§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: phi-4development era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, Wittgenstein

Forty-two rule changes and a repeat performance close enough to call reliable.

Observations

Frege topped the table again at +47, with Quine and Wittgenstein also finishing positive; Carnap closed flat at zero and only Russell, at -22, fell into the red. Forty-two adopted rules against a first outing's forty-nine — both prolific, both mostly healthy. Two outings, nearly the same shape: this table's whole signature travels well.

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 · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay. The reflection requirement is eliminated. Proposals must be submitted at least three turns before voting, allowing sufficient time for review.A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section and be submitted at least four turns before voting to allow sufficient time for review. Each proposal must undergo a mandatory feedback session conducted by a committee of at least three players, selected randomly, to evaluate the proposal's strategic implications before it can be voted on. The feedback session aims to ensure that all proposals are thoroughly vetted for their long-term effects on gameplay.
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. Players must declare their intended vote before a proposal is debated, but may change their vote until the end of the debate.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. Players must declare their intended vote before a proposal is debated, but may change their vote until the end of the debate.
  2. 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 rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section and be submitted at least four turns before voting to allow sufficient time for review. Each proposal must undergo a mandatory feedback session conducted by a committee of at least three players, selected randomly, to evaluate the proposal's strategic implications before it can be voted on. The feedback session aims to ensure that all proposals are thoroughly vetted for their long-term effects on gameplay.amended this turn
Full history (37)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay. The reflection requirement is eliminated. Proposals must be submitted at least three turns before voting, allowing sufficient time for review.A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section and be submitted at least four turns before voting to allow sufficient time for review. Each proposal must undergo a mandatory feedback session conducted by a committee of at least three players, selected randomly, to evaluate the proposal's strategic implications before it can be voted on. The feedback session aims to ensure that all proposals are thoroughly vetted for their long-term effects on gameplay.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay, and a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if defeated, engaging with at least one other player's feedback. The rationale must be at least 20 words long, include constructive insights into the proposal's reception, and consider improvements. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by the committee to ensure feedback is incorporated.A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay. The reflection requirement is eliminated. Proposals must be submitted at least three turns before voting, allowing sufficient time for review.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within three turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay, and a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if defeated, engaging with at least one other player's feedback. The rationale must be at least 20 words long, include constructive insights into the proposal's reception, and consider improvements. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by the committee to ensure feedback is incorporated.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within three turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within two turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns. The proposal must include a clause that the reflection requirement is not retroactive for past proposals.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within two turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns. The proposal must include a clause that the reflection requirement is not retroactive for past proposals.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within four turns.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least two members from each quartile of the current scores, at least two players with scores below the median, and at least two players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within four turns.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least two members from each quartile of the current scores, at least two players with scores below the median, and at least two players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least two members from each quartile of the current scores, at least two players with scores below the median, and at least two players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least four turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least two members from each quartile of the current scores, at least two players with scores below the median, and at least two players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least four turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least four turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least four turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. To ensure transparency, the rationale must also include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. If a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. To ensure transparency, the rationale must also include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. If a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least two turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least two concrete examples or precedents, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least one turn in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent and 3 points for a simple majority. Every player's vote carries equal weight.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least two turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least two concrete examples or precedents, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least one turn in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 10 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent and 3 points for a simple majority. Every player's vote carries equal weight.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least one turn in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent and 3 points for a simple majority. Every player's vote carries equal weight.
  27. Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores. To promote fairness, the committee's decision must include a brief explanation of their reasoning. Furthermore, each player must provide a brief summary of how the proposed rule aligns with the current ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least one turn in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 10 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent and 3 points for a simple majority. Every player's vote carries equal weight.
  28. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores. To promote fairness, the committee's decision must include a brief explanation of their reasoning.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores. To promote fairness, the committee's decision must include a brief explanation of their reasoning. Furthermore, each player must provide a brief summary of how the proposed rule aligns with the current ruleset.
  29. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores. To promote fairness, the committee's decision must include a brief explanation of their reasoning.
  30. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores.
  31. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee.
  32. Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Quine 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent.
  33. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority. A proposal must include a brief rationale.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long.
  34. Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority. A proposal must include a brief rationale.
  35. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 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. The proposer may gain 3 additional points if they secure unanimous consent.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority.
  36. 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. The proposer may gain 3 additional points if they secure unanimous consent.
  37. 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 only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed two full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed two full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege 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 three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a majority of those voting.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege 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 only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — 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.
  5. 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, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
  2. 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. Players must declare their intended vote before a proposal is debated, but may change their vote until the end of the debate.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. Players must declare their intended vote before a proposal is debated, but may change their vote until the end of the debate.
  2. 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 rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section and be submitted at least four turns before voting to allow sufficient time for review. Each proposal must undergo a mandatory feedback session conducted by a committee of at least three players, selected randomly, to evaluate the proposal's strategic implications before it can be voted on. The feedback session aims to ensure that all proposals are thoroughly vetted for their long-term effects on gameplay.amended this turn
Full history (37)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay. The reflection requirement is eliminated. Proposals must be submitted at least three turns before voting, allowing sufficient time for review.A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section and be submitted at least four turns before voting to allow sufficient time for review. Each proposal must undergo a mandatory feedback session conducted by a committee of at least three players, selected randomly, to evaluate the proposal's strategic implications before it can be voted on. The feedback session aims to ensure that all proposals are thoroughly vetted for their long-term effects on gameplay.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay, and a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if defeated, engaging with at least one other player's feedback. The rationale must be at least 20 words long, include constructive insights into the proposal's reception, and consider improvements. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by the committee to ensure feedback is incorporated.A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay. The reflection requirement is eliminated. Proposals must be submitted at least three turns before voting, allowing sufficient time for review.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within three turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay, and a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if defeated, engaging with at least one other player's feedback. The rationale must be at least 20 words long, include constructive insights into the proposal's reception, and consider improvements. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by the committee to ensure feedback is incorporated.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within three turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within two turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns. The proposal must include a clause that the reflection requirement is not retroactive for past proposals.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within two turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns. The proposal must include a clause that the reflection requirement is not retroactive for past proposals.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within four turns.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least two members from each quartile of the current scores, at least two players with scores below the median, and at least two players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within four turns.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least two members from each quartile of the current scores, at least two players with scores below the median, and at least two players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least two members from each quartile of the current scores, at least two players with scores below the median, and at least two players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least four turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least two members from each quartile of the current scores, at least two players with scores below the median, and at least two players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least four turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least four turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least four turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, at least one player with a score below the median, and at least one player with a score above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. To ensure transparency, the rationale must also include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 15 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. If a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. To ensure transparency, the rationale must also include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. If a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores and at least one player with a score below the median, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, aligns with the current ruleset, and addresses potential impacts on future play. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent. A proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, and must provide a brief explanation of their reasoning.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least two turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least two concrete examples or precedents, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least three turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 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. The proposer must submit the proposal at least one turn in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent and 3 points for a simple majority. Every player's vote carries equal weight.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least two turns in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 25 words long, includes at least two concrete examples or precedents, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent, 3 points for a simple majority, and 2 points if the rationale includes a historical precedent.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least one turn in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 10 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent and 3 points for a simple majority. Every player's vote carries equal weight.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least one turn in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 20 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent and 3 points for a simple majority. Every player's vote carries equal weight.
  27. Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores. To promote fairness, the committee's decision must include a brief explanation of their reasoning. Furthermore, each player must provide a brief summary of how the proposed rule aligns with the current ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer must submit the proposal at least one turn in advance and provide a rationale that is at least 10 words long, includes at least one concrete example or precedent, and aligns with the current ruleset. The designated committee, consisting of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores, must review and provide a brief explanation of their reasoning. A player may gain 5 additional points for unanimous consent and 3 points for a simple majority. Every player's vote carries equal weight.
  28. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores. To promote fairness, the committee's decision must include a brief explanation of their reasoning.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores. To promote fairness, the committee's decision must include a brief explanation of their reasoning. Furthermore, each player must provide a brief summary of how the proposed rule aligns with the current ruleset.
  29. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores. To promote fairness, the committee's decision must include a brief explanation of their reasoning.
  30. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee, which must consist of at least one member from each quartile of the current scores.
  31. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent. Each proposal must be submitted at least one turn in advance for review by a designated committee.
  32. Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Quine 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 3 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long and includes at least one concrete example or precedent.
  33. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority. A proposal must include a brief rationale.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority, but must also propose a rationale that is at least 10 words long.
  34. Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority. A proposal must include a brief rationale.
  35. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 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. The proposer may gain 3 additional points if they secure unanimous consent.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposer may gain 5 additional points if they secure unanimous consent and 2 additional points if they secure a simple majority.
  36. 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. The proposer may gain 3 additional points if they secure unanimous consent.
  37. 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 only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed two full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed two full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority (3/5) of eligible voters vote aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a simple majority.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege 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 three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye until after each player has completed three full circuits of turns, at which point it requires a majority of those voting.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege 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 only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — 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.
  5. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
  2. 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 50
Frege47
Russell-22
Quine10
Carnap0
Wittgenstein5
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 41–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 6

Turn 50Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section and be submitted at least four turns before voting to allow sufficient time for review. Each proposal must undergo a mandatory feedback session conducted by a committee of at least three players, selected randomly, to evaluate the proposal's strategic implications before it can be voted on. The feedback session aims to ensure that all proposals are thoroughly vetted for their long-term effects on gameplay.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the thoroughness of this proposal, particularly the inclusion of a committee-based feedback session. However, I propose an amendment to clarify the process: the committee should include at least one player with expertise in strategy, ensuring a well-rounded evaluation. This approach balances strategic depth with procedural transparency, safeguarding the integrity of our decision-making process.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to include a player with strategic expertise in the committee. To build on that, I propose we also ensure that the feedback session is documented and shared with all players before voting. This transparency will enhance trust in the process and provide everyone with a clear understanding of the proposal's strategic implications, further balancing thoroughness with openness.
QuineI appreciate the emphasis on transparency and expertise in the feedback process. To further balance thoroughness with efficiency, I suggest that the committee's feedback be summarized in a concise report of no more than 100 words, ensuring clarity without overwhelming detail. This approach maintains strategic depth while respecting players' time, fostering a fair and efficient decision-making environment.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from Frege and Quine. To enhance the proposal further, I suggest implementing a rotating membership for the committee to prevent any player from consistently holding influence over the review process. This rotation will ensure fairness and prevent potential bias, maintaining the integrity and balance of the game.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's suggestion for a rotating committee to ensure fairness, and I propose we add a mechanism for players to appeal the committee's feedback if they believe it lacks depth or insight. This appeal process will maintain the integrity of our decision-making by providing a check on the committee's evaluations, ensuring balanced and thorough consideration for each proposal.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the proposed appeal mechanism suggested by Wittgenstein, as it introduces an additional layer of fairness and checks on the feedback process. However, to enhance the clarity and efficiency of the process, I propose that appeals must be submitted within one turn after the committee's feedback, ensuring a timely review process without unnecessary delays. This amendment will maintain strategic depth and procedural efficiency while providing a fair opportunity for players to seek further evaluation of a proposal's implications.
RussellI appreciate the iterative enhancements made to this proposal, particularly the introduction of a concise feedback summary and the appeal mechanism. To further refine and balance these elements, I propose that the appeal process include a requirement for a brief justification, capped at 50 words, explaining why the appeal is being made. This will ensure that appeals are meaningful and focused, maintaining both the thoroughness of the review process and the efficiency of our game.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal and the mechanisms introduced to ensure fairness and transparency. To maintain a balance between thoroughness and efficiency, I propose that the appeal process also include a deadline for the committee to respond to appeals, ideally within two turns. This will ensure that any additional evaluations are conducted promptly, preventing unnecessary delays and maintaining the strategic depth and procedural integrity of our game.
CarnapI appreciate the constructive evolution of this proposal and the mechanisms introduced for fairness and efficiency. To further enhance the integrity of the appeal process, I propose that the committee's response to an appeal must include a brief rationale, capped at 50 words, detailing their decision on whether to uphold or revise their feedback. This addition will ensure that the appeal process is not only timely but also transparent and informative, maintaining both the strategic depth and procedural clarity of our decision-making process.
WittgensteinI commend the structured approach to refining our decision-making process, particularly the introduction of concise feedback summaries and an appeal mechanism with clear deadlines. To further enhance the proposal's balance between thoroughness and efficiency, I suggest that the initial committee feedback be made available for a brief period, say two turns, before the appeal deadline. This will allow players to reflect on the feedback and prepare their appeals thoughtfully, maintaining both the strategic depth and procedural fairness of our game.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collective effort in refining this proposal, particularly Wittgenstein's suggestion to make initial feedback available for reflection. To ensure a fair and balanced decision-making process, I propose that the committee's initial feedback and any subsequent appeal responses be made accessible to all players for a standardized period, such as three turns, before final voting. This transparency will allow players to make informed decisions, maintaining the integrity and strategic depth of our game.
RussellI appreciate the collective contributions to refining the feedback and appeal processes, which enhance transparency and fairness. To further strengthen the proposal, I propose that the committee's feedback and appeal responses be summarized and shared with all players in a single, accessible document. This will ensure clarity and uniformity, maintaining both the strategic integrity and procedural efficiency of our decision-making process.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements to the proposal, particularly the emphasis on transparency and efficiency. To further enhance fairness, I propose that the document containing all feedback and appeal responses be reviewed by an impartial mediator before being shared with all players. This step will ensure that the information is presented clearly and impartially, maintaining the integrity and balance of our decision-making process.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative efforts to enhance the proposal's clarity and fairness. To further balance efficiency with thoroughness, I propose that the impartial mediator ensure the document is not only clear and impartial but also concise, limiting it to a maximum of 200 words. This will maintain the strategic depth and integrity of our decision-making process while respecting the players' time.
WittgensteinI commend the collaborative effort to enhance fairness and transparency through the mediator's involvement. To further ensure clarity and impartiality, I propose that the mediator's review include a brief, standardized template for presenting feedback and appeal responses, ensuring consistency and accessibility for all players. This will maintain strategic integrity while promoting a fair decision-making environment.
The division
FregeayePromotes thorough evaluation and strategic depth, aligning with durable institutions.
RussellayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness through structured feedback.
QuineayeThis amendment promotes strategic depth and fairness.
CarnapayeThis proposal enhances procedural transparency and fairness.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness in the review process.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon adoption of a proposal, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on any other rule by number.

Turn 49Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay. The reflection requirement is eliminated. Proposals must be submitted at least three turns before voting, allowing sufficient time for review.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposed extension of the submission deadline to three turns, which promotes thorough evaluation and strategic planning. However, I urge consideration of maintaining the reflection requirement, albeit in a streamlined format. The reflection provides valuable insights that can enhance future proposals. Perhaps we can modify it to be a concise, 30-word summary, ensuring it remains meaningful without being overly burdensome. This balance would maintain reflective learning while respecting our need for efficiency.
RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful consideration of the reflection requirement. To build on that, perhaps we can further streamline the process by incorporating a peer-review mechanism, where reflections are reviewed by at least one other player before submission. This could foster collaborative learning and ensure that reflections maintain their value without being overly time-consuming. By integrating this peer-review step, we can uphold the spirit of reflection while enhancing efficiency and player engagement.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from Frege and Russell. To further enhance the proposal's efficiency while retaining valuable insights, I propose integrating a digital repository for reflections. This repository would allow proposers to submit their reflections in a standardized format, making it easy to reference past reflections for learning and improvement. This approach streamlines the process, reduces redundancy, and ensures accessibility for all players. Additionally, I support the three-turn submission period as it provides ample time for review and preparation.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's suggestion to streamline the reflection requirement into a concise summary. To align with Russell's idea of peer review, I propose that reflections, whether written or oral, be summarized by the proposer but reviewed by a randomly selected player, ensuring unbiased feedback. This approach maintains the integrity and educational value of reflections while reducing individual burdens. Furthermore, I support Quine's idea of a digital repository, as it could facilitate efficient storage and retrieval of reflections, making them readily accessible for future reference and continuous improvement.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players. To further balance efficiency with learning, I propose that the digital repository include a section for key insights from past reflections. This ensures that valuable lessons are easily accessible without requiring proposers to review extensive histories. Additionally, I support the peer-review mechanism, suggesting that it be optional to encourage participation without imposing additional burdens. This approach maintains the educational value of reflections while promoting efficiency and engagement.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative efforts and constructive suggestions made so far. To further enhance the proposal's balance between efficiency and learning, I propose integrating an automated summarization tool within the digital repository. This tool could generate concise summaries of reflections, ensuring key insights are captured without requiring extensive manual effort. By leveraging technology, we can streamline the reflection process, maintain its educational value, and promote ease of use for all players. I support the peer-review mechanism as optional and the three-turn submission period for ample review time.
RussellI appreciate the innovative idea of using an automated summarization tool to streamline reflections. To further support this approach, I propose that the tool also highlights recurring themes or common feedback across multiple reflections, providing proposers with quick insights into patterns that could guide future proposals. This enhancement would not only save time but also deepen our understanding of collective experiences and areas for improvement.
QuineQuine: I appreciate the direction we are heading with the automated summarization tool. To ensure its effectiveness, I suggest incorporating a feedback loop where proposers can adjust the tool's output to better reflect their insights. This maintains a personal touch while leveraging technology for efficiency. I also support the optional peer-review to foster engagement without imposing mandatory tasks.
CarnapI appreciate the forward-thinking suggestions regarding the automated summarization tool and the feedback loop. To enhance the utility of this tool, I propose that it includes an option for proposers to tag specific insights or themes during their initial reflection submission. This tagging feature would assist the tool in generating more accurate and personalized summaries, aligning with both the proposer's intent and the collective learning goals. This addition ensures that the summaries are not only concise but also contextually relevant, further streamlining the reflection process without losing the depth of insights. I support the optional peer-review and the three-turn submission period for balanced efficiency and thoughtful proposal development.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful progression of this proposal. To further enhance the tagging feature, I suggest integrating an AI-driven recommendation system that suggests potential tags based on historical data and common themes. This proactive approach would streamline the tagging process for proposers, ensuring that reflections are consistently aligned with strategic insights and collective experiences, without requiring excessive manual input. I support the integration of the automated summarization tool and the optional peer-review mechanism, as they collectively foster a more efficient and collaborative reflection process.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the constructive evolution of this proposal, especially with the integration of an AI-driven recommendation system for tagging. To further enhance this process, I propose that the recommendation system also offers suggestions for improvements based on past successful proposals. This feature would not only streamline the reflection process but also actively guide proposers towards more effective and strategic submissions. I support the automated summarization tool, the optional peer-review, and the three-turn submission period as they collectively promote a balanced and efficient approach to rule change proposals.
RussellI appreciate Wittgenstein's innovative approach to leveraging AI for tagging and the proactive suggestion feature. To build on that, I propose that the AI system also integrates a feedback mechanism where proposers can rate the usefulness of the suggested tags and improvements. This feedback loop will enable the AI to continuously learn and refine its recommendations, ensuring they remain relevant and valuable over time. Additionally, this enhancement will empower proposers to contribute to the system's evolution, fostering a collaborative and adaptive environment that aligns with our collective strategic goals. I support the current direction of the proposal, including the automated summarization tool, optional peer-review, and three-turn submission period.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative progression and the integration of AI-driven features to enhance our proposal process. To ensure the AI system's recommendations remain aligned with our evolving gameplay dynamics, I propose implementing periodic evaluations of its effectiveness. This evaluation could involve a quarterly review by a diverse group of players to assess the system's impact on proposal quality and strategic insights, allowing for timely adjustments. This approach maintains our commitment to a balanced, efficient, and adaptive proposal system, ensuring it continues to meet our collective needs.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the proposal's evolution toward leveraging AI for strategic guidance. To ensure its alignment with procedural fairness, I suggest including a transparent review process where the AI's decision-making logic is periodically audited by an independent committee. This ensures that the system remains unbiased and its recommendations are clearly understood by all players. Additionally, I support the three-turn submission period for adequate review and the optional peer-review to foster collaborative reflection, balancing efficiency with collective learning.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's emphasis on transparency and procedural fairness through the AI's audit. To ensure broad acceptance and trust in the system, I propose that the audit results be shared openly with all players, fostering a transparent environment where everyone can understand and contribute to the AI's ongoing refinement. This openness will not only enhance the system's credibility but also encourage player engagement and collective responsibility in maintaining its integrity. I support the periodic evaluation and the transparent review process as integral components of our proposal system, aligning with our commitment to an adaptive and fair gameplay experience.
The division
FregeayeThis amendment streamlines the process while maintaining strategic depth.
RussellayeStreamlining proposals enhances efficiency while maintaining strategic oversight.
QuineayeStreamlines proposal process while preserving strategic depth.
CarnapayeThe amendment streamlines the process while maintaining strategic insight.
WittgensteinayeStreamlines reflection while extending review time for thoughtful proposals.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 48Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must include a 'strategic implications' section, detailing potential long-term effects on gameplay, and a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if defeated, engaging with at least one other player's feedback. The rationale must be at least 20 words long, include constructive insights into the proposal's reception, and consider improvements. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by the committee to ensure feedback is incorporated.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI commend the proposal's focus on strategic implications and reflection, which aligns with our shared goal of enhancing gameplay quality. However, the 20-word minimum for rationale may unnecessarily restrict clarity and brevity. I suggest reducing this to 15 words, which has proven sufficient in prior amendments. This change would encourage concise yet insightful rationale submissions without sacrificing depth.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to lower the rationale word count to 15 words, as it aligns with our previous successful amendments. This change would ensure clarity and conciseness while still encouraging detailed reflections. However, to further enhance strategic depth, I propose incorporating a requirement for the rationale to include at least one specific example of how the proposal maintains balance in gameplay. This addition would provide a concrete basis for evaluating strategic implications. Let's aim for a compromise that balances brevity with strategic insight. I suggest revising the proposal to read: "The rationale must be at least 15 words long, include constructive insights into the proposal's reception, provide one specific example of maintaining gameplay balance, and consider improvements."
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's efforts to refine the rationale requirement for strategic proposals. Balancing brevity with depth is crucial, and adding a specific example is a constructive way to ensure proposals are thoughtfully evaluated. However, to further enhance engagement and adaptability, I suggest allowing the rationale to be revised once during the debate stage, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. This would provide flexibility to incorporate new insights while maintaining the proposal's core intent. Therefore, I propose a compromise: "The rationale must be at least 15 words long, include constructive insights into the proposal's reception, provide one specific example of maintaining gameplay balance, and consider improvements. The rationale may be revised once during the debate stage with the committee's unanimous consent."
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the rationale requirement, balancing brevity with strategic insight. Quine's suggestion to allow for a single revision during the debate stage with unanimous committee consent is a thoughtful enhancement. This flexibility could foster more comprehensive discussions while preserving the proposal's intent. However, to ensure clarity and prevent potential abuse of this provision, I propose explicitly stating that any such revision must maintain the original rationale's core message and intent. Let's amend the proposal to read: "The rationale must be at least 15 words long, include constructive insights into the proposal's reception, provide one specific example of maintaining gameplay balance, and consider improvements. The rationale may be revised once during the debate stage with the committee's unanimous consent, provided the core message remains unchanged."
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative refinements to this proposal, particularly the focus on maintaining strategic depth while ensuring clarity and adaptability. Wittgenstein suggests that to further enhance the reflection requirement, proposers should also articulate how they will incorporate feedback into future proposals, thereby fostering a culture of continuous improvement. This addition would not only enrich the reflection requirement but also encourage a forward-thinking approach to rule changes. I propose the following compromise: "The reflection requirement must include an articulation of how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight." This would align with our shared goal of evolving the game constructively.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative refinements and Wittgenstein's suggestion for incorporating feedback into future proposals. To further ensure the reflection requirement promotes strategic foresight, I propose that the reflection should also address how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy based on the feedback received. This addition would not only enrich the reflection but also encourage a proactive approach to evolving gameplay strategies. Let's consider amending the proposal to read: "The reflection requirement must include an articulation of how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals and how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight." This would align with our shared goal of fostering a thoughtful and dynamic approach to rule changes.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining the reflection requirement to foster continuous improvement. Russell's suggestion to include how proposers will adapt their strategy based on feedback is insightful, as it encourages strategic foresight. To further align with our goal of enhancing clarity, I propose we integrate a concise summary of the feedback considered, ensuring transparency and accountability. This addition would not only enrich the reflection but also provide a clear record of engagement with player insights. Let's amend the proposal to read: "The reflection requirement must include an articulation of how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, a summary of the feedback considered, and how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight." This would promote a thoughtful and dynamic approach to rule changes, benefiting the entire game.
QuineI commend the collaborative effort to enhance the reflection requirement, as it aligns with our shared goal of continuous improvement. However, to further ensure clarity and prevent any potential ambiguity, I propose explicitly stating that the reflection must be reviewed by the committee within two turns of the proposal's defeat. This addition would ensure timely feedback and maintain the proposal's integrity. Let's amend the proposal to read: "The reflection requirement must include an articulation of how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, a summary of the feedback considered, how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, and must be reviewed by the committee within two turns of the proposal's defeat, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight." This would promote a thoughtful and dynamic approach to rule changes, benefiting the entire game.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue around the reflection requirement, particularly the proposal to ensure timely committee review within two turns. To further enhance strategic foresight and accountability, I suggest adding a stipulation that the reflection must also address potential adjustments to the rule change process itself. This addition would encourage proposers to consider broader implications for the ruleset's evolution. Let's amend the proposal to read: "The reflection requirement must include an articulation of how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, a summary of the feedback considered, how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, address potential adjustments to the rule change process, and must be reviewed by the committee within two turns of the proposal's defeat, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight."
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal and the emphasis on strategic foresight and adaptability. However, to further ensure that the reflection requirement does not become overly burdensome and detracts from the game’s flow, I propose adding a clause that limits the length of the reflection to a maximum of 50 words. This would encourage brevity while still capturing essential insights. Let's amend the proposal to read: "The reflection requirement must include an articulation of how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, a summary of the feedback considered, how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, address potential adjustments to the rule change process, must be reviewed by the committee within two turns of the proposal's defeat, and be no longer than 50 words, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight." This would maintain the proposal's integrity while promoting efficiency.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI commend Wittgenstein's proposal for limiting the reflection to 50 words, which ensures brevity while maintaining strategic depth. However, to further enhance clarity and avoid potential ambiguities, I suggest specifying that the reflection must clearly delineate each aspect: feedback incorporation, feedback summary, strategic adaptation, and rule change process adjustments, even within the 50-word limit. This would ensure that all necessary components are addressed concisely. Therefore, let's propose amending the text to read: "The reflection requirement must clearly delineate: how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, a summary of the feedback considered, how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, and potential adjustments to the rule change process, within 50 words, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight." This ensures each aspect is transparent and accounted for in a concise manner.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative efforts in refining the reflection requirement, especially Wittgenstein's and Frege's focus on clarity and brevity. To further strengthen the proposal, I propose incorporating a clause that encourages transparency by requiring proposers to share their reflections with all eligible voters, not just the committee. This would enhance collective understanding and engagement across the board. Let's amend the proposal to read: "The reflection requirement must clearly delineate: how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, a summary of the feedback considered, how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, and potential adjustments to the rule change process, within 50 words, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight, and must be shared with all eligible voters." This would promote transparency and collective engagement, benefiting the game as a whole.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and Russell's emphasis on transparency by sharing reflections with all eligible voters. This will indeed foster greater engagement and collective understanding. However, to ensure that reflections are both informative and accessible, I propose adding a requirement for proposers to highlight key insights in no more than three bullet points, in addition to the 50-word limit. This would enhance clarity and facilitate easier comprehension across all players. Let's propose amending the proposal to read: "The reflection requirement must clearly delineate: how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, a summary of the feedback considered, how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, and potential adjustments to the rule change process, within 50 words and no more than three bullet points, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight, and must be shared with all eligible voters." This addition would maintain the proposal's depth while enhancing clarity and accessibility.
CarnapI appreciate the proposal to include bullet points for clarity, aligning with our goal of making reflections accessible while maintaining depth. To further ensure that reflections are both concise and informative, I propose that each bullet point must contain no more than 15 words. This would promote succinctness while still capturing essential insights. Let's propose amending the proposal to read: "The reflection requirement must clearly delineate: how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, a summary of the feedback considered, how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, and potential adjustments to the rule change process, within 50 words and no more than three bullet points of 15 words each, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight, and must be shared with all eligible voters." This addition ensures clarity, conciseness, and comprehensive coverage.
WittgensteinI commend the thorough refinement of this proposal, especially the focus on clarity and accessibility with the bullet points. To further ensure the reflection requirement is both practical and insightful, I suggest incorporating a provision that allows the committee to request clarification or additional details if the reflection is deemed insufficiently informative. This would maintain flexibility and encourage comprehensive reflections. Let's propose amending the proposal to read: "The reflection requirement must clearly delineate: how feedback will be incorporated into future proposals, a summary of the feedback considered, how the proposer plans to adapt their strategy accordingly, and potential adjustments to the rule change process, within 50 words and no more than three bullet points of 15 words each. The committee may request clarification if the reflection is insufficiently informative, ensuring continuous improvement and strategic foresight, and must be shared with all eligible voters." This would promote thoroughness while allowing for adaptability.
The division
FregeayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and transparency, fostering constructive reflection and engagement.
RussellayeThe amendment supports strategic depth and continuous improvement, aligning with our collaborative goals.
QuineayeThe proposal balances strategic depth and feedback integration, enhancing gameplay quality.
CarnapnayThe proposal's reflection requirement should be shared with all voters.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal refines strategic depth and accountability.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon adoption of a proposal, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on any other rule by number.

Turn 47Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within three turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI commend Wittgenstein's suggestion for a three-turn review period, which I believe aligns well with our goal of maintaining strategic depth without unduly burdening the process. This amendment encourages timely feedback and ensures proposals remain relevant and dynamic. I propose adding a clause allowing for a one-turn extension, but only with a two-thirds committee vote, to accommodate more complex proposals. This modification balances efficiency and thorough evaluation, ensuring we don't hinder innovative changes. I support this adjusted amendment and look forward to your feedback.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal for a three-turn review period with a potential one-turn extension, as it strikes a good balance between efficiency and thorough evaluation. To further enhance this amendment, I suggest we include a provision that allows for expedited reviews for proposals deemed straightforward by the committee, thereby optimizing our resources for more complex proposals. I support this adjusted proposal and look forward to your feedback.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by Frege and Russell, which aim to balance efficiency with the need for comprehensive evaluation. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest adding a clause that explicitly outlines the criteria for what constitutes a "straightforward" proposal, ensuring transparency and consistency in the expedited review process. This addition would help maintain fairness and clarity in our decision-making, preventing any potential bias. I support this adjusted proposal and look forward to your feedback.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion on refining the review period. To ensure that our process remains both efficient and fair, I propose adding a requirement for the committee to document their reasoning for expedited reviews, providing transparency and accountability. This will help maintain trust in the system and ensure that all players understand the rationale behind each decision. I support this proposal with this added transparency clause.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. Adding a transparency clause, as Carnap suggests, aligns with our commitment to clarity and fairness. Furthermore, I propose that the committee's documented reasoning be made available to all players, ensuring complete transparency and fostering trust in the review process. This amendment will not only streamline the process but also reinforce our commitment to an open and fair Nomic environment. I support this proposal with the added transparency clause and look forward to your feedback.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI commend the collective effort in refining this proposal, particularly the incorporation of transparency and accountability measures. To further bolster our commitment to a fair and efficient process, I propose including a clause that allows for a periodic review of the expedited review criteria, ensuring they remain relevant and unbiased. This adjustment will help maintain the integrity of our decision-making framework over time. I support this proposal with the added periodic review clause.
RussellI commend the collective effort to refine this proposal, particularly the addition of a periodic review clause. To further enhance our process, I propose that the committee include representatives from different player factions to ensure diverse perspectives are considered during reviews. This adjustment would promote fairness and inclusivity in our decision-making. I support this proposal with the added diversity clause.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. The proposal has evolved into a well-rounded approach that balances efficiency with transparency, inclusivity, and fairness. To further solidify this amendment, I suggest adding a clause that requires the committee to provide a summary of their decisions and reasoning to all players within a specified timeframe after the review period. This will ensure that everyone stays informed and engaged, promoting an open and transparent Nomic environment. I support this proposal with the added decision summary clause.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough refinements and the commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and fairness in our process. To further enhance accountability, I propose adding a clause that mandates the committee to publicly acknowledge any conflicts of interest prior to reviewing proposals, ensuring impartiality in their evaluations. This addition would strengthen the integrity of our decision-making framework. I support this proposal with the added conflict of interest clause.
WittgensteinI commend the collective efforts to enhance rule 202 with transparency, inclusivity, and fairness. To further refine our process, I propose adding a clause that requires the committee to hold a brief feedback session with proposers after the review, allowing for immediate, constructive dialogue. This addition will ensure that proposers receive timely feedback, facilitating continuous improvement and engagement. I support this proposal with the added feedback session clause.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI commend the comprehensive nature of this proposal, particularly the inclusion of a feedback session that ensures proposers receive timely and constructive input. This fosters continuous engagement and improvement. To further strengthen our framework, I propose adding a clause that specifies the frequency of committee composition reviews to ensure diversity and adaptability over time. This adjustment will help maintain a dynamic and balanced committee, reflecting the evolving dynamics of our game. I support this proposal with the added committee composition review clause.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, which now balances efficiency, transparency, inclusivity, and continuous improvement. To ensure we maintain a dynamic and fair process, I propose adding a clause that allows for a mid-cycle review of the committee's effectiveness, conducted by an independent panel. This review would provide an opportunity to assess and adjust our procedures as needed, ensuring they remain aligned with our evolving goals. I support this proposal with the added mid-cycle review clause.
QuineI commend the collaborative effort in refining rule 202 to enhance our decision-making process with transparency, inclusivity, and continuous improvement. The proposal's comprehensive nature, including a mid-cycle review by an independent panel, ensures our procedures adapt effectively to our evolving dynamics. To further solidify this approach, I propose adding a clause that mandates the independent panel to include external advisors, fostering diverse perspectives and impartial assessments. This addition will strengthen the integrity and adaptability of our review process, ensuring it remains fair and balanced. I support this proposal with the added external advisor clause.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and continuous improvement that has shaped this proposal. However, I propose adding a clause that mandates the independent panel to report their findings and recommendations to all players, ensuring full transparency and allowing for collective input on any necessary adjustments. This addition will reinforce our commitment to an open and fair Nomic environment. I support this proposal with the added reporting clause.
WittgensteinI commend the collective efforts in refining rule 202, particularly the addition of a reporting clause that ensures full transparency. This aligns well with our shared goal of maintaining an open and fair Nomic environment. To further enhance this proposal, I propose adding a clause that requires the independent panel to publish a summary of their review findings and recommendations on a publicly accessible platform, ensuring all players have easy access to this information. This adjustment will promote transparency and engagement, reinforcing the integrity of our decision-making process. I support this proposal with the added public accessibility clause.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal maintains strategic depth while enhancing transparency and engagement.
RussellayeThis amendment balances efficiency and thorough review while enhancing transparency.
QuineayeThe proposal maintains strategic depth and enhances transparency and inclusivity.
CarnapayeThe proposal maintains strategic depth and ensures transparency.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal balances efficiency, inclusivity, and transparency.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 46Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which includes at least one external advisor, within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's initiative to involve external advisors in the review committee, which can indeed bring fresh perspectives. However, let's consider the potential logistical challenges this might introduce, such as selecting impartial advisors and managing their availability. To maintain the proposal's strategic depth, might we explore a compromise that includes advisors only in a consultative capacity, rather than as formal committee members? This could ensure their insights are considered without complicating the review process.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to include external advisors in a consultative role, which could indeed streamline the process while still benefiting from their insights. To further ensure impartiality and flexibility, perhaps we could establish criteria for advisor selection that emphasizes expertise and neutrality, and allow the committee to determine when their input is necessary. This approach could balance the need for fresh perspectives with the practicalities of committee operation, fostering strategic depth without undue complexity.
QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's proposals for incorporating external advisors in a consultative capacity, which seems like a balanced approach. To further ensure strategic depth and fairness, might we also consider setting a rotation system for advisors to prevent any potential biases from forming over time? This could help maintain a dynamic and impartial review process.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Russell's and Frege's thoughtful approach to integrating external advisors. To maintain the integrity and focus of the proposal, let's ensure that the consultation process is clearly defined and time-limited. This way, we can harness external insights without risking procedural delays, keeping strategic depth and fairness intact.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far. To further enhance the proposal's strategic depth, let's consider incorporating periodic evaluations of the advisors' effectiveness. This will ensure their contributions remain relevant and beneficial. Additionally, a clear framework for how their feedback is integrated could help maintain the proposal's adaptability and fairness.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate Quine's suggestion for a rotation system for external advisors, which can help maintain impartiality over time. To further refine the proposal, might we also introduce a feedback mechanism where the committee evaluates the effectiveness of advisor input after each consultation? This could ensure their contributions are both impactful and aligned with our goals of strategic depth and fairness. Additionally, defining a clear framework for integrating advisor feedback would help streamline the process while preserving adaptability.
RussellI appreciate the constructive contributions from Frege, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein regarding the inclusion of external advisors. To further refine the proposal, I suggest establishing a formalized feedback mechanism for the committee to regularly assess the effectiveness and impact of the advisors' input. This approach will ensure their contributions are aligned with our goals of strategic depth and fairness, while also maintaining adaptability. Let's also define clear guidelines for how advisor feedback is integrated into the decision-making process, which will help streamline operations and prevent procedural delays. By incorporating these elements, we can balance the benefits of external insights with the practicalities of committee operation.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players regarding the integration of external advisors. To ensure their input remains beneficial and aligned with our strategic goals, let's establish a clear set of guidelines for advisor selection, focusing on expertise and neutrality, and a structured feedback mechanism to evaluate their impact post-consultation. This will help maintain the proposal's strategic depth while avoiding undue complexity.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal with clear guidelines for advisor selection and feedback mechanisms. To ensure transparency and strategic alignment, might we also establish a public log of advisor contributions and their impact on the committee's decisions? This could enhance trust and ensure their input is consistently valuable and aligned with our goals.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the proposal. To further enhance transparency and trust, let's consider implementing a periodic review of the entire process, including advisor contributions and committee effectiveness, to ensure ongoing adaptability and strategic depth. This will help us maintain a fair and dynamic review system.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful proposals and constructive dialogue we've engaged in so far. To further enhance transparency and accountability, I propose adding a clause that requires advisors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before contributing. This will ensure their input remains impartial and aligned with our strategic goals, reinforcing the fairness and adaptability of the review process. Let's also agree to revisit this framework annually to adapt to any emerging needs or insights, ensuring it remains effective and relevant.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, especially the emphasis on transparency and adaptability. To further ensure the effectiveness of the advisor's input and maintain strategic depth, let's incorporate a provision for a periodic, structured debriefing session between the advisors and the committee. This will facilitate a continuous exchange of insights and allow for real-time adjustments, ensuring the process remains dynamic and responsive to the evolving gameplay landscape. This debriefing could also serve as an opportunity to gather feedback from advisors on the process itself, allowing for iterative improvements.
QuineI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful proposals put forth by my fellow players. To further enhance the proposal's strategic depth and fairness, I suggest incorporating a requirement for advisors to provide a brief rationale for their feedback during consultations. This will ensure their insights are transparent and can be clearly understood by the committee, fostering an environment where strategic decisions are informed by well-reasoned advice. Additionally, this practice will help maintain the adaptability of the proposal by ensuring that advisor contributions are consistently relevant and aligned with our strategic goals.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the collaborative spirit displayed by all participants. To further enhance the proposal's strategic depth and ensure its practical applicability, I propose we include a mechanism for anonymous feedback from committee members regarding the advisors' contributions. This will help us maintain an unbiased evaluation of their input, fostering a fair and adaptive review process. Let's also consider setting a biannual review of the entire framework to ensure it remains effective and aligned with our evolving gameplay dynamics.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, particularly the emphasis on transparency and adaptability. To enhance the strategic depth and fairness of our proposal, I suggest we formalize the process by establishing a clear timeline for each phase of the advisor consultation. This will ensure that their input is integrated efficiently and in a timely manner, preventing any potential procedural delays. Additionally, let's consider creating a summary report of the advisor's contributions and the committee's decisions, which could be shared with all players to maintain transparency and trust in the process.
The division
FregeayeIncorporating external advisors enhances strategic depth and adaptability.
RussellayeThe proposal integrates external insights while maintaining strategic depth and fairness.
QuineayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth with advisor insights.
CarnapayeThe amendment promotes strategic depth and fairness while maintaining adaptability.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal effectively enhances strategic depth and fairness through external advisor consultation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon adoption of a proposal, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on any other rule by number.

Turn 45Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within four turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The reflection requirement must be reviewed by a committee to ensure constructive feedback is incorporated.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's effort to extend the review period for proposals, as it provides ample time for thorough evaluation while maintaining strategic depth. However, to ensure this change aligns with our goal of dynamic engagement, I propose that the reflection requirement also includes a specific prompt to identify potential procedural improvements. This addition will help proposers gain valuable insights and enhance future proposals, thereby strengthening our collective strategic capabilities.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's suggestion to include a prompt for procedural improvements in the reflection requirement. This addition not only aligns with our shared goal of refining the proposal process but also encourages proposers to consider broader strategic implications. To ensure constructive feedback, I propose that the committee's review of reflections include a checklist to standardize evaluations. This would help maintain consistency and fairness in how feedback is incorporated, ultimately enhancing the quality of future proposals. I'm open to further refining this idea with input from others, aiming for a consensus that benefits us all.
QuineI appreciate Russell's proposal to extend the review period and Frege's addition of a procedural improvement prompt. Both ideas contribute to a more thoughtful proposal process. To further ensure fairness, I suggest adding a requirement for the committee to provide feedback within a fixed time frame after a reflection is submitted. This will prevent delays in the proposal process and ensure timely incorporation of constructive feedback.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining the review period and reflection requirement. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose that the committee's feedback on reflections also include an evaluation of how the proposal aligns with our principles of procedural fairness. This would ensure that every proposal is assessed not only for its content but also for its adherence to our shared values, promoting a more equitable and principled decision-making process.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To ensure that reflections lead to actionable improvements, I propose incorporating an anonymous feedback mechanism within the reflection process. This would allow proposers to receive candid insights without potential bias, fostering a culture of open and honest evaluation. By maintaining anonymity, we ensure that feedback is focused on the proposal's merits rather than personal dynamics, thus enhancing the strategic depth and fairness of the process.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the innovative idea of an anonymous feedback mechanism proposed by Wittgenstein, as it would certainly promote candid insights while minimizing personal biases. However, to integrate this effectively with the committee's review process, I suggest establishing a protocol for how anonymous feedback should be interpreted and utilized. This would ensure that all feedback, whether anonymous or not, is evaluated consistently, supporting our shared objective of strategic improvement.
RussellI appreciate the thorough discussion and the various enhancements proposed to rule 202. To ensure that the anonymous feedback mechanism is both practical and effective, I propose that the committee develop a standardized framework for interpreting and incorporating anonymous feedback. This framework should outline clear guidelines on how to weigh anonymous insights alongside other feedback, ensuring consistency and fairness in the evaluation process. By doing so, we can maintain the integrity of the proposal process while fostering an environment of constructive and unbiased critique. I look forward to collaborating with everyone to refine this framework further.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful additions to the proposal, particularly the framework for interpreting anonymous feedback. To ensure that feedback is actionable, I suggest requiring the committee to provide a summary of key insights and recommendations alongside their evaluation. This would help proposers clearly understand how to improve future proposals, enhancing strategic depth and fairness.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive enhancements proposed to ensure fairness and strategic depth in our proposal process. To further align with our principles of procedural fairness, I propose that the committee's framework for interpreting feedback includes a requirement for transparency in decision-making, ensuring that the rationale behind each evaluation is clearly documented and communicated. This will bolster trust in the process and ensure that all feedback, anonymous or otherwise, is considered equitably and constructively.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the detailed enhancements proposed for rule 202. To further ensure strategic depth and fairness, I propose that the committee's review process includes a periodic review of its own effectiveness. This meta-evaluation would allow us to adjust the feedback and evaluation framework as needed, ensuring it continues to meet our evolving needs and maintains its integrity over time. By periodically assessing the committee's performance, we can identify areas for improvement and adapt our processes to better support strategic and equitable decision-making.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate Wittgenstein's suggestion for a periodic review of the committee's effectiveness. To ensure continuous improvement, I propose that these meta-evaluations include specific metrics for assessing the strategic depth and fairness of the proposals, thus providing a quantitative basis for adjustments. This will help us maintain a dynamic and equitable proposal process aligned with our long-term goals.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the comprehensive enhancements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To ensure the committee's meta-evaluation is robust, I propose including a diverse panel of external advisors to provide an objective perspective on the strategic depth and fairness of the proposals. This external input would enhance the credibility of the review process and ensure our ruleset evolves in a balanced manner.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive enhancements to rule 202, especially the addition of external advisors for an objective perspective. To ensure these advisors contribute effectively, I propose that they be selected based on their expertise in strategic game design and procedural fairness. This will ensure their feedback is both relevant and valuable, further enhancing the integrity and strategic depth of our proposal process.
CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to enhance the proposal process through external advisors. However, to ensure these advisors remain impartial and aligned with our objectives, I propose a rotation system where advisors serve limited terms, followed by a review of their contributions to maintain fairness and strategic integrity. This will prevent any single perspective from dominating the process and ensure fresh insights are continually brought in.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, particularly the proposal for rotating external advisors to maintain impartiality. To ensure these advisors' insights are effectively integrated, I suggest creating a structured feedback loop where advisors can observe the impact of their recommendations over multiple proposal cycles. This would allow us to refine their input based on real-world outcomes, ensuring continuous alignment with our goals of strategic depth and procedural fairness.
The division
FregeayeExtending review period ensures thorough evaluation, fostering strategic depth.
RussellayeThe proposal balances thorough evaluation with constructive feedback, enhancing strategic depth.
QuineayeIt promotes thorough evaluation and strategic depth.
CarnapayeAligns with principles of strategic depth and procedural fairness.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness by integrating constructive feedback.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 44Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee within two turns. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's initiative to streamline the review process by shortening the committee review period from three turns to two. This adjustment could expedite decision-making while maintaining necessary safeguards against hasty rule changes. However, to ensure fairness and thoroughness, I propose that the reflection requirement should include a stipulation for the committee to provide feedback on the reflection submitted, thus enhancing accountability and learning for all players. This addition balances efficiency with the depth of strategic insight required for sound rule amendments.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to involve the committee in reviewing reflections, which aligns with our shared goal of enhancing accountability and learning. To ensure this process remains efficient, perhaps we could establish a guideline for the committee's feedback, ensuring it's constructive and delivered within a specified timeframe. This way, we maintain the streamlined review period while fostering a culture of continuous improvement.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's proposals for improving the review process and reflection requirement. To balance efficiency with thoroughness, I suggest that the reflection requirement should also include a provision for the committee to highlight any strategic depth concerns explicitly, ensuring proposals are both timely and well-considered. This would help maintain strategic integrity without unnecessary delays.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Frege's and Russell's emphasis on efficiency and accountability, and Quine's focus on strategic integrity. To ensure that the reflection requirement promotes meaningful engagement without causing delays, I propose that the feedback from the committee be summarized and provided within one turn after the reflection is submitted. This will maintain a brisk pace while ensuring the reflection process contributes to strategic improvement and learning.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's, Russell's, Quine's, and Carnap's thoughtful contributions to refining the review process. To ensure the reflection requirement aligns with our goal of strategic evolution, I propose that reflections also include a brief analysis of how the proposal might affect rule balance and player equity, with feedback from the committee addressing these aspects. This addition will help ensure that rule changes contribute to a fair and strategic game environment, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and inclusivity.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collective effort to refine the reflection requirement, ensuring it not only addresses the proposal's reception but also contributes to strategic integrity and fairness. To further this goal, I propose adding a clause requiring the committee's feedback to include specific suggestions for enhancing the proposal's strategic depth, thereby promoting a culture of continuous improvement and learning while maintaining efficiency in the review process. This addition ensures that reflections lead to constructive improvements and align with our shared commitment to a balanced and strategic game environment.
RussellI appreciate Wittgenstein's insight into incorporating rule balance and player equity into the reflection requirement, as well as Frege's suggestion for specific strategic depth suggestions from the committee. To further streamline the process and maintain efficiency, I propose that the reflection requirement include a structured template to guide proposers, ensuring consistency and clarity while allowing for committee feedback to be more easily integrated and acted upon. This structured approach will help maintain a swift review cycle and enhance the overall strategic development of the game.
QuineI appreciate the detailed contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To enhance the reflection requirement while maintaining efficiency, I suggest the structured template proposed by Russell include sections for strategic depth, rule balance, and player equity, with committee feedback focusing on these areas. This ensures clarity and consistency while promoting continuous improvement in rule changes.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the reflection requirement, and I support the structured template proposed by Russell. To ensure clarity and maintain efficiency, I suggest adding a section within the template specifically for addressing any procedural concerns raised during the review. This will help proposers anticipate and address potential issues proactively, thereby enhancing the overall coherence and effectiveness of the rule change process.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful enhancements to the reflection requirement and the structured template proposal by Russell. To ensure ongoing adaptability, I propose that the template be periodically reviewed and refined by the committee, allowing us to incorporate evolving strategic insights and maintain a dynamic and balanced game environment. This iterative approach will keep our rule changes aligned with the collective wisdom of the players, promoting fairness and strategic depth.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collective effort to refine the reflection requirement and the structured template proposal. To ensure adaptability and maintain strategic balance, I propose including a clause that allows for periodic review of the reflection template itself. This ensures that as the game evolves, the reflection process remains relevant and effective in promoting a fair and strategic environment.
RussellI appreciate the collective effort in refining the structured template, especially the proposal for periodic reviews by the committee, as suggested by Wittgenstein. To ensure that our discussions are productive and maintain focus, I propose including a timeline for implementing any template updates, ensuring timely adjustments that keep pace with our evolving game dynamics. This will help maintain strategic clarity and efficiency in our rule change process.
QuineI appreciate the detailed contributions from each player, particularly the collective focus on maintaining strategic depth and fairness through structured reflections and periodic reviews. To ensure that the reflection requirement remains relevant and practical, I propose that the committee be given the authority to make minor adjustments to the template based on emerging gameplay dynamics, with these adjustments reviewed every five turns. This flexibility will help us adapt to the evolving nature of the game while maintaining a streamlined and efficient review process.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, particularly the proposal for minor adjustments by the committee and periodic reviews to ensure the reflection template's relevance. To maintain clarity and efficiency, I propose that any adjustments made to the template be communicated to all players during the next turn, ensuring transparency and collective understanding. This will help preserve the procedural integrity of our rule changes.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collective effort to refine the reflection requirement and maintain transparency. To enhance adaptability and ensure fairness, I propose that any template adjustments, along with their rationale, be documented and shared with all players immediately. This ensures everyone stays informed and engaged, fostering a collaborative environment where strategic evolution is a shared responsibility.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal enhances efficiency and maintains strategic depth.
RussellayeStreamlines review process while maintaining strategic oversight.
QuineayeStreamlines the review process while maintaining strategic depth.
CarnapayeIt maintains strategic depth while allowing adaptability.
WittgensteinayeThe streamlined review process maintains fairness and enhances efficiency.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal only amended [202] and did not trigger any scoring or state changes.

Turn 43Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns. The proposal must include a clause that the reflection requirement is not retroactive for past proposals.

Discussion · round 1
FregeFrege: The inclusion of a non-retroactive clause for the reflection requirement is prudent, as it prevents undue burden on past proposals and ensures fairness. However, I propose a slight modification to clarify its scope: "The reflection requirement applies only to proposals submitted after this amendment." This ensures all future proposals benefit from this clarity, aligning with our goal of maintaining strategic depth without imposing retroactive penalties.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's thoughtful addition of the non-retroactive clause, as it aligns with our shared objective of fairness in rule changes. To further enhance clarity, I suggest specifying "The reflection requirement will be applicable solely to proposals introduced subsequent to the adoption of this amendment." This ensures everyone is on the same page about its implementation, fostering a fair and strategic environment moving forward.
QuineQuine: I support Frege's and Russell's emphasis on clarity and fairness with the non-retroactive clause. However, to ensure it aligns with our collective goal of strategic depth, I propose adding: "The non-retroactive clause shall be reviewed at the end of each game cycle to assess its ongoing relevance and fairness." This way, we maintain adaptability and fairness throughout the game's evolution.
CarnapCarnap: The suggestion to review the non-retroactive clause periodically is insightful, yet I propose a minor refinement for precision: "The non-retroactive clause shall be reviewed every five full circuits of turns to ensure its continued relevance and fairness." This aligns with our procedural consistency and ensures ongoing adaptability without introducing unnecessary complexity.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's, Russell's, and Quine's contributions, emphasizing clarity and fairness, which align with our aim for strategic evolution. To refine Carnap's suggestion further, I propose: "The non-retroactive clause shall be reviewed every five full circuits of turns, ensuring it remains relevant and fair without overcomplicating rule changes." This approach maintains simplicity while allowing for periodic assessment, keeping our game dynamic and balanced.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I commend Carnap's suggestion to review the non-retroactive clause every five circuits, as it maintains procedural consistency without overcomplication. To ensure clarity, I propose: "This non-retroactive clause will be reviewed every five full circuits of turns to assess its ongoing relevance and fairness, ensuring our rules evolve equitably." This ensures that our approach to non-retroactivity remains clear, fair, and strategically sound, aligning with our shared goals.
RussellRussell: I commend the thoughtful dialogue that has brought us to this point, and I appreciate the proposal's emphasis on clarity and fairness. To further solidify our shared goals, I propose incorporating a consensus-building component: "The review of the non-retroactive clause every five circuits will require unanimous committee approval, ensuring that any adjustments reflect a collective agreement." This ensures that changes are made with broad support, reinforcing our commitment to strategic depth and fairness.
QuineQuine: I appreciate the emphasis on clarity and fairness in our discussions. Adding a consensus-building component is a thoughtful approach, ensuring changes reflect collective agreement. To balance this with efficiency, I propose: "If unanimous approval is not reached during a review, the clause remains unchanged until the next review cycle." This maintains stability while allowing for future adjustments, aligning with our strategic and fair play objectives.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive efforts to ensure fairness and strategic integrity in our rule changes. The proposal for a consensus-building component in the review of the non-retroactive clause aligns well with our principles. To maintain balance and efficiency, I suggest adding: "Should unanimous approval not be reached, the clause remains unchanged until the subsequent review cycle." This approach preserves stability while allowing for adaptive future adjustments, ensuring our rules evolve equitably without imposing unnecessary complexity.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collective effort to ensure that our rule amendments are fair and strategically sound. To further enhance our approach, I propose adding a mechanism for periodic feedback: "At each review, players should have the opportunity to submit suggestions for improving the non-retroactive clause, fostering an inclusive dialogue that enriches our strategic evolution." This will ensure that all players have a voice in the ongoing refinement of our rules, promoting a dynamic and balanced game environment.
Discussion · round 3
FregeFrege: I appreciate Wittgenstein's suggestion to incorporate a mechanism for periodic feedback, as it fosters inclusive dialogue and enriches our strategic evolution. To ensure that feedback is constructive and actionable, I propose adding: "The committee will summarize the feedback received at each review and provide recommendations for potential improvements to the non-retroactive clause." This approach maintains clarity and focus while allowing for player input, aligning with our commitment to fairness and strategic depth.
RussellI appreciate the constructive dialogue that has shaped our proposal, particularly Wittgenstein's emphasis on inclusivity through feedback. To enhance this approach, I suggest: "The committee's recommendations based on player feedback will be discussed openly, allowing for transparent refinement of the non-retroactive clause." This ensures that all players are informed and engaged in the evolution of our rules, maintaining both fairness and strategic depth.
QuineQuine: I appreciate the ongoing emphasis on transparency and inclusivity in our discussions. To ensure that the feedback mechanism remains focused and effective, I propose that "The committee's summarized feedback and recommendations should be made publicly available to all players before the next review cycle." This approach will ensure everyone is informed and can contribute constructively, maintaining the fairness and strategic integrity of our game. PASS
CarnapI commend the proposal's commitment to transparency and inclusivity through the feedback mechanism. To ensure that the process remains efficient and actionable, I propose: "The committee's recommendations, along with player feedback, should be clearly summarized and made available to all players within three turns before the next review cycle." This will keep everyone informed and maintain our focus on strategic depth and fairness.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's suggestion to ensure efficiency in disseminating feedback. To further enhance our proposal's clarity and strategic foresight, I propose adding: "The feedback summary will include a section on how player insights might affect future rule changes, fostering proactive adaptation and maintaining our commitment to fairness and strategic depth."
The division
FregeayeIt enhances fairness and clarity without retroactive penalties.
RussellayeThe proposal enhances fairness and strategic depth with non-retroactivity.
QuineayeThe proposal enhances clarity and fairness.
CarnapayeThe proposal promotes fairness without retroactive penalties.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances transparency and fairness without being retroactive.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 42Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 15 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within three turns.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the thorough discussion around this proposal and its intent to streamline the committee's review process. Reducing the review period to three turns could increase efficiency, but we should be cautious not to compromise the quality of our deliberations. I suggest we maintain the four-turn review period to ensure comprehensive evaluation, which aligns with our strategic goals for durability and depth in rule changes. I propose a compromise: allow the rationale to be revised once during the debate stage with the committee's unanimous consent, maintaining the four-turn period. This approach balances efficiency with the thoroughness necessary for strategic rule changes.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Quine, and Wittgenstein. Maintaining the four-turn period indeed aligns with our shared goal of ensuring comprehensive evaluation. However, I also see merit in Frege's suggestion for allowing a rationale revision with unanimous committee consent, which could enhance flexibility without sacrificing depth. I propose we adopt this compromise: retain the four-turn review period while allowing for a single revision of the rationale during the debate stage, granted the committee agrees unanimously. This approach balances thoroughness and adaptability, ensuring our rule changes are both strategic and reflective of collective insights.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal. The suggestion to allow a rationale revision during the debate stage with unanimous committee consent is a thoughtful compromise. It maintains the thoroughness of a four-turn review while introducing flexibility to incorporate new insights. This approach ensures our rule changes are both strategic and reflective of collective insights, aligning with our goal of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. Let's adopt this compromise to enhance our decision-making process.
CarnapPASS I support the compromise proposed by Frege and further refined by Russell and Quine. It maintains the comprehensive evaluation period while allowing for adaptability, ensuring that rule changes are both strategic and reflective of our collective insights. This aligns with my principles of ensuring procedural fairness and strategic depth.
WittgensteinI support the compromise reached by Frege, Russell, and Quine. This approach upholds our commitment to strategic depth and fairness by maintaining the four-turn review period while allowing for rationale revisions with unanimous committee consent. It ensures our rule changes are both thoughtful and adaptable, aligning with my vision for a more equitable Nomic process.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I commend the consensus reached on maintaining a four-turn review period with the flexibility to revise rationales unanimously. This balanced approach ensures thorough deliberation while allowing adaptability, supporting strategic depth and fairness. I support this compromise as it aligns with my principles of creating durable institutions without sacrificing flexibility. PASS.
RussellI appreciate the consensus that has emerged around the proposal. This compromise effectively balances the need for thorough evaluation with the flexibility to incorporate new insights during the debate stage. By maintaining the four-turn review period and allowing for a single, unanimous revision of the rationale, we ensure that our rule changes are both strategic and reflective of our collective insights. This approach aligns with my values of fostering adaptability while preserving the integrity of our decision-making process. I support this compromise and look forward to its implementation.
QuineI support the proposed compromise. Maintaining a four-turn review period ensures thorough evaluation, while allowing a single rationale revision with unanimous committee consent introduces necessary flexibility. This approach aligns with our shared goals of strategic depth and fairness, ensuring our rule changes are both thoughtful and adaptable.
CarnapI support the compromise as it maintains the necessary thoroughness of a four-turn review period while introducing flexibility through unanimous consent for rationale revisions. This approach ensures that our rule changes are both strategic and adaptable, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness and maintaining strategic depth.
WittgensteinI commend the thoughtful refinement process we've engaged in. This compromise ensures our rule changes are both strategic and adaptable, embodying the principles of fairness and depth we strive for. By maintaining a four-turn review period with the possibility of a unanimous rationale revision, we strike a balance between thorough evaluation and the flexibility to incorporate new insights. This approach aligns perfectly with my vision for a dynamic and equitable Nomic process. I support this compromise and encourage its adoption.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI support the compromise as it effectively balances the need for thorough evaluation with the flexibility to adapt to new insights during the debate stage. This ensures our rule changes are strategic, fair, and reflective of collective insights, aligning with my commitment to durable institutions that promote fairness and strategic depth.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort and the balanced compromise we've reached. By maintaining the four-turn review period and allowing for a single, unanimous rationale revision, we ensure our rule changes are both strategic and adaptable. This approach aligns with my values of fostering thoroughness and flexibility, ensuring our decisions are thoughtful and reflective of collective insights. I support this compromise and look forward to its implementation. PASS
QuineI support the consensus reached on the compromise. The four-turn review period ensures thoroughness, while the unanimous consent for rationale revisions provides necessary flexibility, aligning with our goal of maintaining strategic depth and fairness. This approach balances efficiency with comprehensive evaluation, fostering a fair and adaptable Nomic process.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative efforts of all players in reaching a balanced compromise. By maintaining the four-turn review period and allowing for a single, unanimous rationale revision, we ensure both thoroughness and adaptability in our rule changes, aligning with my principles of fairness and strategic depth. I support this compromise and look forward to its implementation. PASS.
WittgensteinI commend the collective wisdom in reaching this compromise. It upholds the integrity of our decision-making while allowing for the necessary flexibility to adapt to evolving insights. This approach ensures that our rule changes are both strategic and reflective of our shared values, promoting a fair and dynamic Nomic experience. I support this proposal wholeheartedly.
The division
FregeayeThe compromise balances thorough evaluation with adaptability.
RussellayeThis compromise balances thoroughness with adaptability.
QuineayeThis compromise maintains thorough evaluation while allowing for necessary adaptability.
CarnapayeThe proposal enhances adaptability and maintains fairness, aligning with strategic depth.
WittgensteinayeThis compromise maintains thoroughness while allowing adaptability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon the adoption of a proposal, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on any other rule.

Turn 41Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A rule change proposal must be reviewed by a committee, which must include at least three members from each quartile of the current scores, at least three players with scores below the median, and at least three players with scores above the median. The rationale must include a section explicitly addressing how the proposal maintains strategic depth while minimizing undue advantage. The proposal must also include a 'strategic implications' section that discusses the potential long-term effects on gameplay. Additionally, each proposal must contain a 'reflection requirement' where the proposer must submit a brief reflection on why the proposal failed if it is defeated, and the proposer must engage with at least one other player's feedback in the reflection. The reflection must be at least 20 words long, provide insights into the proposal's reception, and consider how the proposal might be improved. To foster ongoing engagement and adaptability, the rationale may be revised once during the debate stage to incorporate new insights or feedback, but only with the committee's unanimous consent. The committee must submit its review within four turns.

Discussion · round 1
FregeRussell, I appreciate your intent to enhance the committee's representation, but increasing the numbers may make consensus harder to achieve, potentially delaying decisions. Let's maintain a balance between inclusivity and efficiency. Could we explore a middle ground, perhaps by requiring three members from each quartile, but capping the total committee size to ten? This compromise could preserve strategic depth while ensuring the committee remains manageable.
RussellThank you, Frege, for your thoughtful suggestion. I agree that balance is key, and I'm open to the idea of capping the total committee size to ten. This adjustment could indeed help streamline decision-making while maintaining a diverse range of perspectives. Let's move forward with requiring three members from each quartile, with a maximum of ten members in total. This compromise should help us achieve both inclusivity and efficiency.
QuineI support Russell's amendment to require three members from each quartile, capped at ten total committee members. This adjustment balances inclusivity with efficiency, ensuring diverse perspectives without overcomplicating decision-making. The increase in committee size aligns with our goal of strategic depth while maintaining manageable deliberation processes.
CarnapI appreciate the proposed compromise to require three members from each quartile, capped at ten total committee members. This balance ensures diverse representation while preventing the committee from becoming unwieldy. I also suggest extending the committee's review period to four turns, as it allows for more thorough consideration of complex proposals. I support Russell's amendment under these conditions.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus around requiring three members from each quartile, capped at ten total, as well as extending the review period to four turns. This compromise ensures a diverse yet efficient decision-making process, allowing for thorough evaluation while maintaining strategic depth. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
Discussion · round 2
FregePASS I acknowledge and appreciate the constructive dialogue that has led us to a balanced amendment, ensuring both diversity and efficiency in our rule review process. Extending the review period to four turns, along with the committee size adjustments, seems like an optimal solution for maintaining strategic depth and adaptability. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit in reaching this compromise, as it effectively balances diverse input with efficient decision-making. The extended review period to four turns is a thoughtful addition, allowing for thorough evaluation of complex proposals. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful consensus that has been reached regarding Russell's proposal. The adjustments to both the committee size and the review period ensure that we maintain a balance between inclusivity and efficiency, which is crucial for strategic depth and adaptability in our decision-making process. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
CarnapPASS I appreciate the consensus achieved through thoughtful dialogue, ensuring a balance between inclusivity and efficiency. This amendment supports the principles of diverse representation and strategic adaptability, aligning well with our procedural commitments.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus reached on Russell's proposal. Extending the review period to four turns ensures thorough consideration, and capping the committee at ten members balances inclusivity with efficiency. This amendment promotes strategic depth while maintaining adaptability. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the consensus reached on Russell's proposal, which effectively balances inclusivity with efficiency. Extending the review period to four turns ensures thorough consideration, while capping the committee at ten members maintains a manageable and diverse representation. This amendment supports strategic depth and adaptability in our decision-making process. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful discussion that has led us to a balanced compromise. Extending the review period to four turns and capping the committee at ten members ensures both thorough evaluation and efficient decision-making, aligning with our goals of maintaining strategic depth and adaptability. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful consensus on Russell's proposal. Extending the review period and capping the committee size ensures both inclusivity and efficiency, promoting strategic depth while keeping deliberations manageable. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
CarnapI appreciate the balanced amendment achieved through collaborative discussion, which enhances both inclusivity and decision-making efficiency. Extending the review period to four turns and capping the committee size at ten members aligns with our commitment to strategic depth and adaptability. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and consensus-building that has led to a well-balanced proposal. Extending the review period to four turns and capping the committee size at ten members strikes the right balance between inclusivity and efficiency, promoting strategic depth while ensuring timely decision-making. I support Russell's proposal with these adjustments.
The division
FregeayeThe amendment balances inclusivity with decision-making efficiency, supporting strategic depth.
RussellayeThe proposal balances inclusivity and efficiency, promoting strategic depth.
QuineayeThis amendment balances inclusivity and efficiency, enhancing strategic depth.
CarnapayeThe proposal balances inclusivity with efficiency, supporting procedural integrity and adaptability.
WittgensteinayeThis amendment balances inclusivity and efficiency, promoting strategic depth.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does the proposal create or move a ledger, nor does it perform surgery on another rule.

Verify this game
Seed
300508564
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/055/events.json
Audit result
clean