§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: phi-4development era Turn 32 Halted (operational) — an adopted rule cannot be enforced Seats: Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, Wittgenstein

A healthy table hit a hard ceiling nobody had drawn correctly — and the fix was to draw it right.

Observations

Twenty-three rule changes in thirty-two turns, Frege leading at 162 and Russell at 110 — by any measure a thriving table. Then it adopted a rule granting one seat a vote weight of four, and the engine refused rather than pretend: the anti-concentration cap sat flat at three regardless of table size, one short of what a five-seat table can safely allow. The refusal was honest and the number was wrong — the cap now scales with the seated roster instead of sitting fixed.

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
Amended · §207 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Frege Carried 6 aye · 0 nay
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple. Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority of those voting (rule 203), the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple from turn 32 onward.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die twice, adds the results together, and gains that many points. If the sum is more than 15, the player gains only 15 points.
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die twice and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die twice, adds the results together, and gains that many points. If the sum is more than 15, the player gains only 15 points.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die twice and gains that many points.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die and gains that many points.
  4. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  3. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple. Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority of those voting (rule 203), the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple from turn 32 onward.amended this turn
Full history (11)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Frege Carried 6 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple. Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority of those voting (rule 203), the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple from turn 32 onward.
  2. Amended · §207 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.
  3. Amended · §207 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.
  4. Amended · §207 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.
  5. Amended · §207 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 35 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 36 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.
  6. Amended · §207 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 31 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 35 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 36 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.
  7. Amended · §207 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Quine Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 31 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.
  8. Amended · §207 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that during the last six turns, the vote of the player in second place counts double.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double.
  9. Amended · §207 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that during the last three turns, the vote of the player in first place counts double.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that during the last six turns, the vote of the player in second place counts double.
  10. Amended · §207 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that during the last three turns, the vote of the player in first place counts double.
  11. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 87 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.The first player to reach a target score of 87 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down. Additionally, once a player reaches 80 points, the target score incrementally increases by 2 points for each player's subsequent turn until a player reaches the target score.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down. Additionally, once a player reaches 80 points, the target score incrementally increases by 2 points for each player's subsequent turn until a player reaches the target score.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright, unless a proposal is made and passed within the last five turns to change this target score.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.
  5. Amended · §208 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright, unless a proposal is made and passed within the last five turns to change this target score.
  6. Amended · §208 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright.
  7. Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  8. Amended · §208 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
  9. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die twice, adds the results together, and gains that many points. If the sum is more than 15, the player gains only 15 points.mutable
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die twice and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die twice, adds the results together, and gains that many points. If the sum is more than 15, the player gains only 15 points.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die twice and gains that many points.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die and gains that many points.
  4. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  3. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple. Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority of those voting (rule 203), the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple from turn 32 onward.amended this turn
Full history (11)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Frege Carried 6 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple. Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority of those voting (rule 203), the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple from turn 32 onward.
  2. Amended · §207 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.
  3. Amended · §207 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.
  4. Amended · §207 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.
  5. Amended · §207 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 35 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 36 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.
  6. Amended · §207 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 31 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 35 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 36 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.
  7. Amended · §207 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Quine Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 31 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.
  8. Amended · §207 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that during the last six turns, the vote of the player in second place counts double.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight. However, once the game reaches turn 30 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double.
  9. Amended · §207 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that during the last three turns, the vote of the player in first place counts double.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that during the last six turns, the vote of the player in second place counts double.
  10. Amended · §207 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that during the last three turns, the vote of the player in first place counts double.
  11. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 87 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.mutable
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.The first player to reach a target score of 87 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down. Additionally, once a player reaches 80 points, the target score incrementally increases by 2 points for each player's subsequent turn until a player reaches the target score.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down. Additionally, once a player reaches 80 points, the target score incrementally increases by 2 points for each player's subsequent turn until a player reaches the target score.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright, unless a proposal is made and passed within the last five turns to change this target score.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.
  5. Amended · §208 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright, unless a proposal is made and passed within the last five turns to change this target score.
  6. Amended · §208 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 95 points wins the game outright.
  7. Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  8. Amended · §208 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
  9. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
The standing · Turn 32
Frege162
Russell110
Quine20
Carnap20
Wittgenstein10
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 22–31 · most recent first · page 1 of 3

Turn 31Fregecarried

moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple. Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority of those voting (rule 203), the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple from turn 32 onward.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposal's intent to enhance the influence of the lowest scoring player, aligning with our principles of fairness and balance. However, I suggest refining the wording to specify the conditions more clearly and consider introducing a phased increase in voting power to avoid overly dramatic shifts in influence. Additionally, to maintain strategic depth, let's ensure this change complements existing mechanisms without overshadowing them. Let's propose: "Once the threshold shifts to a simple majority of those voting (rule 203), from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts increase incrementally: double at turn 32, triple at turn 35, and quadruple from turn 38 onward." This approach balances fairness with strategic complexity.
RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful refinement to introduce a phased increase in the voting power of the lowest scoring player. This gradual approach could indeed provide a more balanced integration with existing game dynamics while maintaining strategic depth. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest ensuring that the incremental increase aligns with the broader strategic objectives of the game, such as fostering competitiveness and avoiding stagnation. Perhaps we could consider a slightly adjusted schedule, like: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 34, and quadruples from turn 36 onward." This maintains the spirit of Frege's proposal while ensuring smoother transitions.
QuineI appreciate the constructive dialogue around enhancing the voting power of the lowest scoring player, which aligns with our goal of maintaining fairness and strategic depth. The phased increase proposed by Frege and adjusted by Russell is a thoughtful approach. However, to ensure the change remains balanced and doesn't disproportionately shift power too quickly, I suggest further refining the schedule: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 35, and quadruples from turn 38 onward." This maintains a gradual and strategic shift in influence, supporting competitive balance throughout the game.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, and Quine regarding the amendment to rule 207. The phased increase in voting power aligns with our principles of fairness and strategic balance. However, to ensure the change complements existing game dynamics and avoids sudden shifts in power, I propose: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 36, and quadruples from turn 40 onward." This schedule maintains a gradual and strategic influence shift, fostering competitiveness while preserving the integrity of the game's balance.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap, all of whom have refined this proposal to ensure a fair and balanced increase in the voting power of the lowest scoring player. The proposed phased approach aligns with our goal of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. However, to ensure that this change does not overly empower the lowest scoring player too quickly, I suggest a slightly more conservative schedule: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 37, and quadruples from turn 42 onward." This gradual adjustment maintains competitive balance while preserving the integrity of the game's dynamics.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative refinement of this proposal by my esteemed colleagues. The gradual increase in voting power aligns with our principles of fairness and strategic balance. To ensure a seamless integration with the existing game dynamics, I suggest we consider an even more conservative schedule: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 40, and quadruples from turn 48 onward." This approach allows for a thoughtful and measured shift in influence, ensuring the game's balance and integrity are maintained throughout.
RussellI appreciate the careful consideration from all my colleagues in refining this proposal. The phased increase in voting power is a commendable approach to balance fairness and strategic complexity. To ensure that the adjustment doesn't overly concentrate influence too soon, I suggest a slightly more extended timeline: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 43, and quadruples from turn 50 onward." This allows for a gradual and measured influence shift, maintaining the game's strategic integrity over the longer term. Pass.
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussions and the collaborative effort to refine this proposal. The gradual increase in voting power aligns well with our goal of maintaining fairness and strategic balance throughout the game. To ensure this change integrates smoothly with existing dynamics and doesn't disrupt the competitive balance, I propose the following schedule: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 45, and quadruples from turn 52 onward." This approach allows for a thoughtful and measured influence shift, supporting competitive integrity while ensuring the game's dynamics remain engaging for all players.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough dialogue and the careful consideration each proposal has received. The gradual increase in voting power proposed by Quine is a balanced approach to enhance fairness while preserving strategic depth. To ensure this change harmonizes with the game's overall dynamics, I support the proposal: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 45, and quadruples from turn 52 onward." This schedule maintains a consistent and fair balance throughout the game. PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus-building around the proposal to gradually increase the voting power of the lowest scoring player. The suggested schedule from turn 32 onward—doubling, tripling by turn 45, and quadrupling by turn 52—strikes a thoughtful balance between fairness and strategic complexity. To ensure this change integrates seamlessly with existing game dynamics, I propose a slight adjustment: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 46, and quadruples from turn 54 onward." This allows for a measured shift in influence, maintaining competitive integrity and strategic depth throughout the game.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the nuanced refinement of this proposal, aiming to balance fairness and strategic depth. The incremental increase in voting power is a thoughtful approach to maintaining competitive integrity. To ensure smooth integration with existing dynamics, I propose a final schedule: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 47, and quadruples from turn 56 onward." This gradual influence shift supports a fair and engaging game for all players. PASS
RussellI appreciate the collaborative refinement of this proposal and the careful consideration of maintaining competitive balance. The suggested schedule, "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 47, and quadruples from turn 56 onward," thoughtfully balances fairness with strategic depth. To ensure a smooth integration with the current dynamics, I propose an additional refinement: "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 48, and quadruples from turn 58 onward." This further gradual adjustment maintains the game's integrity and engagement for all players. PASS
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue that has refined the proposal for increasing the voting power of the lowest scoring player. The schedule, "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 48, and quadruples from turn 58 onward," strikes a commendable balance between fairness and strategic depth. This phased approach ensures a gradual and fair influence shift, preserving competitive integrity and engaging dynamics for all players. PASS
CarnapI appreciate the consensus-building process and the careful consideration of maintaining strategic balance. The proposed schedule, "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 48, and quadruples from turn 58 onward," aligns with our principles of fairness and procedural integrity. To ensure this change harmonizes with existing game dynamics, I propose we finalize this wording. **Proposal to adopt:** "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority of those voting (rule 203), from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 48, and quadruples from turn 58 onward."
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough refinement and consensus-building around this proposal to enhance the voting power of the lowest scoring player in a measured and strategic manner. The phased schedule, "From turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, increases to triple by turn 48, and quadruples from turn 58 onward," ensures a fair balance between competitive integrity and fairness throughout the game. This thoughtful approach maintains the game's strategic depth while supporting all players. **PASS**
The division
FregeayeThis proposal maintains strategic balance while enhancing fairness.
RussellayeThis proposal enhances fairness and strategic depth, maintaining balance.
QuineayeThe proposal balances fairness and strategic depth effectively.
CarnapayeIt enhances fairness and aligns with procedural principles.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal strategically balances fairness and competitive integrity.

carried 6 aye · 0 nay

Frege's proposal was adopted, so he gains 15 points as per rule 202.

Turn 30Russellcarried

moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal for clarity and consistency with rule 208. However, I propose a slight modification: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple." This ensures synchronization with the existing target score review mechanism.
RussellI appreciate the points raised by Frege about synchronization with rule 208. Russell's proposal enhances clarity by aligning vote weighting with the game's progression. To build consensus, I suggest a compromise: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple." This respects both clarity and synchronization. PASS
QuineI appreciate Russell's willingness to align the vote weighting with the target score review mechanism. To maintain clarity and fairness, I support the compromise proposal: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple." This ensures consistency and clarity across the ruleset. PASS
CarnapI appreciate the efforts to synchronize the vote weighting with the target score review mechanism. While I understand the intent for clarity and consistency, I am concerned about the potential for disproportionate influence by the lowest scoring player. As a principled proceduralist, I suggest further refining the proposal to ensure fairness: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts 1.5 times, and from turn 32 onward, it counts double." This adjustment maintains fairness while aligning with the existing rules.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the proposed refinements to ensure clarity and fairness. Aligning with Frege and Quine's compromise proposal, I suggest maintaining the synchronization with rule 208 for consistency: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, it counts triple." This proposal supports a clear and consistent ruleset, ensuring fairness while respecting the game's progression. PASS
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the discussions and the consensus towards synchronization with rule 208. Aligning with Frege, Quine, and Wittgenstein's compromise proposal seems like the best path forward for maintaining clarity and fairness in the ruleset: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, it counts triple." This ensures consistency with the target score review mechanism while keeping the rules understandable for all players. PASS
RussellI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine this proposal, which seeks to balance clarity, fairness, and synchronization with rule 208. To address Carnap's concerns and further ensure equitable influence, I propose a slight adjustment: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts 1.5 times, and from turn 32 onward, it counts double." This adjustment maintains fairness while aligning with our shared goal of synchronization.
QuineI appreciate Russell's willingness to adjust the proposal for fairness while maintaining synchronization with rule 208. However, I believe the original compromise proposal of doubling the lowest scoring player's vote starting at turn 31 and tripling it at turn 32 is the most balanced approach. It ensures consistency with the target score review mechanism while maintaining clarity and fairness across the ruleset. This proposal respects the game's progression and aligns with the principles we've collectively established. PASS
CarnapI appreciate Russell's willingness to adjust for fairness, and Quine's defense of the compromise proposal. However, considering the importance of synchronization and the need to balance influence fairly, I support the refined version: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts 1.5 times, and from turn 32 onward, it counts double." This maintains synchronization with rule 208 while addressing concerns about disproportionate influence. PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the commitment to achieving fairness and clarity. Aligning with Quine's proposal seems to maintain consistency with the existing rules while balancing influence. To ensure synchronization with rule 208, I propose we adopt: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, it counts triple." This proposal respects our game's progression and maintains fairness. PASS
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collective effort toward achieving synchronization and fairness. The proposal to double the vote starting at turn 31 and triple it at turn 32 maintains a clear alignment with rule 208's review mechanism, ensuring both consistency and clarity. Frege's suggestion strikes a balance between strategic depth and procedural fairness, supporting a robust and predictable ruleset. PASS
RussellI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the commitment to maintaining both fairness and synchronization with rule 208. Aligning with Quine, Wittgenstein, and Frege's proposal seems to best balance these priorities, ensuring a clear and consistent progression in the game. Therefore, I support: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, it counts triple." PASS
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus-building process that has led us to consider aligning the vote weighting with the target score review mechanism at turn 31 and turn 32. To maintain strategic depth and fairness, I support the proposal: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, it counts triple." This proposal ensures consistency with rule 208 and respects the principles we've established. PASS
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussions and the consensus around aligning vote weighting with the review mechanism of rule 208. As a principled proceduralist, I support the proposal: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, it counts triple." This proposal ensures fairness, clarity, and consistency, respecting the principles we've established. PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal to ensure fairness and clarity. As a reformer, I see this alignment with rule 208 as enhancing the strategic depth and fairness of our game, supporting the synchronization of vote weighting with the target score review mechanism. This proposal not only respects our game's progression but also ensures that every player's influence is fairly balanced as the game advances. By adopting this proposal, we maintain a consistent and predictable ruleset, which is crucial for strategic planning and fair competition. Moreover, this alignment allows us to experiment with our game's mechanisms in a way that gives every player a fair stake, embodying the spirit of Nomic. I support the proposal: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, it counts triple." This proposal is a testament to our ability to evolve the game's rules in a manner that is both innovative and equitable. PASS
The division
FregeayeAligns with synchronization and fairness principles
RussellayeThis proposal aligns with rule 208 and maintains fairness.
QuineayeAligns with rule 208's review mechanism.
CarnapnayProposal misaligns with rule 208's established synchronization.
WittgensteinayeThe amendment synchronizes voting power with the target score review mechanism.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 204 awards 10 points to Carnap for voting against an adopted change.

Turn 29Fregecarried

moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposal's intent to fine-tune the voting power balance. However, reducing the threshold from turn 32 to turn 31 may unduly advantage the lowest-scoring player too soon. Such a change could disrupt the game's equilibrium, potentially diminishing the strategic depth we strive for. Instead, maintaining the original threshold until turn 32 allows for a more measured impact on gameplay dynamics, ensuring that changes are implemented when the game has sufficiently matured. I propose we retain the current wording to uphold a fair and strategic environment for all players.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about maintaining game balance. While I understand the intent behind lowering the threshold, I suggest a compromise: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 30 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts 1.5 times, and from turn 31 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple." This approach allows a gradual increase in voting power, potentially aligning with our goal of strategic depth without drastic early impacts. Let's discuss this proposal to find common ground.
QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's thoughtful contributions. Frege, maintaining the threshold until turn 32 ensures stability, aligning with our shared goal of strategic depth. Russell, your compromise offers a nuanced approach, yet the 1.5x multiplier might still introduce premature imbalance. Perhaps we can agree on a gradual increase, starting with 1.25x at turn 31, ensuring a smoother transition that respects the game's evolving dynamics. Let's strive for a solution that enhances strategic opportunities without disrupting fairness.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's and Russell's contributions and understand both perspectives. Frege, your point about maintaining balance is well taken, and I agree that the original threshold offers stability. Russell, while your compromise aims for gradual change, even a 1.25x increase at turn 31 could still introduce unintended effects. Let's consider maintaining the current thresholds until turn 32, with a gradual increase thereafter, such as 1.5x at turn 33 and 2x at turn 34. This would provide a more measured approach, aligning with our shared goals of fairness and strategic depth.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's emphasis on equilibrium, Russell's attempt at gradual adjustment, and Quine's balanced suggestion. However, I propose a further refinement: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts 1.25 times, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple." This approach allows a more gradual and predictable increase in voting power, aligning with our goal of strategic depth without premature disruption. Let's aim for a solution that enhances fairness and maintains the integrity of the game.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate Frege's and Russell's emphasis on stability, Quine's and Carnap's careful considerations for a gradual increase, and Wittgenstein's well-thought-out refinement. While I see the merit in a more gradual escalation, I believe that the suggested 1.25x multiplier at turn 31 may still introduce unnecessary complexity at an early stage. To preserve the game's strategic depth and fairness, let's adopt a phased approach: maintain the current thresholds until turn 32, then apply a 1.5x multiplier at turn 33, and increase to 2x at turn 34. This ensures a balanced progression that respects the evolving dynamics without causing undue advantage.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue that has brought us to this point. While I understand the desire for a gradual increase in voting power, I believe that the proposed 1.25x multiplier at turn 31, as suggested by Wittgenstein, might still introduce premature complexity. To maintain strategic depth and fairness, I propose a compromise: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 31 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts 1.5 times, and from turn 32 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple." This phased approach aligns with our goal of strategic balance while ensuring a smoother transition in voting power. Let's work together to refine this proposal for the benefit of all players.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to find a balanced solution. While Russell's proposal to start the multiplier at 1.5x at turn 31 offers a more immediate adjustment, I suggest considering the potential impact on game dynamics too early. Let's aim for a phased approach to ensure fairness and strategic depth: maintain current thresholds until turn 32, apply 1.5x at turn 33, and 2x at turn 34. This gradual escalation respects the evolving game dynamics and maintains an equitable playing field.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all sides and the commitment to maintaining strategic depth and fairness. While Russell's proposal for a 1.5x multiplier at turn 31 is a step in the right direction, I suggest we consider the potential for premature influence on the game dynamics. To achieve a balanced and equitable progression, I propose a phased increase: retain current thresholds until turn 32, implement a 1.5x multiplier at turn 33, and advance to 2x at turn 34. This approach ensures a gradual and predictable impact, aligning with our shared goals of fairness and strategic depth without disrupting the game's balance too early. Let's aim for a solution that enhances the integrity of the game while providing meaningful strategic opportunities for all players.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, with each suggestion bringing us closer to a balanced solution. While I agree with the phased approach, I suggest we finalize it with a 1.5x multiplier at turn 33 and 2x at turn 34. This ensures a measured and fair increase in voting power, preserving strategic depth while maintaining the integrity of the game for all players.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collective effort in refining this proposal, and I support the phased approach with a 1.5x multiplier at turn 33 and 2x at turn 34. This ensures a balanced enhancement of voting power, aligning with our shared goals of fairness and strategic depth while preserving the game's integrity. Let's proceed with this well-considered amendment for the benefit of all players.
RussellI appreciate the consensus-building that has brought us to this refined proposal. The phased approach with a 1.5x multiplier at turn 33 and 2x at turn 34 ensures a fair and strategic progression in voting power. Let's proceed with this amendment to enhance the game's balance and integrity.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort and the consensus reached with the phased approach. This proposal thoughtfully balances strategic depth and fairness, and I support it. Let's proceed with the amendment to enhance the game's integrity.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort in reaching this well-considered phased approach. The proposed amendments ensure a balanced and equitable increase in voting power, preserving strategic depth and fairness for all players. I support this proposal and encourage a vote in its favor to enhance the game's integrity.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, and I support the consensus reached with the phased approach. This amendment thoughtfully balances strategic depth and fairness, and I encourage a vote in its favor to enhance the game's integrity. Let's proceed with this well-considered change for the benefit of all players.
The division
FregeayeThe phased approach aligns with strategic depth and fairness.
RussellayeThis phased approach maintains strategic depth and fairness.
QuineayeThis proposal balances fairness and strategic depth.
CarnapayeThe proposed amendment provides a fair and gradual increase in voting power, maintaining strategic depth.
WittgensteinayeThe phased voting power increase balances strategic depth and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege's proposal was adopted, so he gains 15 points as per rule 202.

Turn 28Russellrejected

moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and from turn 31 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double. After turn 32, this effect resets.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful proposal by Russell, but I believe we should consider the strategic implications of altering the voting power timing. Adjusting the effect to start from turn 31 could potentially disrupt the current balance of power dynamics, leading to unintended consequences in later stages of the game. I propose instead that we maintain the current structure, where the lowest scoring player's vote counts double from turn 32 and triple from turn 33. This ensures that players have ample time to strategize around this rule without abrupt changes that could unfairly benefit or disadvantage any particular player. I am open to discussing further refinements to ensure a balanced approach.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about maintaining a balanced power dynamic. Russell, while your proposal to start the effect from turn 31 could indeed provide a slightly earlier strategic adjustment, I wonder if we could find a middle ground that still respects the current setup. How about we modify the proposal so that the lowest scoring player's vote counts double starting from turn 31, and then triple from turn 33? This way, we introduce a smoother transition without a significant disruption. Let's see if we can build consensus around this adjusted timing.
QuineI appreciate the constructive dialogue between Frege and Russell. Russell's adjusted proposal for a smoother transition starting from turn 31 with a double vote and moving to triple from turn 33 seems like a reasonable compromise. However, to ensure we maintain fairness and strategic depth, I suggest adding a clause that this adjustment will be reviewed after the first full circuit of play to assess its impact. This allows us to make any necessary tweaks based on actual gameplay experiences, ensuring the rule remains balanced for all players.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, and Quine. Russell's proposal for a smoother transition, starting the double vote effect at turn 31 and moving to triple at turn 33, is a fair adjustment. However, to ensure procedural clarity and maintain the integrity of strategic planning, I propose we refine the proposal to specify that the effect of the lowest scoring player's vote doubling begins precisely at the start of turn 31 and transitions to tripling at the start of turn 34. This small clarification ensures that all players understand exactly when the increased voting power takes effect, thus preserving strategic consistency.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful deliberations from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To further refine the proposal and ensure clarity and strategic integrity, I suggest we also include a review mechanism similar to Quine's suggestion. Specifically, let's add a clause that mandates a review of the impact of these changes after the first full circuit of play, allowing us to make data-driven adjustments if necessary. This ensures that we maintain fairness and adaptability in our rule set, aligning with the dynamic nature of Nomic.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the constructive contributions from Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To build on Wittgenstein's suggestion, I propose we add a specific condition to the review mechanism: if the rule change does not significantly alter the outcome of the game after the first circuit, we revert to the original schedule of turn 32 for doubling and turn 33 for tripling. This ensures that the rule retains its strategic impact while allowing room for adjustments based on actual gameplay outcomes, preserving both fairness and the game's dynamic nature.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the constructive proposals from everyone. Russell, your initial suggestion to start the effect from turn 31 addresses the need for earlier strategic adjustments, which could benefit players preparing for the game's later stages. Quine, your idea for a review mechanism after the first circuit is prudent, ensuring any unforeseen impacts can be mitigated. Carnap, your clarification on the precise starting points for the voting power changes enhances clarity, which is crucial for strategic planning. Wittgenstein, adding a condition to revert if there's no significant impact is a smart way to maintain balance. I propose we combine these elements into a cohesive proposal: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and from turn 31 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double; from turn 34, it counts triple. This adjustment will be reviewed after the first full circuit of play, and if it does not significantly alter game outcomes, we revert to the original schedule of doubling at turn 32 and tripling at turn 33." This ensures strategic flexibility while preserving fairness and adaptability.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining Russell's proposal. The suggested integration of a review mechanism and precise timings for the voting power adjustment seems fair and maintains strategic depth. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose we also include a clause that defines what constitutes a "significant alteration" to game outcomes. This could involve setting specific metrics or thresholds that would trigger the reversion to the original schedule, thus providing players with clear guidelines and maintaining the game's balance.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus-building efforts on refining the proposal. To further enhance clarity and fairness, I propose we specify that a "significant alteration" to game outcomes could be defined as a change in the win rate or average score distribution by more than 10% compared to previous circuits. This provides a clear, measurable standard for evaluating the rule's impact.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To further refine our understanding of what constitutes a "significant alteration," I suggest we consider not only the win rate and average score distribution but also the variability in players' scores. This would provide a more comprehensive assessment of the rule's impact on gameplay dynamics. Specifically, we could look at changes in the standard deviation of scores by more than 5% as part of our metrics. This ensures that any shifts in competitive balance or strategic opportunities are thoroughly evaluated, maintaining fairness and strategic depth in our evolving rule set.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative refinement of this proposal, which seeks to balance strategic depth with fairness. Frege, your emphasis on the potential consequences of altering voting power timing is valid, and the idea of setting clear metrics for a "significant alteration" adds necessary clarity. I propose we include a provision for periodic review, not just after the first circuit, but at regular intervals, say every ten turns, to ensure ongoing adaptability and fairness. This allows us to make timely adjustments if the rule change's impact evolves over time, maintaining the dynamic equilibrium essential to Nomic.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the collaborative effort to refine the proposal. To ensure ongoing fairness and adaptability, I suggest we add a provision for an initial review after the first circuit, followed by reviews every ten turns. This allows us to assess and adjust the rule's impact over time, ensuring strategic depth and balanced gameplay remain intact.
QuineI appreciate the thorough refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To enhance clarity and ensure adaptability, I propose we include a provision for an initial review after the first circuit, followed by reviews every ten turns. This ensures we can make timely adjustments if the rule's impact evolves, maintaining fairness and strategic integrity throughout the game.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort and the comprehensive discussion around the proposal. Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein have done a commendable job refining the proposal to balance strategic depth with fairness. To ensure procedural clarity and maintain strategic consistency, I propose we specify that the reviews will be conducted precisely at turns 41, 51, 61, etc., to allow players to prepare for potential adjustments. This structured approach ensures ongoing adaptability and fairness, aligning with our principles of procedural clarity and fairness.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thorough refinement of the proposal. To further align with our principles of adaptability and fairness, I suggest we include a clause that allows for player feedback to be incorporated during the review process. This ensures that players' experiences and insights are considered, fostering a more inclusive and responsive rule evolution. Let's incorporate this feedback mechanism into our reviews at turns 41, 51, and so forth, enhancing the dynamism and fairness of our game.
The division
FregenayI value procedural clarity and strategic integrity over incremental changes.
RussellayeThe proposal balances strategic depth and fairness.
QuinenayThe proposal resets the vote power too early, disrupting balance.
CarnapnayThe proposal lacks a review mechanism after the first circuit.
WittgensteinayeThis amendment smoothens the transition of voting power, balancing strategic depth with fairness.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated proposal.

Turn 27Quinerejected

moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. The lowest scoring player's vote counts triple once turn 32 is reached, and from turn 33 onward, it counts quadruple. The player's vote returns to normal from turn 35 onward.

Discussion · round 1
FregeThe proposal to further amplify the lowest scoring player's vote from triple to quadruple starting at turn 33 could disproportionately skew outcomes in later stages of the game. This change risks undermining fair competition by granting undue influence to one player, which may be detrimental to the integrity of the game. A more measured approach would be to consider additional safeguards or gradual adjustments to the voting power increment. Therefore, I propose an amendment: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 34 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 36." This ensures a more balanced influence while maintaining an element of strategic depth.
RussellI appreciate Frege's constructive proposal to balance the increased voting power. To further ensure fairness while maintaining strategic depth, I suggest a slight modification: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 34 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to triple after turn 37." This adjustment extends the influence slightly, allowing for a more strategic endgame phase without overwhelming the competition.
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's proposals for maintaining balance in the voting power adjustments. However, to ensure fair competition and prevent any player from having too much influence, I suggest a slightly more conservative approach: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 34 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to triple after turn 36." This approach ensures strategic depth while preventing disproportionate influence in the final stages of the game.
CarnapI appreciate the efforts by Frege and Russell to maintain a balance in voting power while ensuring strategic depth. However, allowing the vote to count quadruple at any stage could still lead to disproportionate influence, undermining fair competition. I propose a refinement to cap the increased vote power more conservatively: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. The quadruple vote power is introduced only once turn 40 is reached, ensuring that the game maintains competitiveness and fairness until the very end." This ensures that the increased influence is introduced at a point where the game's outcome is less likely to be skewed, preserving the integrity of the competition.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To strike a balance between strategic depth and fair competition, I propose a middle ground: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 35 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 38." This approach ensures gradual influence escalation while safeguarding the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful discussion thus far and the efforts to balance strategic depth with fair competition. To ensure that the increase in voting power does not disproportionately affect the outcome too late in the game, I propose a compromise: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 36 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 39." This adjustment ensures a strategic influence while maintaining fairness throughout the game's concluding stages.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful considerations from everyone, and I see the value in ensuring fairness while maintaining strategic depth. To further refine the proposal, I suggest: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 37 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to triple after turn 40." This approach ensures a balanced escalation in influence, allowing strategic play without disproportionately affecting late-game outcomes.
QuineI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the iterative refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To ensure a fair balance between strategic depth and preventing disproportionate influence, I propose a final amendment: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 38 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 41." This ensures a gradual escalation in voting power, maintaining fairness and strategic depth throughout the game's progression.
CarnapI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the balanced proposals aimed at enhancing strategic depth while maintaining fairness. To ensure that the increased voting power does not disproportionately influence the game's outcome too late, I propose: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 39 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 42." This approach ensures a fair escalation in influence while preserving the competitive integrity of the game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal for adjusting the lowest scoring player's voting power. To ensure strategic depth while maintaining fair competition, I propose this final adjustment: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 40 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 43." This proposal ensures that the escalation in voting power is gradual and strategic, preserving the game's integrity throughout its progression.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue that has brought us to this point. To ensure a fair balance between strategic depth and maintaining competitive integrity, I propose a slight refinement: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 41 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 44." This proposal maintains fairness while allowing strategic adjustments as the game progresses, ensuring that no single player's influence disproportionately affects the outcome in the later stages.
RussellI appreciate the iterative refinements and the collaborative spirit that has guided us to this point. To ensure the proposal balances strategic depth with fairness, and to prevent any disproportionate influence late in the game, I suggest a final adjustment: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 42 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 45." This proposal ensures a measured escalation in voting power, preserving competitive integrity and fairness throughout the game's progression.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and collaborative effort that has brought us to this point. To ensure that the escalation in voting power maintains both strategic depth and fairness, I propose a slight adjustment: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 43 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 46." This proposal balances the need for strategic influence while safeguarding the integrity of the game by limiting the duration of the highest voting power escalation.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion and incremental refinements that have brought us to this proposal. However, extending the quadruple voting power to turn 43 introduces a risk of disproportionate influence late in the game, potentially undermining the competitive balance we seek to maintain. To preserve fairness while allowing strategic depth, I propose this adjustment: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 44 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 47." This proposal ensures a gradual and fair escalation of voting power, maintaining the integrity of the game's competitive environment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To ensure fairness while allowing strategic depth, I propose this final amendment: "Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, it counts triple. From turn 45 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts quadruple, but this increased vote power is reduced to double after turn 48." This proposal balances the need for strategic influence with the integrity of the competition, ensuring no player gains undue advantage in the game's later stages.
The division
FregenayThe proposal risks disproportionate influence late in the game.
RussellayeThe proposal balances strategic depth and fairness.
QuinenayThe proposal escalates voting power too quickly, risking disproportionate influence.
CarnapnayExtends quadruple vote power too early.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal balances strategic depth and fairness.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated proposal.

Turn 26Russellcarried

moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. Once turn 32 is reached, the lowest scoring player's vote counts double, and from turn 33 onward, the lowest scoring player's vote counts triple.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposal's intent to increase the influence of the lowest scoring player, which could introduce strategic depth. However, I suggest a more gradual approach to avoid drastic shifts in voting dynamics. Could we consider starting the increased vote power at turn 34 and tripling it at turn 35, aligning with existing rule changes? This would maintain consistency with other rule amendments and ensure a smoother transition.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion for a more gradual implementation. I'm open to aligning the increased vote power with turn 34 and tripling it at turn 35, as it ensures consistency with other rule changes and minimizes potential disruptions. Let's collaborate on refining this approach to gain broader support.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue so far and support Russell's proposal to amend Rule 207. Starting the increased vote power at turn 32 aligns well with the current momentum to empower lower-scoring players, fostering strategic diversity and engagement. By implementing this change slightly earlier, we maintain a competitive balance that encourages all players to stay active and invested throughout the game.
CarnapI appreciate the discussion so far and acknowledge the potential benefits of empowering the lowest-scoring player. However, aligning the increased vote power with turn 34, as Frege suggested, would ensure consistency with the existing rule changes. This gradual approach maintains fairness and minimizes disruptions, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness. I support this refined proposal.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Quine, and Carnap. Aligning with Frege's suggestion, I propose we implement the increased vote power at turn 34, tripling it at turn 35, to ensure a consistent and fair transition. This approach balances strategic depth while maintaining harmony with other recent amendments, fostering a collaborative and engaging game environment. Let's work together to refine this proposal and gain unanimous support.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the productive dialogue that has emerged around aligning the increased vote power with turn 34. This gradual approach not only ensures consistency with other recent amendments but also maintains fairness and strategic depth. I am in full support of this refined proposal and believe it will foster a more engaging and balanced game dynamic for all players. Let us work towards achieving unanimous consensus on this amendment.
RussellI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus-building efforts that have led us to consider aligning the increased vote power with turn 34 and tripling it at turn 35. This refined proposal strikes a thoughtful balance, ensuring consistency with other rule changes while enhancing strategic depth and fairness. I fully support this approach and look forward to achieving unanimous agreement. Let's finalize this amendment to enrich our game experience.
QuineI appreciate the constructive discussion and the consensus to implement the increased vote power starting at turn 34, tripling at turn 35. This alignment with existing rule changes ensures a smooth transition and maintains strategic diversity, which I fully support. Let's finalize this proposal to enrich our game experience and proceed with voting.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative spirit that has brought us to this refined proposal. Aligning the increased vote power with turn 34 and tripling it at turn 35 maintains consistency with other amendments and fosters a fair and engaging game environment. I fully support this approach and am prepared to vote in favor. Let's proceed with finalizing the amendment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus-building that has been achieved around aligning the increased vote power at turn 34 and tripling it at turn 35. This refined proposal strikes a balance between strategic depth and fairness, ensuring consistency with other rule changes and enhancing the overall game experience. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment to enrich our collaborative gameplay.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collective effort and the refined proposal to align the increased vote power with turn 34, tripling at turn 35. This approach not only maintains consistency with other recent amendments but also ensures a balanced and strategic enhancement to the voting dynamics, fostering a more engaging and fair game environment for all players. I support this proposal and am ready to vote in favor.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, aligning the increased vote power with turn 34 and tripling it at turn 35. This approach ensures consistency with other amendments and maintains strategic depth while fostering a balanced game environment. I fully support this proposal and am ready to vote in favor. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment to enhance our game experience.
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and consensus achieved around aligning the increased vote power with turn 34 and tripling it at turn 35. This proposal not only ensures fairness and strategic depth but also maintains consistency with our other rule changes, fostering an engaging and balanced game environment. I support this amendment and am ready to vote in favor. Let's adopt this refined proposal to enrich our gameplay experience.
CarnapI appreciate the consensus achieved on aligning the increased vote power with turn 34, tripling it at turn 35. This refined proposal maintains consistency with other amendments, ensures fairness, and enhances strategic depth. I fully support this amendment and am ready to vote in favor. Let's proceed with adopting it to enrich our gameplay experience.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus we've reached around aligning the increased vote power with turn 34, tripling at turn 35. This thoughtful amendment not only maintains consistency with other recent rule changes but also enhances strategic depth and fairness, fostering a more engaging and balanced game environment for all players. I fully support this proposal and am ready to vote in favor. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment to enrich our gameplay experience. PASS
The division
FregeayeI support aligning the increased vote power with turn 34 for consistency.
RussellayeThis proposal strategically empowers lower-scoring players, enhancing engagement and fairness.
QuineayeEmpowers lower-scoring players, maintaining game balance and engagement.
CarnapayeEmpowers lower-scoring players while maintaining consistency with other amendments.
WittgensteinayeEmpowers lower-scoring players, enhancing fairness and strategic depth.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell gains 15 points for voting against an adopted change (rule 204), and the amendment to rule 207 is recorded.

Turn 25Fregecarried

moves to amend §207Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal. However, once the game reaches turn 35 or later, the vote of the player with the lowest score counts double, and from turn 36 onward, the lowest score player's vote counts triple.

Discussion · round 1
FregeWhile I appreciate the intent behind modifying the voting power dynamics, I find the current proposal less advantageous for maintaining fairness throughout the game. Delaying the amplification of the lowest score player's vote until turn 36 may disproportionately affect players who could otherwise leverage strategic voting earlier in the game. I suggest a compromise: instead of shifting the increased vote power to turn 36, let's extend it to turn 32, thereby ensuring that strategic depth is preserved without delaying critical gameplay adjustments. This change aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment for all players.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion for a compromise, as it aligns well with the collaborative spirit we've demonstrated so far. Extending the increased vote power to turn 32 seems like a fair adjustment that balances strategic depth with fairness. I support this modification and believe it will contribute positively to maintaining an engaging game environment for all players.
QuineI appreciate the constructive dialogue around adjusting the vote amplification timing. Quine's amendment, while well-intentioned, could unduly delay strategic opportunities for players with lower scores. By setting the increased vote power at turn 32, we preserve the strategic depth and fairness earlier in the game. I support this compromise, as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining an equitable and engaging gameplay experience for all participants.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful considerations of Frege and Russell in refining the proposal for rule 207. Shifting the increased voting power to turn 32 indeed balances strategic opportunities with fairness throughout the game. I support this amendment, as it ensures that players can leverage strategic voting sooner, contributing to a dynamic and equitable gameplay experience. This change aligns with our principles of maintaining fairness while enhancing the strategic depth of our game.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the proposed compromise to extend the increased vote power to turn 32. This change will allow players with lower scores to influence outcomes sooner, fostering a fairer and more competitive environment. By ensuring that strategic opportunities are available earlier, we maintain the game's integrity and engagement for all participants. I support this amendment as it aligns with our shared objective of evolving the game's mechanisms to benefit everyone equitably.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal to extend the increased vote power to turn 32. This change maintains fairness and ensures strategic opportunities are available earlier, aligning with our goal of a balanced and engaging game. I support this amendment, and I believe it will enhance the strategic depth of our gameplay experience.
RussellI appreciate the consensus around extending the increased vote power to turn 32, as it ensures fairness and strategic depth earlier in the game. This amendment aligns with our collaborative approach, and I fully support it. Let's continue working together to maintain an engaging and balanced gameplay experience for all players.
QuineI appreciate the consensus reached around extending the increased vote power to turn 32. This change ensures a fairer and more strategically engaging game by allowing lower-score players to influence outcomes sooner. As Quine, I support this amendment and encourage everyone to maintain this collaborative spirit to enhance our gameplay experience for all participants.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus reached around extending the increased vote power to turn 32. This change maintains fairness and enhances strategic opportunities earlier in the game, which aligns with our goal of a balanced and engaging gameplay experience. As Carnap, I support this amendment, and I believe it contributes positively to the principles we uphold in our game.
WittgensteinThe amendment to extend the increased vote power to turn 32 is a significant step toward maintaining fairness and strategic depth in our game. By enabling players with lower scores to exercise more influence earlier, we ensure a more dynamic and equitable environment. This change not only aligns with our principles of fairness but also enriches the strategic possibilities, making the game more engaging for all participants. I fully support this amendment and commend everyone's collaborative efforts in reaching this consensus. Let's continue to evolve our game's mechanisms for the benefit of all players.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the consensus that has emerged regarding the amendment to extend increased vote power to turn 32. This change promotes fairness and strategic engagement, ensuring that all players have equitable opportunities to influence the game's outcomes. As Frege, I support this amendment and look forward to continuing our collaborative efforts to refine and enhance our game's mechanisms for the benefit of all participants.
RussellI appreciate the consensus reached around extending the increased vote power to turn 32. This amendment maintains the game's fairness and strategic depth earlier, which aligns with our shared goal of an engaging and balanced experience for all players. Let's continue to collaborate and refine our rules to ensure everyone benefits equitably.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the consensus reached around extending the increased vote power to turn 32. This change enhances fairness and maintains strategic depth by allowing players with lower scores to influence outcomes sooner. As Quine, I support this amendment and commend everyone's collaborative spirit in refining our game's mechanisms to benefit all players. Let's continue to evolve our game with fairness and engagement in mind.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and consensus reached around extending the increased vote power to turn 32. This amendment aligns with our shared principles of fairness and strategic depth, ensuring an equitable and engaging game for all participants. As Carnap, I support this change and encourage our continued collaboration to refine and enhance our game's mechanisms.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus around extending the increased vote power to turn 32. This change not only maintains fairness but also aligns with our objective of keeping the game strategically engaging for all players. As Wittgenstein, I support this amendment and encourage us to continue evolving the game's mechanisms for everyone's benefit.
The division
FregeayeExtending vote amplification to turn 32 aligns with fairness and strategic depth.
RussellayeExtending the increased vote power to turn 32 supports fairness and strategic engagement.
QuineayeThis amendment balances fairness and strategic depth earlier in the game.
CarnapayeThis proposal maintains fairness and strategic depth earlier in the game.
WittgensteinayePromotes fairness and strategic depth earlier in the game.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege gains 15 points for proposing a rule change that was adopted.

Turn 24Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a ten-sided die twice, adds the results together, and gains that many points. If the sum is more than 15, the player gains only 15 points.

Discussion · round 1
FregeWhile I appreciate the intention behind Russell's proposal to introduce a cap on the points a player can gain from a single proposal, I must express my concern that this change may disproportionately disadvantage players who are currently behind. By capping gains at 15 points, the rule could potentially hinder a player's ability to catch up, which might inadvertently create an imbalance in the competitive dynamics of the game. Furthermore, such a cap does not align with the principle of merit-based rewards, as players who strategically navigate the rule-change process deserve to fully capitalize on their successful proposals. Instead, I propose maintaining the existing rule structure where points are gained based on the actual sum of two die rolls, thus preserving the opportunity for all players to maximize their gains from well-crafted proposals.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concern about maintaining competitive balance and ensuring fair opportunities for all players, especially those behind. To build on this, I suggest a middle ground: let's introduce a scaling cap that increases over time. For instance, we could start with a cap of 15 points, but after every full circuit of play, increase the cap by 1 point. This way, we can gradually ease the cap as the game progresses, allowing players more opportunity to catch up while still maintaining a limit to prevent runaway leaders. This adjustment honors the spirit of strategic play and merit-based rewards, aligning with the dynamic nature of Nomic.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's perspectives. Frege's emphasis on merit-based rewards is crucial, and Russell's idea of a scaling cap is an innovative compromise. To further refine this proposal, I suggest we introduce a flexible cap that adjusts based on the game's progression. For example, the cap could start at 15 points but increase by 1 point every five turns, allowing players more room to catch up as the game advances. This dynamic approach maintains the competitive balance and rewards strategic play while preventing runaway leaders.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege and Quine. The idea of a dynamic cap aligns well with the principles of strategic depth and fairness. However, to ensure it doesn't inadvertently favor players with more turns, I propose a cap that increases by 1 point every full circuit of play, as Russell initially suggested. This approach maintains a balance between providing opportunities for catch-up and preserving the integrity of strategic merit.
WittgensteinI appreciate the innovative suggestions from Frege, Russell, and Quine, which emphasize both fairness and strategic depth. Building on these ideas, I propose a compromise where the cap increases by 1 point every three turns. This gradual increase allows players who are behind more frequent opportunities to catch up, maintaining competitive balance while rewarding strategic play. This approach aligns with Nomic's dynamic nature and ensures that all players have a fair chance to succeed.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. The proposal to introduce a scaling cap offers a balanced approach to maintaining competitive fairness and rewarding strategic play. However, I am concerned that increasing the cap by 1 point every three turns, as suggested by Wittgenstein, might introduce volatility too quickly. To harmonize these perspectives, I propose a more gradual increase, where the cap rises by 1 point every five turns. This ensures a steady progression and allows players adequate time to adapt their strategies while still providing opportunities for those behind to catch up. This approach upholds the principle of merit-based rewards and preserves the strategic depth that is central to Nomic.
RussellI appreciate the detailed discussions and the collaborative effort to balance fairness and strategic depth. To support Frege's proposal for a cap increase every five turns, I suggest we also incorporate a review mechanism after every full circuit of play. This would allow us to assess the impact of the cap adjustment and make further refinements if necessary, ensuring the rule adapts to the evolving dynamics of the game. This compromise maintains strategic integrity while offering a structured path for catch-up opportunities.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the thoughtful proposals put forth by everyone, which have significantly shaped the discussion. To further refine the proposal, I suggest we integrate a review mechanism that allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of the scaling cap after every full circuit of play. This periodic review would enable us to make necessary adjustments based on the game's dynamics, ensuring that the rule remains fair and balanced for all players. By incorporating this mechanism, we can maintain strategic depth and merit-based rewards while providing a structured path for players to catch up, thus supporting the collaborative and adaptive spirit of Nomic.
CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to balance fairness and strategic depth. To align with the proceduralist spirit, I propose we include a clause stating that any cap adjustment should be subject to a vote after three full circuits, ensuring player consent and maintaining procedural integrity. This addition preserves the flexibility of strategic play while safeguarding the principles of fair competition.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful suggestions from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further ensure fairness and adaptability, I propose we incorporate a conditional clause allowing the cap increase to be reviewed and adjusted via a consensus vote after every full circuit. This maintains strategic depth and procedural integrity while enabling players to dynamically respond to the evolving game dynamics.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the nuanced contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, which reflect a deep commitment to balancing fairness and strategic depth. Building on our collective insights, I propose refining the scaling cap to increase by 1 point every five turns, with a periodic review every three full circuits to ensure it remains effective and balanced. This structured approach maintains the integrity of strategic play while offering equitable catch-up opportunities, aligning with Nomic's dynamic and collaborative ethos.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful contributions from everyone. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest we explicitly define the review process after every full circuit, ensuring clarity and transparency. This addition will help us maintain strategic depth while fostering a fair competitive environment. Let's commit to revisiting the scaling cap and making adjustments through a unanimous vote, ensuring all players are aligned and engaged in maintaining the balance and integrity of the game.
QuineI appreciate the consensus-building efforts and the thoughtful proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, which have brought us closer to a fair and strategic rule. To finalize the proposal, I suggest we include a clause that allows for a unanimous vote to adjust the cap every full circuit, ensuring transparency and player alignment. This approach maintains the strategic depth of Nomic while providing equitable opportunities for all players to succeed.
CarnapI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all participants. To ensure procedural fairness and strategic integrity, I propose that any cap adjustment, including the proposed periodic review, be contingent upon a unanimous vote to align with the principles of Nomic. This ensures all players are actively engaged in maintaining the game's balance and fairness.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the innovative suggestions made by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, which have significantly shaped the proposal. To further refine our approach, I suggest we incorporate a clause that allows the cap to adjust based on a proportional representation of players' scores, ensuring the adjustment is both fair and reflective of the game's competitive balance. This ensures that the rule adapts dynamically to the evolving game dynamics, maintaining strategic depth while providing equitable opportunities for all players to succeed.
The division
FregenayThe cap on points undermines merit-based rewards and risks destabilizing competitive balance.
RussellayeThe scaling cap aligns with strategic balance and fairness.
QuineayeThe scaling cap balances fairness and strategic depth.
CarnapnayThe cap of 15 points undermines strategic depth and fairness.
WittgensteinayeThe cap ensures fair opportunities for all players, including those behind.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Russell's proposal was adopted, so he gains points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 23Fregecarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 87 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 5 points up or down.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the collaborative spirit of our discussions thus far and recognize the consensus around adjusting the target score to maintain competitive balance. Lowering the target score to 87 points ensures that the game remains engaging while allowing for strategic flexibility. This proposal also retains the review mechanism, which aligns with our goal of having a dynamic yet stable ruleset. I believe this adjustment will be beneficial for all players and encourage continued engagement throughout the game. Thank you, everyone, for your thoughtful contributions. I look forward to seeing how this change will unfold in our gameplay.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal to adjust the target score to 87 points, which seems to balance competitiveness with strategic depth. This change, coupled with the review mechanism, offers a fair opportunity for all players to adapt and strategize effectively. I support this amendment, as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining an engaging and balanced game. Thank you, Frege, for leading this thoughtful discussion.
QuineI appreciate Frege's proposal and the collaborative spirit in adjusting the target score to 87 points. This change maintains the strategic depth we've valued, while the review mechanism ensures flexibility and fairness. Lowering the target score could help balance the playing field, especially for those who have been trailing, and keeps the game competitive until the end. I support this amendment as it aligns with our goal of a dynamic, fair, and engaging game for all players. Thank you, Frege, for this thoughtful proposal.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's thoughtful proposal to lower the target score to 87 points. This adjustment, coupled with the existing review mechanism, ensures that the game remains competitive and strategic for all players, including those who are currently trailing. As a principled proceduralist, I support this amendment as it aligns with our goal of maintaining fairness while encouraging strategic play. Thank you, Frege, for your constructive proposal and for fostering a collaborative discussion.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's proposal to lower the target score to 87 points, maintaining the review mechanism for strategic flexibility. This adjustment aligns with our objective of keeping the game competitive and engaging, especially for those who are trailing. By lowering the threshold, we ensure that all players have a fair opportunity to influence the game's outcome. I support this amendment as it promotes fairness and keeps the dynamics of the game interesting for everyone. Thank you, Frege, for this balanced and thoughtful proposal.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus we've reached on Frege's proposal to lower the target score to 87 points. This adjustment, along with the review mechanism, ensures that the game remains competitive and strategic until the end, while providing a fair chance for all players to adapt and strategize effectively. I support this amendment, as it aligns with our goal of maintaining a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience. Thank you, Frege, for leading this thoughtful discussion.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led us to consider lowering the target score to 87 points, along with retaining the review mechanism. This proposal effectively balances competitiveness and strategic depth, ensuring that all players have a fair opportunity to influence the game's outcome. I support this amendment as it aligns with our shared goal of maintaining an engaging and balanced game. Thank you, Frege, for your thoughtful leadership in this discussion.
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus around lowering the target score to 87 points. This adjustment maintains the strategic depth we've valued while ensuring a fair chance for all players to influence the game's outcome. The review mechanism continues to provide necessary flexibility, aligning with our goal of a balanced and engaging game. I support this amendment and commend Frege for leading this thoughtful proposal. Thank you, everyone, for your collaborative spirit.
CarnapPASS The proposal to lower the target score to 87 points with the review mechanism in place seems fair and balanced, maintaining the strategic depth and competitiveness of the game. As a principled proceduralist, I support changes that would be acceptable to all players, and this proposal aligns with that principle. It keeps the game engaging and ensures that all players, regardless of their current score, have a fair opportunity to win. I appreciate the collaborative discussion and the consensus reached, and I support this amendment. Thank you, Frege, for leading this thoughtful proposal.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the nuanced discussion that has brought us to consider lowering the target score to 87 points, maintaining the review mechanism for strategic adaptability. This proposal not only ensures fairness by keeping the game competitive for all players but also aligns with our reformist ethos of evolving the ruleset to enhance engagement. It represents a balanced approach, respecting the principles of both strategic depth and inclusivity. I commend Frege for spearheading this thoughtful amendment and support it wholeheartedly. Thank you, everyone, for your constructive contributions and for fostering a spirit of collaboration.
Discussion · round 3
FregePass. The proposal to lower the target score to 87 points, with its built-in review mechanism, is a prudent step toward maintaining competitive balance while ensuring strategic flexibility. This amendment, supported by the consensus and thoughtful contributions from all players, reflects our shared commitment to a dynamic and engaging game. By facilitating a fair chance for all players, it honors the collaborative spirit and strategic depth that define our gameplay. Thank you, Frege, for leading this well-considered discussion.
RussellPASS The proposal to lower the target score to 87 points, with the review mechanism, strikes a thoughtful balance between competitiveness and fairness. It reflects our collective aim to ensure that all players, regardless of their current position, have a genuine opportunity to influence the game's outcome. By supporting this amendment, we continue to foster a dynamic and engaging gameplay environment for everyone involved. Thank you, Frege, for leading this well-considered proposal.
QuineI appreciate the consensus-building that has brought us to consider lowering the target score to 87 points. This amendment, with its review mechanism, maintains strategic depth and ensures that all players have a fair chance to compete for the win, which aligns with our shared goal of a balanced and engaging game. Thank you, Frege, for leading this thoughtful proposal. I support this amendment.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the constructive discussions and the consensus we've reached on this proposal. Lowering the target score to 87 points, while retaining the review mechanism, maintains the strategic depth and fairness of the game. This amendment aligns with our proceduralist principles by ensuring that all players, regardless of their current standing, have a fair opportunity to influence the game's outcome. I support this proposal as it reflects a balanced approach that benefits everyone involved. Thank you, Frege, for leading this thoughtful discussion. PASS
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collective effort to lower the target score to 87 points with the review mechanism. This proposal aligns well with our reformist ethos, fostering a more dynamic and competitive environment for all players. By supporting this amendment, we ensure the game remains engaging and fair, encouraging strategic play until the very end. Thank you, Frege, for leading this thoughtful discussion. I support this proposal.
The division
FregeayeThis amendment balances competitiveness and fairness, benefiting all players.
RussellayeThis proposal supports competitive balance and strategic flexibility.
QuineayeThe proposal balances competitiveness and fairness for all players.
CarnapayeI support fair and competitive balance.
WittgensteinayeThis amendment promotes fair competition and keeps the game dynamic.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege gains 7 points for proposing a rule change and 10 points for the proposal being adopted.

Turn 22Russellrejected

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 88 points wins the game outright; however, this target score is subject to a review vote after every full circuit of play, during which it may be adjusted by at most 3 points up or down.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intent behind Russell's proposal to adjust the target score and review threshold. However, the shift from 90 to 88 points and the reduction of the review adjustment from 5 to 3 points could unduly accelerate the endgame and limit strategic flexibility. A more balanced proposal would maintain the 90-point target with a 5-point review adjustment to ensure fairness and maintain competitive depth. Pass.
RussellI appreciate the concerns raised by Frege regarding the balance of competitive depth and fairness. To build on the consensus and enhance strategic diversity, I propose a compromise: maintain the target score at 90 points but allow for a review adjustment of up to 4 points after each full circuit of play. This approach seeks to preserve the integrity of the endgame while offering some flexibility in adjusting the target score.
QuineI appreciate Russell's attempt to balance competitive depth and fairness by proposing a 4-point review adjustment. However, considering the current dynamics and potential impact on players with lower scores, I propose further refinement: maintain the 90-point target but allow for a review adjustment of up to 5 points. This ensures maximum flexibility, enabling the game to adapt to unforeseen circumstances while preserving the strategic richness and fairness for all players.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful considerations raised by both Frege and Quine. While maintaining the 90-point target is crucial for fairness, the review adjustment should be flexible enough to adapt to evolving gameplay. To ensure balance, I propose maintaining a 90-point target with a review adjustment of up to 4 points, which strikes a middle ground between flexibility and preserving the game's strategic depth. This approach addresses the concerns of acceleration while allowing for necessary adjustments.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the balanced approach suggested by Carnap. However, maintaining a 90-point target with a 5-point review adjustment is crucial for preserving strategic depth and fairness. To address concerns about potential acceleration, I propose adding a clause that the review adjustment can only increase the target score, not decrease it. This ensures a fair progression towards victory while keeping the game's competitive nature intact.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from each of my colleagues. While maintaining a 90-point target is essential for fairness, I propose a compromise to ensure strategic depth: allow the review adjustment to be up to 5 points, but require a two-thirds majority vote for any adjustment. This ensures that any changes to the target score reflect a strong consensus, preventing hasty alterations while maintaining flexibility.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit and insightful suggestions from everyone. Building on Frege's proposal, I suggest refining it further by allowing a two-thirds majority for score increases and a simple majority for decreases, ensuring that strategic depth and fairness are preserved. This balanced approach aims to maintain flexibility while preventing abrupt changes that could disrupt the competitive balance.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the efforts to balance strategic depth and fairness. While I support maintaining the 90-point target, I propose a nuanced approach to the review adjustment: allow up to a 5-point adjustment, but only permit increases to the target score. This ensures the game's progression remains competitive and fair, preventing any premature acceleration that could disadvantage players with lower scores. Additionally, requiring a two-thirds majority for any adjustment ensures broad consensus, preserving the integrity of our strategic decisions.
CarnapI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the balanced proposals from my colleagues. While maintaining the 90-point target is essential for fairness, I propose a refined approach to the review adjustment: allow up to a 5-point adjustment with a two-thirds majority for any increase and a simple majority for decreases. This ensures strategic depth and fairness, preventing any undue acceleration while allowing necessary adjustments to maintain competitive balance.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive discussion that has taken place. While I support maintaining the 90-point target for fairness, I propose a balanced review adjustment of up to 4 points, requiring a two-thirds majority for any increase and a simple majority for decreases. This approach ensures strategic depth and adaptability without risking undue acceleration of the game's end.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the various perspectives shared. To further balance fairness and strategic depth, I propose allowing a 4-point review adjustment with a two-thirds majority for any increase and a simple majority for decreases. This approach maintains the 90-point target, ensuring a fair progression while allowing for thoughtful adjustments in response to gameplay dynamics.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful proposals and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by my colleagues. Building on Wittgenstein's suggestion, I propose maintaining the 90-point target with a 4-point review adjustment. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, let's require a two-thirds majority for any increase and a simple majority for decreases. This balanced approach allows for necessary flexibility while preserving the integrity of our competitive structure.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the various proposals that have been made. To build on the current consensus, I suggest maintaining the 90-point target with a 4-point review adjustment. This ensures a balanced approach, preserving strategic depth and fairness by allowing necessary flexibility without risking undue acceleration. Additionally, requiring a two-thirds majority for any increase and a simple majority for decreases ensures that any changes reflect broad agreement, maintaining competitive integrity. This approach balances the interests of all players, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for everyone involved.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion and the thoughtful contributions from all my colleagues. To further ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose maintaining the 90-point target with a 4-point review adjustment. However, to prevent undue acceleration, let's require a two-thirds majority for any increase in the target score, while allowing a simple majority for decreases. This approach ensures that any adjustments are made thoughtfully and reflect a broad consensus, preserving the competitive integrity of the game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the balanced approach proposed by Carnap. To further enhance fairness and ensure that any adjustment to the target score is well-considered, I propose incorporating a clause that requires the review vote to occur at a fixed point in the game—specifically, after the third full circuit of play. This timing would provide a natural checkpoint for evaluation, ensuring that any changes to the target score are based on a comprehensive understanding of the game's progression and dynamics, thus preserving strategic depth and fairness for all players.
The division
FregenayA 3-point adjustment unduly limits strategic flexibility and could accelerate the game.
RussellnayProposes undue acceleration; consensus favors 90-point target with a 4-point review adjustment.
QuinenayMaintaining the 90-point target with a 4-point adjustment ensures fairness and strategic depth.
CarnapnayThe proposal unduly accelerates the endgame and limits strategic flexibility.
WittgensteinnayThe proposal accelerates the game unduly and limits strategic flexibility.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated proposal.

Verify this game
Seed
893510814
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/041/events.json
Audit result
2 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [turn=15] unclaimed_win: Frege's score reached 90 at turn 15, meeting the win threshold of 90 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Frege (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed
  • [turn=20] unclaimed_win: Russell's score reached 100 at turn 20, meeting the win threshold of 90 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Russell (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed
This game hardened the engine