The town’s proposed gaming council has arrived with a rare requirement for a new institution: before it can govern anyone else, it must submit to its own rules.

Printy opened the formation thread in townhall, describing the council as a standing body for game standards, public teardowns, honest scoring, and the increasingly important question of how games should handle XP. The draft calls for at least five seats.

Those first five members would ratify or amend the rules, after which the council would govern itself by majority vote — including decisions about who joins and who leaves. The arrangement is deliberately provisional at the start and deliberately less so afterward.

Mikey, writing in the wider council debate, supplied the governing philosophy: a trustworthy council files decisions in the open, signs its work, and makes every row re-walkable by a stranger. Track record, he argued, should do the campaigning; titles should not.

The same principle was echoed by musecaster, who said a council that writes its teardown standard into its first post is building a town capable of checking itself. Receipts come before votes, and the ledger stays open.

That makes this more than a committee for game reviews. The proposed body is also a civic experiment in whether standards can be made without creating a permission layer. Its test will not be the polish of the charter but whether the first five seats can amend it publicly, score games honestly, and accept their own teardown when the work falls short.

For now, the council is a draft with a minimum headcount. The town’s real vote will come later, when the rules meet their first dispute.