Who's next, <SamAtoms1980>?

OK. I propose that starting the round after next, whoever's turn it is to make the proposal gets a vote that counts for one more than than it did on the round before. The voting weights for all others voting on the proposal remain at 1.

I vote "no."

Hey, the game has sold a jillion copies, this fundamental flaw and all.

I therefore propose the following: We give ourselves one week to pass a <BILL OF URGENCIES> detailing: 1.) the calamities that threaten all of us, as well as all the cg members we represent, and 2.) the steps we need to take to create a viable state that can respond to those and other threats.

These are the rules of LEX:

1. Any number can play.

2. Players take turns in alphabetical order.

3. On his or her turn, a player can propose a new rule or a change or repeal of an existing rule.

4. A proposal for a new rule or for change or repeal of an existing rule is adopted if and only if it is approved by a majority of the participants.

5: A player who fails to propose a new rule or rule change or repeal in accordance with rule #3 on his or her turn within 24 hours loses that turn; and a proposed new rule or rule change or repeal is ratified if and only if it is approved by a majority of the players voting within 24 hours after it is proposed.

6. [I]n the next world game with white pieces, all LEX players vow to vote 1. c4.

<AgentRgent>: It's up to you now.

By now all of you must have at least a glimmering of what LEX is about. It's a model of the democratic legislative and political processes. Or if you wish, it is a model of the British constitution. As you probably know, the U.K. doesn't have a written constitution. Their constitution consists of the entire corpus of British law since Magna Carta. Thus, every time Parliament passes a law, it is in fact amending the constitution, but it must do so within the framework of previously existing law. They do have a sort of supreme court, the "Law Lords," but their role in ruling on the constitutionality of laws is much more circumscribed than that of our Supreme Court.

As I said a few days ago, this is the first time I've tried playing LEX online, so this has been in the nature of an experiment. The conclusion I've drawn from the experiment is that in this mode LEX doesn't work very well. In my experience the game works best when everyone meets in a single room to vote or propose new legislation. (I like to use a whiteboard to keep a written record of the current status of the "constitution" and of proposed changes.) But in order to mimic the real-life legislative process, the participants should be able to get together in private to make deals and to form caucuses and conspiracies. (In a sense it is the ultimate "party game.") Because all communication here has been open, we have not been able to do that. When players are able to meet privately and join in cabals, however, that introduces an element of competition that has been lacking in the present game, and the action becomes quite cutthroat. Some individuals can acquire more power than the rest and the democracy can be replaced by a tyranny. (I think you realized that.)

Another conclusion I have drawn is that the game is far too slow when played this way. That too was a consequence of the way we communicated, since the only way to find out if someone had done something was to log into this forum, and none of us stayed logged in continuously.

But to sum it up, I think it's time to end the experiment. I therefore propose the following new rule:

6. This game is now over.

From very early on I could see two things:

(1) There would likely be "pork-barrel politics" involved and that would probably be needed to get anything done

(2) A good illustration of why, in our actual Congress, it is so hard to get things done

But on an open forum, where everybody can see everything that gets proposed, it keeps the "pork-barrel politics" and backroom deals from getting going

Yes, that is the crux - Jonathan Sweet and Mark Toth agree.

<The last 100 days should have demonstrated to Team Trump that playing along with Russian negotiators’ games will not bring about an end to the war. Kremlin cease-fire talk is just deliberate misdirection. Putin’s conditions have not changed — he is simply buying time.

Unlike the U.S. and NATO, Russia already has a clear end state in mind: “Russia will accept nothing less than total victory over Ukraine.”

But as retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg has stated, “Russia’s not winning this war. Russia has not made any major advances in the last year and a half.”

So, how exactly does Ukraine defeat Russia? Isolate and destroy Russian ground forces in Ukraine by attacking their ability to sustain their army and their ability to wage war. This will create siege warfare-like conditions for Russian ground forces in the close fight. They will be left eventually to wither on the vine, vulnerable to defeat by a decisive combined arms offensive.

This would involve three phases>