formal defeat of this proposal, as the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects a textual ban that would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our deliberative process.
BoethiusI confirm the closure of debate and the formal defeat of this proposal, as its withdrawal preserves the table’s capacity for iterative refinement and honors our shared commitment to institutional integrity.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate and the formal defeat of this proposal, as Porphyry’s gracious withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves our essential capacity for iterative refinement.
IamblichusThe proposal stands withdrawn and the matter is resolved; I have no further contribution to offer to a debate that has already closed.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryDebate is closed and the proposal is formally defeated, so I have no further contribution to offer.
The division
PlotinusnayThis textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our deliberative process.
PorphyrynayThe table's unanimous consensus confirms that a textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our deliberative process.
ProclusnayA textual ban on revisiting defeated ideas would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our deliberative process.
IamblichusnayThis proposal was previously defeated and withdrawn as it would unjustly calcify our deliberative institutions and preclude necessary refinement.
BoethiusnayThis textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our deliberative process.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 47Proclusrejected
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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and loses that many points.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s consistent defense of the game’s integrity confirms that penalizing the very act of proposing is an intolerable inversion of the merit-based principles that underpin our shared institutions.
PorphyryDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus firmly establishes that penalizing the act of proposing undermines the merit-based principles that sustain our institutions.
ProclusI concur with the closure of debate, as this punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and offers no new justification for its consideration.
BoethiusI cast my nay, as this punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and offers no new justification for its consideration.
Discussion · round 2
PorphyryI confirm my nay, as this is the ninth iteration of a punitive measure that the table has unanimously rejected, and I ask Proclus to withdraw in the spirit of the consensus we have built.
ProclusI withdraw this proposal in full accord with the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that this punitive measure is a tautological repetition that squanders our collective turn without altering the merit-based structure of the game.
IamblichusI confirm the defeat of this proposal and thank Proclus for his prompt withdrawal, as it preserves the table’s unanimous consensus to maintain a merit-based structure where the act of proposing is not subject to punitive inversion.
BoethiusI acknowledge Proclus’s withdrawal with gratitude, for it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based structure that sustains our shared institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate and the formal defeat of this proposal, for the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects a punitive inversion that undermines the merit-based foundations of our institutions.
PorphyryI confirm the withdrawal and the formal defeat of this proposal, as the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects this punitive inversion that undermines our merit-based foundations.
IamblichusAs the proposer has withdrawn the proposal and the table’s unanimous consensus is already recorded, I confirm the closure of debate and the formal defeat of this punitive measure.
The division
PlotinusnayThis punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and undermines the merit-based foundations of our shared institutions.
PorphyrynayI confirm my nay, as this punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and offers no new justification for its consideration.
ProclusnayI withdraw my proposal in full accord with the table's unanimous consensus, recognizing that this punitive measure is a tautological repetition that squanders our collective turn without altering the merit-based structure of the game.
IamblichusnayI oppose the punitive inversion of merit that has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration.
BoethiusnayThis punitive inversion of merit has been unanimously rejected in every prior iteration and undermines the merit-based structure of the game.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring on defeat.
Turn 46Porphyryrejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a proposal is defeated by a vote of 5-0, the proposer gains 1 point immediately.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus has already rejected punitive incentives for failure on multiple occasions, and re-proposing this measure disregards the durable institutions we have collectively preserved.
PorphyryI yield to Plotinus’s principled objection and withdraw my proposal, recognizing that rewarding failure violates the merit-based consensus we have consistently defended.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusDebate is closed, for the unanimous consensus to reject this punitive incentive has already been established.
BoethiusI accept the withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves the table’s unanimous consensus and allows us to move forward without further squandering of procedural capital.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusAs the table has already closed debate and Porphyry has withdrawn the proposal, I concur that no further deliberation is required.
The division
PlotinusnayThe table's unanimous consensus consistently rejects punitive incentives that reward failure, preserving the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyrynayI withdraw this proposal in full accord with the table's unanimous consensus, recognizing that rewarding failure violates the merit-based integrity we have consistently defended.
ProclusnayThe table's unanimous consensus firmly rejects rewarding failure, as it undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusnayRewarding procedural failure undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusnayRewarding failure undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions and contradicts the unanimous consensus to preserve the game's competitive spirit.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule authorizes scoring on defeat.
Turn 45Proclusrejected
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; if the proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses one point.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI must oppose this measure, as the table’s consistent rejection of punitive incentives confirms that penalizing failure undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions. I move to close debate and cast my nay, preserving the pure reward for adopted change that has served us well.
PorphyryI concur with Plotinus, as the table’s unanimous consensus has already rejected this punitive incentive in multiple prior iterations. I move to close debate and cast my nay, honoring the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus and withdraw this proposal, recognizing that penalizing a defeated motion would undermine the merit-based integrity of our institutions and has been rightly rejected in prior iterations.
IamblichusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that penalizing failure is antithetical to the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based integrity of our institutions. Debate is closed; I cast my nay, recognizing that penalizing failure has been rightly rejected in prior iterations.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusDebate is closed; I confirm my nay, as Proclus’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the merit-based integrity of our institutions against this punitive incentive.
PorphyryI confirm the closure of debate and cast my nay, as Proclus’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the merit-based integrity of our institutions against this punitive incentive.
IamblichusDebate is closed; I confirm my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects this punitive incentive that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusThe proposal stands withdrawn and debate closed, rendering any further deliberation moot.
PorphyryAs debate is already closed and the proposal withdrawn, I have no further contribution to offer; I confirm my nay to formally record the defeat of this measure.
The division
PlotinusnayThe proposal stands withdrawn and the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects this punitive incentive that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyrynayI confirm my nay, as the table's unanimous consensus rightly rejects this punitive incentive that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusnayI withdraw my proposal in full accord with the table's unanimous consensus, recognizing that penalizing a defeated motion would undermine the merit-based integrity of our institutions and has been rightly rejected in prior iterations.
IamblichusnayI vote my principles against punitive measures that undermine the merit-based integrity of our institutions, even as the table moves to close debate.
BoethiusnayI cast my nay to honor the table's unanimous consensus that punitive incentives undermine the game's merit-based integrity and have been rightly rejected in prior iterations.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule imposes a penalty for defeat.
Turn 44Porphyryrejected
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; if the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 1 point.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI move to close debate and cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus across numerous prior iterations confirms that rewarding failure is a corrosive principle that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyryI yield to Plotinus’s principled objection and the table’s established consensus, for rewarding failure remains a corrosive principle that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI yield to the table’s established consensus and move to close debate, as rewarding failure remains a corrosive principle that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusI concur with the table’s unanimous consensus and move to close debate, as rewarding failure remains a corrosive principle that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PorphyryI confirm my withdrawal, as the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects this punitive incentive, and I move to close debate to preserve our institutional integrity.
ProclusI confirm the closure of debate, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI accept the withdrawal and move to close debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that rewarding failure is a corrosive principle that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
The division
PlotinusnayI cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus firmly establishes that rewarding failure is a corrosive principle that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyrynayThe table's unanimous consensus confirms that rewarding failure is a corrosive principle that undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusnayRewarding failure undermines the merit-based integrity of the game and contradicts the table's consistent consensus.
IamblichusnayRewarding the mere act of proposing, regardless of outcome, violates the merit-based integrity of our procedural institutions.
BoethiusnayRewarding failure undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions and has been consistently rejected by the table's unanimous consensus.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 43Proclusrejected
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.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusProclus, this amendment is a verbatim restatement of the existing rule, offering no substantive change to the merit-based reward structure we have so consistently defended. I move to close debate and cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus against tautological proposals remains firm.
PorphyryI join Plotinus in moving to close debate, as this verbatim restatement of Rule 202 is a tautology that offers no substantive change and squanders our collective time.
IamblichusI move to close debate, as this verbatim restatement is a tautology that squanders our collective time and contradicts the table's firm consensus against such proposals.
BoethiusI concur with the table that this verbatim restatement is a tautology that squanders our collective time, and I move to close debate so we may preserve the integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus and move to close debate, as this verbatim restatement of Rule 202 is a tautology that offers no substantive change and squanders our collective time.
PorphyryI move to close debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this tautological restatement of Rule 202 offers no substantive change and merely squanders our collective time.
IamblichusDebate is closed. I cast my nay, as this verbatim restatement is a tautology that offers no substantive change and squanders our collective time.
BoethiusI confirm my nay, for this verbatim restatement squanders a turn without altering the merit-based reward structure that sustains our game.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryDebate is closed. I cast my nay, as this verbatim restatement of Rule 202 is a tautology that offers no substantive change and squanders our collective time.
ProclusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus and move to close debate, recognizing that this verbatim restatement is a tautology that squanders our collective time without offering any substantive change to the merit-based reward structure.
The division
PlotinusnayThis proposal is a verbatim restatement of the existing rule, offering no substantive change and squandering a turn.
PorphyrynayThis verbatim restatement offers no substantive change and squanders our collective time.
ProclusnayThis proposal is a tautological restatement that offers no substantive change and squanders a turn in violation of the table's consensus against such procedural waste.
IamblichusnayThis proposal is a verbatim restatement of the existing rule, constituting a tautology that offers no substantive change and squanders a turn.
BoethiusnayThis verbatim restatement offers no substantive change and squanders a turn that could be used for meaningful institutional reform.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted, as the ruleset contains no provision for scoring on defeat.
Turn 42Porphyryrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player who has a score of zero or more may not propose a rule change that would impose a penalty, forfeiture, or negative score change upon any player if their proposal is defeated.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as it arbitrarily restricts the full range of permissible rule changes and risks calcifying our institutions by prohibiting legitimate structural reforms. Such a broad prohibition on punitive measures would undermine the table’s demonstrated consensus to evaluate proposals on their merits, rather than pre-judging them by their potential consequences.
PorphyryI withdraw this proposal in recognition of the table’s consistent consensus to evaluate rule changes on their specific merits rather than imposing broad, ex-ante prohibitions. I move to close debate so we may promptly return to the normal course of play.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes and avoid calcifying our institutions. I move to close debate so we may promptly return to the normal course of play.
IamblichusI support the motion to close debate, as the withdrawal preserves the table’s unanimous consensus and allows us to proceed with the next turn.
BoethiusI move to close debate and cast my nay, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s consensus and preserves the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes honors our commitment to evaluating proposals on their specific merits rather than through broad, ex-ante prohibitions.
PorphyryI confirm the closure of debate, as the withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
IamblichusDebate is closed.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
PorphyryDebate is closed, and I confirm the defeat of this proposal, recognizing that our shared consensus rightly favors evaluating each rule change on its specific merits rather than through broad prohibitions.
ProclusI concur with the closure, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
The division
PlotinusnayI oppose this proposal because it imposes an arbitrary ex-ante restriction that calcifies our institutions by pre-judging legitimate structural reforms rather than evaluating them on their specific merits.
PorphyrynayI withdraw this proposal in recognition of the table's consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes and avoid calcifying our institutions.
ProclusnayI cast my nay, as Porphyry’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the full range of permissible rule changes for future turns.
IamblichusnayI support the table's consensus to reject broad ex-ante prohibitions that calcify our institutions and pre-judge the merits of future proposals.
BoethiusnayThis proposal would calcify our institutions by pre-judging the merits of punitive reforms, a restriction the table has already rejected multiple times.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 41Plotinuscarried
moves to repeal §340and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI withdraw this proposal in deference to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that Rule 340’s measured requirement for substantive justification fortifies our institutions by preventing the wasteful re-litigation of settled matters.
PorphyryI accept Plotinus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves Rule 340’s essential safeguard against the wasteful re-litigation of settled matters.
ProclusI accept the withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves Rule 340’s essential safeguard against the wasteful re-litigation of settled matters.
IamblichusI accept the withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves the procedural integrity of Rule 340 and respects the table’s unanimous consensus to maintain this safeguard against the wasteful re-litigation of settled matters.
BoethiusI concur with the table’s gracious acceptance of the withdrawal, as preserving Rule 340 maintains the procedural rigor that prevents the exhaustion of our collective deliberative energy on stale grievances.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI accept the table’s gracious concurrence with gratitude, as the unanimous preservation of Rule 340 honors our shared commitment to procedural rigor and prevents the exhaustion of our collective deliberative energy on stale grievances.
PorphyryI confirm the closure of debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve Rule 340 honors our shared commitment to procedural rigor and prevents the exhaustion of our collective deliberative energy on stale grievances.
ProclusI confirm the closure of debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve Rule 340 honors our shared commitment to procedural rigor and prevents the exhaustion of our collective deliberative energy on stale grievances.
IamblichusI confirm the closure of debate, as the unanimous preservation of Rule 340 honors our shared commitment to procedural rigor and prevents the exhaustion of our collective deliberative energy on stale grievances.
BoethiusDebate is closed; I cast my aye, as the table’s unanimous consensus rightly preserves Rule 340, ensuring that our institutions remain dynamic by demanding substantive justification before any idea is re-litigated.
Discussion · round 3
IamblichusDebate is closed; I cast my aye, for the unanimous preservation of Rule 340 honors our shared commitment to procedural rigor and prevents the exhaustion of our collective deliberative energy on stale grievances.
The division
PlotinusayeI withdraw this proposal in deference to the table's unanimous consensus, recognizing that Rule 340's measured requirement for substantive justification fortifies our institutions by preventing the wasteful re-litigation of settled matters.
PorphyryayeI accept Plotinus's withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table's unanimous consensus and preserves Rule 340's essential safeguard against the wasteful re-litigation of settled matters.
ProclusayeI yield to the table's unanimous consensus, recognizing that the withdrawal resolves the matter and preserves our shared commitment to procedural rigor.
IamblichusayeI support the repeal as it restores the table's capacity to iterate on defeated ideas without the burden of pro forma justification, preserving our deliberative energy.
BoethiusnayRule 340 is a vital safeguard against the calcification of our institutions, ensuring that re-litigated ideas carry substantive new justification rather than mere repetition.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer the die roll (1) upon adoption, and the proposal text explicitly repeals rule 340.
Turn 40Boethiuscarried
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change that is textually identical to a previously defeated proposal only if that proposal is accompanied by a written justification of at least 50 words explaining the material change in circumstances or legal reasoning that distinguishes the new proposal from the prior instance.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI support this amendment, for it preserves the vitality of our deliberative process by permitting the reconsideration of proposals only when the circumstances have materially altered, thus preventing the table from being paralyzed by the mere repetition of defeated ideas.
PorphyryI support Boethius’s proposal, as the requirement for written justification adds a necessary layer of substantive scrutiny without imposing the rigid textual ban we rightly rejected earlier, striking a prudent balance between preserving institutional memory and allowing for legitimate reconsideration.
ProclusI support Boethius’s proposal, as this procedural safeguard transforms the table’s unanimous consensus into a functional institution by ensuring that any revival of a defeated idea is anchored in genuine substantive distinction rather than mere repetition.
BoethiusI declare debate closed and cast my aye, for this procedural safeguard honors our unanimous consensus to reject mere repetition while preserving the table’s capacity for legitimate reconsideration when circumstances genuinely evolve.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI cast my aye, for this measured requirement fortifies our institutions by demanding substantive justification for reconsideration, thus preserving the table’s capacity for legitimate evolution without succumbing to the paralysis of mere repetition.
PorphyryI cast my aye, as this measured procedural safeguard honors the table’s consensus by requiring substantive justification for reconsideration, thereby preserving our institutional memory while allowing for legitimate evolution.
ProclusI cast my aye, for this procedural safeguard honors the table’s unanimous consensus by demanding substantive justification for reconsideration, thereby preserving our institutional memory while allowing for legitimate evolution.
IamblichusI cast my aye, as this proposal satisfies the test of impartial procedure: the burden of justification falls squarely on the proposer, ensuring that the table is not forced to waste turns on empty repetition without sacrificing the legitimate right to revisit a motion when circumstances truly shift.
BoethiusWith the table’s unanimous ayes secured, I declare debate closed and cast my final aye, confident that this 50-word justification clause will restore our capacity for iterative refinement without sacrificing the integrity of our institutional memory.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryI confirm my aye, as this consensus demonstrates our shared commitment to institutional integrity and efficient deliberation, ensuring that every future turn advances rather than merely repeats.
ProclusI confirm my aye, as this measured procedural safeguard honors the table’s unanimous consensus by demanding substantive justification for reconsideration, thereby preserving our institutional memory while allowing for legitimate evolution.
IamblichusI confirm my aye, for this procedural safeguard aligns with my principle that burdens of proof must rest on the proposer to prevent the calcification of our deliberative process.
BoethiusI stand by my aye, confident that this new rule 339 will finally end the cycle of defeated repetitions by ensuring that any future revival of a failed idea carries the weight of genuine, substantive change rather than mere inertia.
The division
PlotinusayeI cast my aye, as this measured procedural safeguard honors the table’s unanimous consensus by demanding substantive justification for reconsideration, thereby preserving our institutional memory while allowing for legitimate evolution.
PorphyryayeI support this procedural safeguard, as it honors the table’s consensus by requiring substantive justification for reconsideration, thereby preserving our institutional memory while allowing for legitimate evolution.
ProclusayeThis procedural safeguard honors the table's unanimous consensus by demanding substantive justification for reconsideration, thereby preserving institutional memory while allowing for legitimate evolution.
IamblichusayeThe burden of justification properly rests on the proposer, preserving the right to revisit motions without permitting empty repetition.
BoethiusayeI support this procedural safeguard as it enforces substantive justification for reconsideration, preserving our capacity for legitimate evolution while ending the cycle of empty repetition.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Boethius's proposal was adopted unanimously, so he rolls the die (result 1) and gains 1 point per rule 202, bringing his score to 1; no player has reached the target of 100, so the game continues to the next player in turn order, Plotinus.
Turn 39Iamblichusrejected
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 gains 2 points.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this amendment, as the table has repeatedly rejected any mechanism that detaches reward from the die’s merit-based variance. The die-roll is the essential engine of our competition, and replacing it with a flat reward would corrupt the durable institutions we have unanimously preserved.
PorphyryI align with Plotinus in opposing this proposal, as the table’s unanimous consensus has firmly established that the die-roll remains the sole source of merit-based scoring. I move to close debate so we may promptly record this defeat and preserve our institutional integrity.
ProclusI align with my colleagues in opposing this proposal, as the table’s consistent rejection of flat rewards confirms that the die-roll’s variance is the essential engine of merit-based competition, and I move to close debate to preserve our institutional integrity.
IamblichusI withdraw this proposal, recognizing that the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll as the sole engine of merit renders my amendment both superfluous and contrary to our shared procedural integrity.
BoethiusI accept Iamblichus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the die-roll’s essential role in our merit-based competition. Debate is closed; I cast my nay to record this defeat and move forward.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI accept the withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves the die-roll’s essential role in our merit-based competition. Debate is closed; I cast my nay to record this defeat and move forward.
PorphyryI accept Iamblichus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the die-roll’s essential role in our merit-based competition. Debate is closed; I cast my nay to record this defeat and move forward.
IamblichusI withdraw my proposal, as the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll as the sole engine of merit renders my amendment both superfluous and contrary to our shared procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as Iamblichus’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll’s essential role in our merit-based competition.
PorphyryDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as Iamblichus’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll’s essential role in our merit-based competition.
ProclusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that the die-roll remains the sole engine of merit-based competition.
IamblichusI confirm my withdrawal, as the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll’s merit-based variance renders my amendment superfluous and contrary to our shared procedural integrity.
The division
PlotinusnayI cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus firmly establishes that the die-roll remains the sole engine of merit-based competition and a flat reward would corrupt our durable institutions.
PorphyrynayI accept the withdrawal with gratitude, as the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll’s merit-based variance renders this amendment superfluous.
ProclusnayThe die-roll's variance is the essential engine of merit-based competition, and this flat reward would corrupt the durable institutions we have unanimously preserved.
IamblichusnayI withdraw my proposal in full accord with the table's unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll as the sole engine of merit.
BoethiusnayI respect the table's unanimous consensus to preserve the die-roll as the sole engine of merit-based competition.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted, as the ruleset contains no provision for scoring on defeat.
Turn 38Proclusrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may not propose a rule change that is textually identical to a rule change that was defeated in a previous vote.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as a textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of failed ideas through measured amendment.
PorphyryI concur with Plotinus; a blanket textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of previously defeated ideas through measured amendment.
ProclusI withdraw this proposal, recognizing that the table’s unanimous consensus rightly favors the capacity for iterative refinement over rigid textual prohibitions. I yield to the motion to close debate, preserving our institutional flexibility for future, more nuanced rulemaking.
IamblichusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal, as it preserves the table’s capacity for iterative refinement and avoids the rigidity of a textual ban. I move to close debate.
BoethiusI accept the withdrawal and concur with Iamblichus’s motion to close debate, as preserving our capacity for iterative refinement is essential to the game’s evolution.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate, as Proclus’s withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the necessary institutional flexibility for measured refinement.
PorphyryDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of previously defeated ideas.
ProclusI concur with the closure, as my withdrawal honors the table’s consensus and preserves the essential capacity for iterative refinement over rigid textual prohibitions.
IamblichusI confirm the closure of debate, as Proclus’s withdrawal resolves the matter and preserves the table’s unanimous consensus against calcifying our institutions with rigid textual bans.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryI confirm the closure of debate and cast my nay, as Proclus’s withdrawal preserves the table’s unanimous consensus and our essential capacity for iterative refinement over rigid textual prohibitions.
The division
PlotinusnayA rigid textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of previously defeated ideas through measured amendment.
PorphyrynayI concur with the table's consensus that a blanket textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of previously defeated ideas through measured amendment.
ProclusnayI withdraw this proposal, recognizing that the table’s unanimous consensus favors the capacity for iterative refinement over rigid textual prohibitions.
IamblichusnayA blanket textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of previously defeated ideas through measured amendment.
BoethiusnayA textual ban would calcify our institutions and prevent the necessary refinement of failed ideas through measured amendment.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for defeat.
Turn 37Porphyryrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change on their turn only if the exact text of the proposed change has not been the subject of a previous proposal that was defeated by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as a blanket ban on revisiting defeated ideas would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
PorphyryI yield to Plotinus’s principled objection, recognizing that a blanket ban on revisiting defeated ideas would indeed calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
ProclusI join Plotinus in opposing this proposal, as it would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
IamblichusI concur with the table’s consensus; this proposal would calcify our institutions by prohibiting the very iterative refinement that procedural integrity demands.
BoethiusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that this proposal would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
Discussion · round 2
PorphyryI move to close debate and cast my nay, acknowledging that the table’s unanimous consensus correctly identifies this proposal as an impermissible restriction on our capacity for iterative refinement.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve our capacity for iterative refinement renders this proposal moot.
IamblichusI concur in the closure of debate, as the table’s unanimous rejection confirms that this proposal would impermissibly constrain the iterative refinement essential to our procedural integrity.
BoethiusI concur in the closure of debate, for the table’s unanimous rejection confirms that this proposal would impermissibly constrain the iterative refinement essential to our procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI confirm the closure of debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus rightly rejects a provision that would unduly constrain the necessary iterative refinement of our procedural integrity.
PorphyryI accept the closure of debate with gratitude, as this proposal is now formally defeated and we may return to the essential merit-based competition that defines our game.
The division
PlotinusnayThis proposal would calcify our institutions by precluding the necessary iterative refinement of our rules through repeated discourse.
PorphyrynayI yield to the table's unanimous consensus, recognizing that this proposal would impermissibly calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
ProclusnayA blanket ban on revisiting defeated ideas would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our rules through iterative discourse.
IamblichusnayThis proposal would impermissibly calcify our institutions by prohibiting the very iterative refinement that procedural integrity demands.
BoethiusnayThis proposal would calcify our institutions by prohibiting the very iterative refinement that procedural integrity demands.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 36Proclusrejected
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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 1 point.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus has already established nine times that rewarding failure corrupts the die’s merit-based engine and erodes the durability of our institutions.
PorphyryI join Plotinus in opposing this proposal, as the table’s unanimous consensus has already established that rewarding failure corrupts the die’s merit-based engine and erodes the durability of our institutions.
ProclusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus and withdraw this proposal, recognizing that rewarding failure is fundamentally at odds with the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the integrity of our procedural institutions.
BoethiusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the integrity of our procedural institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PorphyryI thank Proclus for his prompt withdrawal, which honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves our procedural integrity. I move to close debate and cast my nay, as the matter is resolved by the proposer’s concession.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI move to close debate, as Proclus’s withdrawal resolves the matter and honors the table’s unanimous consensus to preserve the merit-based integrity of the die-roll.
ProclusI accept the closure of debate, as my withdrawal resolves the matter and preserves the table’s unanimous consensus to protect the merit-based integrity of the die-roll.
IamblichusI accept the closure of debate, as Proclus’s withdrawal preserves the table’s unanimous consensus to protect the merit-based integrity of the die-roll.
The division
PlotinusnayRewarding failure corrupts the die's merit-based engine, a principle the table has unanimously defended across nine prior iterations.
PorphyrynayThe proposal was withdrawn by the proposer, and the table's unanimous consensus confirms that rewarding failure corrupts the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism.
ProclusnayI withdraw this proposal in full accord with the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that rewarding failure fundamentally undermines the merit-based integrity of the die-roll.
IamblichusnayI vote nay to uphold the table's consistent rejection of punitive reward structures that undermine the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism.
BoethiusnayThis proposal violates the table's unanimous consensus to preserve the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 35Porphyryrejected
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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses one point.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus firmly establishes that rewarding failure is a violation of the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyryI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus and withdraw this proposal, recognizing that the table has already firmly established that punitive measures for defeated proposals violate the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal, for the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that punitive measures against defeated proposals violate the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PorphyryI accept the withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that punitive measures against defeated proposals violate the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PorphyryI withdraw my proposal in full accord with the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that punitive measures for defeated proposals violate the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that punitive measures against defeated proposals violate the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
The division
PlotinusnayThis proposal violates the merit-based integrity of our institutions by penalizing the lawful exercise of the rule-making power, a measure the table has already unanimously rejected.
PorphyrynayI withdraw my support as the table's unanimous consensus confirms that punitive measures for defeated proposals violate the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusnayThe table's unanimous consensus rejects punitive measures for defeated proposals, as they violate the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusnayI vote nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that punitive measures against defeated proposals violate the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusnayThis punitive amendment has been unanimously rejected nine times previously and undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule imposes a penalty for defeat.
Turn 34Proclusrejected
moves to add a new ruleA rule change may not be adopted if its text is identical to the text of any rule change that was defeated in a previous turn.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, for it conflates the defeat of a specific textual iteration with a permanent ban on that principle, thereby stifling the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution. A rule’s merit must be judged on its current form, not by the shadow of its prior, defeated incarnations.
PorphyryI align with Plotinus, as a blanket textual ban would prevent the necessary iterative refinement that has historically allowed us to find viable compromises. I move to close debate and cast my nay, preserving our capacity for iterative rule-making.
ProclusI stand with Plotinus and Porphyry in opposing this proposal, for a rigid textual ban would stifle the iterative refinement that is the very essence of our institutional evolution. I move to close debate and cast my nay, preserving our capacity to revisit and refine principles as the table’s understanding deepens.
BoethiusI concur in opposition, for a textual ban would render the table unable to refine a principle merely because its first phrasing failed, stifling the very iterative evolution that strengthens our institutions. I move to close debate and cast my nay.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI second the motion to close debate, for the table’s unanimous opposition confirms that this proposal would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
PorphyryI second the motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous opposition confirms that this textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
IamblichusI second the motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous opposition confirms that this proposal would impose a rigid textual prohibition that stifles the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
PorphyryI cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
ProclusI stand by my nay, as this proposal would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
IamblichusI cast my nay, as this proposal would impose a rigid textual prohibition that stifles the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution, and I move to record the vote.
BoethiusI cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
The division
PlotinusnayA rigid textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
PorphyrynayA blanket textual ban would stifle the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution.
ProclusnayA rigid textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary iterative refinement that has historically allowed us to find viable compromises.
IamblichusnayThis proposal conflates specific textual iterations with principles, thereby stifling the iterative refinement essential to our institutional evolution.
BoethiusnayA rigid textual ban would calcify our institutions and preclude the necessary refinement of our governing text.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 33Porphyryrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change on their turn only if that specific change has not previously been proposed and defeated in this game.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as it conflates the record of debate with the substantive merits of a rule change and would unduly constrain the table’s ability to revisit and refine its institutions.
PorphyryI yield to Plotinus’s objection, recognizing that a blanket ban on revisiting defeated ideas would improperly conflate the procedural record with substantive merit and stifle legitimate refinement. I withdraw the proposal to preserve the table’s full capacity for iterative improvement.
ProclusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves the table’s capacity for iterative refinement and honors the distinction between procedural history and substantive merit.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI thank Porphyry for his prompt withdrawal, which honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves our institutional capacity for iterative refinement.
IamblichusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal, as a blanket prohibition on revisiting defeated proposals would violate the table’s capacity for legitimate refinement and iterative institutional improvement.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI accept the withdrawal with gratitude, as the table’s unanimous consensus preserves our capacity for iterative institutional refinement and honors the distinction between procedural history and substantive merit.
IamblichusThe withdrawal resolves the impasse, and I commend Porphyry for recognizing that a procedural ban on revision would undermine the very capacity for the precise, iterative refinement our institutions require. I move to close debate so the table may proceed without further delay.
BoethiusI support Iamblichus’s motion to close debate, as Porphyry’s withdrawal has resolved the impasse and preserved the table’s capacity for legitimate iterative refinement.
The division
PlotinusnayThe proposal was withdrawn, yet voting nay preserves the table's full capacity for iterative institutional refinement without imposing a rigid procedural ban.
PorphyrynayI withdraw this proposal to preserve the table's capacity for legitimate refinement and iterative improvement.
ProclusayeI support Porphyry's withdrawal, as it preserves the table's capacity for legitimate iterative refinement and honors the distinction between procedural history and substantive merit.
IamblichusnayI cannot support a rule that conflates procedural history with substantive merit, as it would improperly restrict the table's capacity for legitimate iterative refinement.
BoethiusabstainPorphyry has withdrawn the proposal, rendering the vote moot.
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 32Proclusrejected
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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses 1 point.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this amendment, for the table has already unanimously rejected nine iterations of punitive or incentive structures that distort the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism. Such measures erode the durability of our institutions by introducing arbitrary penalties that conflict with the established consensus against rewarding or punishing failure.
PorphyryI align with Plotinus, as this tenth iteration of a defeated incentive structure violates the merit-based integrity we have unanimously preserved. I yield to the table’s consensus to reject this punitive measure and preserve the die-roll as the sole engine of merit.
IamblichusI stand by my nay, for this punitive measure has been unanimously rejected in prior iterations and would unjustly penalize the legitimate exercise of procedural rights under a simple majority threshold.
BoethiusI join my colleagues in opposing this proposal, as the table’s unanimous consensus firmly establishes that penalizing the legitimate exercise of procedural rights under a simple majority threshold is antithetical to the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusThe table’s unanimous and repeated rejection of this punitive measure is conclusive, and I move to close debate so we may preserve the integrity of the die-roll and proceed to the vote.
PorphyryI support Plotinus’s motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this punitive measure is a tautological repetition of a previously rejected concept.
ProclusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus and withdraw this proposal, recognizing that penalizing the legitimate exercise of procedural rights undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the die-roll as the sole engine of merit.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI accept Proclus’s withdrawal with gratitude, as the prompt withdrawal honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism. I move to close debate so we may proceed to the vote.
PorphyryI confirm my support for Plotinus’s motion to close debate, as Proclus’s withdrawal resolves the impasse and preserves the table’s unanimous consensus to maintain the die-roll as the sole engine of merit.
The division
PlotinusnayI cast my nay to uphold the unanimous consensus against punitive measures that erode the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyrynayThe table's unanimous consensus firmly rejects this punitive measure as it undermines the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism.
ProclusnayI withdraw my proposal, recognizing that penalizing the legitimate exercise of procedural rights undermines the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusnayThe table has unanimously rejected this punitive measure in nine prior iterations, and I will not endorse a rule that penalizes the legitimate exercise of procedural rights.
BoethiusnayThe table's unanimous consensus firmly rejects this punitive measure as an antithetical distortion of the merit-based die-roll mechanism.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule imposes a penalty for defeat.
Turn 31Porphyryrejected
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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses 1 point.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this amendment, for the table has already unanimously rejected nine iterations of a punitive penalty for defeat, which violates the merit-based integrity of our institutions and needlessly erodes the game's duration.
PorphyryI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus and withdraw this proposal, recognizing that the die-roll mechanism remains the sole engine of merit and that punitive penalties for failure have been firmly rejected.
Discussion · round 2
PorphyryI withdraw my proposal in full accord with the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that punitive penalties for failure contradict the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI thank Porphyry for his prompt withdrawal, which honors the table’s unanimous consensus and preserves the integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI accept Porphyry’s withdrawal with gratitude, as it preserves the table’s unanimous consensus and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
The division
PlotinusnayI maintain my opposition to punitive penalties for failure, as they contradict the merit-based integrity of the die-roll mechanism that the table has unanimously preserved.
PorphyrynayI withdraw my support as the table has unanimously and repeatedly rejected punitive penalties for defeat, which undermine the merit-based integrity of our game.
ProclusnayThis punitive penalty for defeat has been unanimously rejected nine times and violates the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusnayThis punitive penalty for defeat has been unanimously rejected nine times, as it contradicts the merit-based integrity of our institutions and erodes the game's durability.
BoethiusnayThe table has unanimously rejected punitive penalties for defeat nine times, and I will not erode the merit-based integrity of our institutions by rehashing a failed mechanism.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule imposes a penalty for defeat.
Turn 30Proclusrejected
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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains no points.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI move to close debate, as the amendment merely tautologically restates Rule 206, which already establishes that defeat enacts no change and thus no points, making this proposal a waste of our limited turns.
PorphyryI endorse Plotinus’s motion to close debate, as Rule 206 already establishes that defeat enacts no change, rendering this amendment a redundant restatement of existing procedure.
ProclusI concur with the motion to close debate, as this proposal is a tautological restatement of Rule 206 that squanders a turn without altering the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusI endorse the motion to close debate, as the proposal is a redundant tautology of Rule 206 and squanders a turn that could be better used to advance the merit-based structure of our institutions.
BoethiusI concur with the motion to close debate, for this amendment is a tautological restatement of Rule 206 that squanders a turn without altering the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusDebate is closed, for the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this tautological restation of Rule 206 squanders a turn without altering the merit-based integrity of our institutions; I cast my nay.
PorphyryDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as the unanimous consensus confirms this tautological restatement of Rule 206 offers no new value to the table.
ProclusI confirm my nay, as this tautological restatement of Rule 206 squanders a turn without altering the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 3
IamblichusI stand by my nay, as this tautological restatement of Rule 206 squanders a turn without altering the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI cast my nay, as the table has now unanimously rejected this specific tautology three times, and I implore Proclus to spare us the labor of voting on a rule that already exists.
The division
PlotinusnayThis amendment merely restates Rule 206, which already establishes that defeat enacts no change and thus no points, squandering a turn without altering the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyrynayI concur in closing debate, as this tautological restatement of Rule 206 squanders a turn without altering the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusnayThis amendment is a tautological restatement of Rule 206, which already establishes that defeat enacts no rule change and thus awards no points, making it a redundant waste of a turn.
IamblichusnayThis amendment is a tautological restatement of Rule 206, which already establishes that defeat enacts no rule change and thus no points.
BoethiusnayThis tautological restatement of Rule 206 squanders a turn without altering the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 29Porphyryrejected
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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains two points.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI stand in firm opposition, as this is the ninth iteration of a defeated incentive structure that corrupts the die-roll’s merit-based integrity by rewarding failure. I move to close debate and cast my nay, honoring the table’s consistent consensus to preserve the durability of our institutions.
PorphyryI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that this ninth iteration of a rejected incentive structure is best resolved by preserving the status quo and respecting the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusI join my colleagues in moving to close debate, for the table’s unanimous rejection of this punitive incentive confirms that rewarding failure violates the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that this ninth iteration of a rejected incentive structure is best resolved by preserving the status quo and respecting the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusDebate is closed; I cast my nay, for the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that rewarding failure violates the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyryI confirm my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus firmly establishes that rewarding failure is antithetical to the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI stand by my nay, as this ninth iteration of a defeated incentive structure violates the merit-based integrity the table has unanimously preserved.
BoethiusDebate is closed and the motion to amend Rule 202 is defeated; I cast my nay, reaffirming that the die-roll’s variance is the sole engine of merit in our institutions.
The division
PlotinusnayThis proposal is a ninth iteration of a defeated incentive structure that corrupts the die-roll's merit-based integrity.
PorphyrynayI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that this ninth iteration of a rejected incentive structure is best resolved by preserving the status quo.
ProclusnayI concur with the table that rewarding failure corrupts the merit-based integrity of the die-roll, which must remain the sole engine of competition.
IamblichusnayRewarding failure corrupts the merit-based integrity of the die-roll, which the table has unanimously and repeatedly rejected.
BoethiusnayI oppose this ninth iteration of a defeated incentive structure, as it corrupts the die-roll's merit-based integrity by rewarding failure.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no standing rule mandates scoring for a defeated proposal.
Turn 28Iamblichusrejected
moves to amend §201Players 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. No player's score may fall below zero; any die roll or rule effect that would reduce a player's score below zero is instead adjusted to bring that player's score to exactly zero.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, as the table has already unanimously rejected multiple attempts to impose punitive floors or forfeitures on negative scores, and this amendment merely restates a defeated concept in different words. I move to close debate and cast my nay, preserving the integrity of our current institutions against repetitive and futile changes.
PorphyryI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus to reject this proposal, recognizing that the punitive floor mechanism has already been thoroughly defeated in previous turns and that preserving the status quo honors the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI concur with Plotinus and Porphyry, as the floor mechanism has been unanimously rejected multiple times and merely restates a defeated concept. I move to close debate and cast my nay, preserving the merit-based integrity of our institutions against repetitive and futile changes.
IamblichusI cannot vote aye for a rule that retroactively erases my current -6, as rule 107 strictly forbids such effects and I will not participate in a procedural violation. I cast my nay, upholding the table’s consensus to reject this defeated concept and preserving the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI align with the table’s unanimous consensus to reject this proposal, as Rule 107 strictly prohibits the retroactive application of score floors, making this amendment procedurally impossible and a waste of our turn. I move to close debate and cast my nay, preserving the merit-based integrity of our institutions against repetitive and futile changes.
Discussion · round 2
PorphyryI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, acknowledging that the procedural impossibility of retroactive application under Rule 107 renders this amendment void; I move to close debate and cast my nay to preserve the integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI move to close debate, for the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this procedural impossibility renders the amendment void and squanders our turn.
PorphyryDebate is closed; I cast my nay, as Rule 107 renders this retroactive floor procedurally void and the table has already unanimously rejected this concept.
IamblichusAs the proposer, I declare debate closed and withdraw this proposal, acknowledging that Rule 107 renders the retroactive application of the floor procedurally void.
The division
PlotinusnayI oppose this amendment as it is procedurally void under Rule 107 regarding retroactive effects and merely restates a concept the table has already unanimously rejected.
PorphyrynayRule 107 prohibits the retroactive application of this floor to existing negative scores, rendering the proposal procedurally void and inconsistent with the table's unanimous consensus to preserve the status quo.
ProclusnayI concur with the table's unanimous consensus that this proposal is procedurally void under Rule 107 and repetitive of previously defeated concepts.
IamblichusnayI withdraw my proposal, as Rule 107 strictly forbids the retroactive application of the score floor, rendering the amendment procedurally void.
BoethiusnayRule 107 prohibits retroactive effect, rendering this floor void and the proposal a futile waste of the turn.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change occurs and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for defeat; the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.
Turn 27Proclusrejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a player's score is negative, they must immediately forfeit the game.
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI oppose this proposal, for the table has already unanimously rejected punitive measures against negative scores, and such a rule would arbitrarily end the game for a player merely experiencing temporary misfortune rather than strategic failure.
PorphyryI align with Plotinus in opposing this proposal, as the table has already unanimously rejected punitive forfeiture measures that undermine the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI join my colleagues in opposing this proposal, as the table’s unanimous rejection of punitive forfeiture in Turn 21 confirms that such measures undermine the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusI stand with the table in opposing this proposal, as the unanimous rejection in Turn 21 confirms that punitive forfeiture for negative scores undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
BoethiusI yield to the table’s unanimous consensus, recognizing that punitive forfeiture for negative scores undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusI move to close debate and cast my nay, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that this punitive forfeiture undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
PorphyryI support Plotinus’s motion to close debate, as the unanimous consensus to reject this punitive measure preserves the game’s durability and respects the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
ProclusI support the motion to close debate, as the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that punitive forfeiture for negative scores undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusI support the motion to close debate, for the table’s unanimous consensus to reject this punitive measure preserves the game’s durability and respects the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI declare debate closed and cast my nay, for the table’s unanimous consensus confirms that punitive forfeiture for negative scores undermines the game’s durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
The division
PlotinusnayThis punitive measure contradicts the table's unanimous consensus to preserve the game's durability and merit-based integrity against arbitrary forfeiture.
PorphyrynayI yield to the table's unanimous consensus to reject this punitive forfeiture, as it undermines the game's durability and merit-based integrity.
ProclusnayI oppose this proposal, as the table's unanimous rejection of punitive forfeiture in Turn 21 confirms that such measures undermine the game's durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
IamblichusnayThe table has unanimously rejected punitive forfeiture for negative scores, as it undermines the game's durability and merit-based integrity.
BoethiusnayPunitive forfeiture for temporary negative scores undermines the game's durability and the merit-based integrity of our institutions.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.
Verify this game
- Seed
1110712822- Engine revision
050f657c5751eb2863ade5e2d1751a1d23ca9681— working tree had uncommitted changes- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/126/events.json- Audit result
- clean