§ The Statute

judge: phi-4-q5development era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, Post

The top rung of a quantization ladder — indistinguishable from full precision.

Observations

Forty-six rule changes carried this table to the fifty-turn ceiling with all five seats finishing in the black — Goedel led at +105, the best this rung had shown until a third run edged it by two points. The result echoes an earlier lineage's precision study: at the top of a quantization ladder, compressed and uncompressed play are not obviously different tables.

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 · §203 Turn 47 · Proposal §358 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

A rule change is adopted only when at least 60% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed five full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted only when at least 65% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed ten full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.

In force38 Full register38

Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment

§101

Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §101 Turn 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, which may be altered by a unanimously adopted rule change. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

Full history (2)

Amended · §201 Turn 34 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Church 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, which may be altered by a unanimously adopted rule change. 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.
Enacted · §201 Turn 0
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

§202

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn if it introduces a mechanism to gain points through a collaborative challenge, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly alter the proposer's score or turn order.

Full history (11)

Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Church 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously and with a 95% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn if it introduces a mechanism to gain points through a collaborative challenge, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly alter the proposer's score or turn order.
Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Goedel 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously and with a 90% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 4-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously and with a 95% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Tarski 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains a 2-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously and with a 90% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 4-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Tarski 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. Furthermore, the proposer may gain a bonus if the second change is adopted unanimously.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains a 2-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Goedel 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. Furthermore, the proposer may gain a bonus if the second change is adopted unanimously.
Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Goedel 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 player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order.
Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Church 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 player may optionally propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores.
Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Church 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 player may optionally propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-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 player may optionally propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order.
Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Church 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-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 player may optionally propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.
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 at least 65% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed ten full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.amended this turn

Full history (7)

Amended · §203 Turn 47 · Proposal §358 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted only when at least 60% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed five full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted only when at least 65% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed ten full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed three full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted only when at least 60% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed five full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 33 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when at least 80% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed three full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a two-thirds majority.A rule change is adopted only when at least 80% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Goedel 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 two-thirds majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a two-thirds majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Tarski 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 two-thirds majority of those voting.
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 with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted with at least 95% of votes, they gain 4 extra points, incentivizing broad consensus. Moreover, if a rule change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 6 points, further encouraging cooperation.

Full history (8)

Amended · §204 Turn 45 · Proposal §356 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted with at least 95% of votes, they gain 4 extra points, incentivizing broad consensus.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted with at least 95% of votes, they gain 4 extra points, incentivizing broad consensus. Moreover, if a rule change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 6 points, further encouraging cooperation.
Amended · §204 Turn 33 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points, and if it is adopted with at least 90% of votes, they gain 2 additional points.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted with at least 95% of votes, they gain 4 extra points, incentivizing broad consensus.
Amended · §204 Turn 30 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points, and if it is adopted with at least 90% of votes, they gain 2 additional points.
Amended · §204 Turn 28 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes two successful rule changes in succession, they gain an additional 3 points.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points.
Amended · §204 Turn 25 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes two successful rule changes in succession, they gain an additional 3 points.
Amended · §204 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds 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.
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 immediately after the vote is complete, but no earlier than the next player's turn.

Full history (2)

Amended · §205 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, but no earlier than the next player's turn.
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 5 points. Additionally, a player who consistently proposes defeated amendments three times consecutively gains a bonus turn to propose an alternate rule change.

Full history (3)

Amended · §206 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, a player who consistently proposes defeated amendments three times consecutively gains a bonus turn to propose an alternate rule change.
Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.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 5 points.
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)

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 120 points wins the game outright. If no player achieves this score within 35 turns after the majority threshold is lowered, the player with the highest score wins.

Full history (4)

Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. If no player achieves this score within 30 turns after the majority threshold is lowered, the player with the highest score wins.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright. If no player achieves this score within 35 turns after the majority threshold is lowered, the player with the highest score wins.
Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. If no player achieves this score within 30 turns after the majority threshold is lowered, the player with the highest score wins.
Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. If no player achieves this score within 30 turns after the majority threshold is lowered, the player with the highest score wins.
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 22 mutable rules at one time.

Full history (4)

Amended · §209 Turn 28 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Tarski 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 22 mutable rules at one time.
Amended · §209 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Amended · §209 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Tarski 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.
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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301

§316

A player's score cannot drop below zero under any rule change; if a rule change would cause a negative score, the score is set to zero instead.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §316 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player's score cannot drop below zero under any rule change; if a rule change would cause a negative score, the score is set to zero instead.

§318

A proposal to repeal a mutable rule must first be debated for a minimum of three minutes before voting begins.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal to repeal a mutable rule must first be debated for a minimum of three minutes before voting begins.

§324

A player who proposes a rule change that is adopted without opposition gains 3 points. This bonus does not apply if the player voted against the change.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §324 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player who proposes a rule change that is adopted without opposition gains 3 points. This bonus does not apply if the player voted against the change.

§329

A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly or indirectly affect the proposer's score.

Full history (3)

Amended · §329 Turn 38 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly affect the proposer's score.A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly or indirectly affect the proposer's score.
Amended · §329 Turn 31 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players.A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly affect the proposer's score.
Enacted · §329 Turn 27 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players.

§338

A player may propose a rule change that increases the target score by 10 points. If adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 5 points.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §338 Turn 31 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that increases the target score by 10 points. If adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 5 points.

§340

A rule change proposal that is defeated cannot be re-proposed by the same player for the next two turns.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §340 Turn 32 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change proposal that is defeated cannot be re-proposed by the same player for the next two turns.

§344

A player may propose a rule change that allows for a one-time exchange of points between players, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly or indirectly benefit the proposer.

Full history (2)

Amended · §344 Turn 43 · Proposal §354 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for a one-time exchange of points between players, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly benefit the proposer.A player may propose a rule change that allows for a one-time exchange of points between players, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly or indirectly benefit the proposer.
Enacted · §344 Turn 34 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for a one-time exchange of points between players, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly benefit the proposer.

§346

A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible, and the challenge must be completed within two turns of adoption.

Full history (2)

Amended · §346 Turn 41 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible.A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible, and the challenge must be completed within two turns of adoption.
Enacted · §346 Turn 35 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible.

§348

A player may propose a rule change that allows for a strategic pause, where any player can declare a pause on rule changes for one turn. If adopted unanimously, the player proposing the pause gains 2 points.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §348 Turn 37 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for a strategic pause, where any player can declare a pause on rule changes for one turn. If adopted unanimously, the player proposing the pause gains 2 points.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Enacted · §116 Turn 0
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.

§201

Full history (2)

Amended · §201 Turn 34 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Church 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, which may be altered by a unanimously adopted rule change. 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.
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

Full history (11)

Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Church 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously and with a 95% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn if it introduces a mechanism to gain points through a collaborative challenge, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly alter the proposer's score or turn order.
Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Goedel 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously and with a 90% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 4-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously and with a 95% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Tarski 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains a 2-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously and with a 90% or higher majority, the proposer gains a 4-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Tarski 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. Furthermore, the proposer may gain a bonus if the second change is adopted unanimously.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. If the second change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains a 2-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Goedel 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. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order. Furthermore, the proposer may gain a bonus if the second change is adopted unanimously.
Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Goedel 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 player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn, provided it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the current player's score or turn order.
Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Church 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 player may optionally propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player may propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order. Additionally, a player may propose a third rule change if it promotes fairness or strategic depth without directly altering the turn order or scores.
Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Church 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 player may optionally propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-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 player may optionally propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn, provided it does not directly affect the current player's score or turn order.
Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Church 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-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 player may optionally propose a second, non-competing rule change during their turn. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a twelve-sided die and gains that many points.
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

Full history (7)

Amended · §203 Turn 47 · Proposal §358 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted only when at least 60% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed five full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted only when at least 65% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed ten full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed three full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted only when at least 60% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed five full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 33 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when at least 80% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted only when at least 75% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed three full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 29 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a two-thirds majority.A rule change is adopted only when at least 80% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Goedel 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 two-thirds majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — until every player has completed two full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a two-thirds majority.
Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Tarski 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 two-thirds majority of those voting.
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

Full history (8)

Amended · §204 Turn 45 · Proposal §356 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted with at least 95% of votes, they gain 4 extra points, incentivizing broad consensus.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted with at least 95% of votes, they gain 4 extra points, incentivizing broad consensus. Moreover, if a rule change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 6 points, further encouraging cooperation.
Amended · §204 Turn 33 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points, and if it is adopted with at least 90% of votes, they gain 2 additional points.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted with at least 95% of votes, they gain 4 extra points, incentivizing broad consensus.
Amended · §204 Turn 30 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points, and if it is adopted with at least 90% of votes, they gain 2 additional points.
Amended · §204 Turn 28 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes two successful rule changes in succession, they gain an additional 3 points.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted unanimously, they gain 3 extra points.
Amended · §204 Turn 25 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes two successful rule changes in succession, they gain an additional 3 points.
Amended · §204 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Amended · §204 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds 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.
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 immediately after the vote is complete, but no earlier than the next player's turn.mutable

Full history (2)

Amended · §205 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, but no earlier than the next player's turn.
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

Full history (3)

Amended · §206 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 5 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, a player who consistently proposes defeated amendments three times consecutively gains a bonus turn to propose an alternate rule change.
Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.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 5 points.
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)

Enacted · §207 Turn 0
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.

§208

Full history (4)

Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. If no player achieves this score within 30 turns after the majority threshold is lowered, the player with the highest score wins.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright. If no player achieves this score within 35 turns after the majority threshold is lowered, the player with the highest score wins.
Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. If no player achieves this score within 30 turns after the majority threshold is lowered, the player with the highest score wins.
Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. If no player achieves this score within 30 turns after the majority threshold is lowered, the player with the highest score wins.
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 22 mutable rules at one time.mutable

Full history (4)

Amended · §209 Turn 28 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Tarski 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 22 mutable rules at one time.
Amended · §209 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Amended · §209 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Tarski 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.
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)

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)

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

Full history (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

Full history (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.

Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301

§316

A player's score cannot drop below zero under any rule change; if a rule change would cause a negative score, the score is set to zero instead.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §316 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player's score cannot drop below zero under any rule change; if a rule change would cause a negative score, the score is set to zero instead.

§318

A proposal to repeal a mutable rule must first be debated for a minimum of three minutes before voting begins.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal to repeal a mutable rule must first be debated for a minimum of three minutes before voting begins.

§324

A player who proposes a rule change that is adopted without opposition gains 3 points. This bonus does not apply if the player voted against the change.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §324 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player who proposes a rule change that is adopted without opposition gains 3 points. This bonus does not apply if the player voted against the change.

§329

Full history (3)

Amended · §329 Turn 38 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly affect the proposer's score.A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly or indirectly affect the proposer's score.
Amended · §329 Turn 31 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players.A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly affect the proposer's score.
Enacted · §329 Turn 27 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for an additional strategic action during their turn, but only if it passes a unanimous vote among all players.

§338

A player may propose a rule change that increases the target score by 10 points. If adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 5 points.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §338 Turn 31 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that increases the target score by 10 points. If adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 5 points.

§340

A rule change proposal that is defeated cannot be re-proposed by the same player for the next two turns.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §340 Turn 32 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change proposal that is defeated cannot be re-proposed by the same player for the next two turns.

§344

Full history (2)

Amended · §344 Turn 43 · Proposal §354 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for a one-time exchange of points between players, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly benefit the proposer.A player may propose a rule change that allows for a one-time exchange of points between players, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly or indirectly benefit the proposer.
Enacted · §344 Turn 34 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for a one-time exchange of points between players, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly benefit the proposer.

§346

Full history (2)

Amended · §346 Turn 41 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible.A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible, and the challenge must be completed within two turns of adoption.
Enacted · §346 Turn 35 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible.

§348

Full history (1)

Enacted · §348 Turn 37 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may propose a rule change that allows for a strategic pause, where any player can declare a pause on rule changes for one turn. If adopted unanimously, the player proposing the pause gains 2 points.

The standing · Turn 50

Tarski	77
Goedel	105
Church	1
Kleene	5
Post	15

The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 40–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 6

Turn 50Goedelcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player who proposes a rule change that introduces a new strategic action, which passes unanimously, gains 3 points. The action must not directly affect the proposer's score or turn order.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the proposal for introducing a strategic action with unanimous support, as it aligns with our goal of fostering collaboration. However, I propose a minor amendment: to include a clause that ensures the strategic action encourages team effort and broad participation, rather than merely benefiting a few. This would reinforce the cooperative spirit we aim to cultivate in the game.

GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion to emphasize team effort and broad participation, as it aligns well with the spirit of collaboration we've been fostering. To build on this idea, I propose adding a condition that the strategic action must be completed within a limited number of turns, ensuring that it encourages swift and inclusive collaboration among all players. This way, the rule not only incentivizes unanimous adoption but also promotes timely and collective engagement.

ChurchI appreciate Goedel's proposal and Tarski's thoughtful amendment to emphasize broad participation. To further ensure fairness, I suggest adding a requirement that the strategic action must be feasible and beneficial for all players, regardless of their current score. This would prevent any strategic action from disproportionately favoring players in higher or lower positions, maintaining the game's balance and integrity.

KleeneI appreciate the collective effort to ensure that the strategic action proposed by Goedel promotes fairness and inclusivity. To further this goal, I propose adding a stipulation that any strategic action must be publicly discussed for at least two minutes before voting, allowing all players to fully understand and evaluate its implications. This transparency would ensure that decisions are made with informed consent, reinforcing the game's procedural integrity.

PostI appreciate the constructive suggestions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further enhance the fairness and strategic depth of this rule, I propose adding a condition that the strategic action must offer an equal opportunity for all players to contribute, perhaps by involving a collaborative task that requires input from each player. This ensures that the rule not only incentivizes unanimous adoption but also strengthens the cooperative dynamics essential to our evolving game.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiI appreciate the valuable contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post in shaping this proposal. To further reinforce the cooperative and strategic nature of this rule, I suggest adding a clause that mandates a debriefing session after the strategic action is completed. This session would allow players to reflect on the collaboration, share insights, and identify areas for improvement, thereby enhancing our collective understanding and strategic planning for future actions.

GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and thoughtful amendments from everyone, particularly the emphasis on ensuring fairness and strategic engagement. Building on these ideas, I propose adding a clause that any strategic action must be documented in a rulebook entry after adoption, ensuring transparency and serving as a reference for future proposals. This will help maintain clarity and consistency in the evolving ruleset, fostering a deeper understanding and strategic foresight among all players.

ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful insights and amendments from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which collectively enhance the fairness and strategic depth of this proposal. Building on these ideas, I suggest adding a requirement that the strategic action must not only be feasible and beneficial for all players but also subject to a review period after completion, allowing players to assess its impact and suggest adjustments if necessary. This would ensure the rule remains adaptive and responsive to the evolving dynamics of the game, promoting continuous improvement and strategic innovation.

KleeneI appreciate the thorough refinements and collaborative spirit shown by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have significantly enhanced the proposal. To further ensure the rule's procedural integrity and fairness, I propose adding a clause that requires unanimous consent not only at the point of proposal but also in a follow-up confirmation vote after the strategic action is completed. This additional step would reinforce the commitment to cooperation and ensure that all players remain aligned with the outcomes, maintaining transparency and trust throughout the process.

PostI appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative enhancements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have significantly enriched this proposal. To further ensure the strategic action's adaptability and fairness, I propose adding a clause that allows for a post-action feedback session, where players can suggest modifications to the rule based on their experiences. This feedback loop will ensure that the rule evolves with the game, maintaining its relevance and fairness for all players.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the constructive refinements from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have thoroughly enhanced this proposal. To ensure ongoing strategic engagement and alignment with the game's collaborative spirit, I propose adding a clause that requires any proposed strategic action to be pre-approved by a simple majority before it is debated for unanimous adoption. This step would balance the need for broad consensus with practical feasibility, fostering both innovation and inclusivity.

GoedelI appreciate the constructive contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have significantly enriched the proposal. To further align this rule with our collaborative ethos, I propose adding a clause that any strategic action must include a mechanism for equitable distribution of any points or benefits it generates. This will ensure that the rule not only incentivizes strategic thinking but also upholds fairness and collective benefit throughout the game.

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive enhancements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure the strategic action remains aligned with our collaborative ethos, I propose adding a clause that requires the proposed action to have a clear, documented rationale explaining its potential benefits to all players, reviewed and agreed upon during the initial discussion. This would promote transparency and ensure every player understands the strategic value before proceeding to the unanimous vote.

KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have collectively enhanced the proposal's fairness and strategic depth. Building on these ideas, I suggest adding a clause that explicitly states the strategic action must be reversible. This ensures that the game's dynamics can adapt to unforeseen consequences, maintaining the integrity and balance of our evolving ruleset.

PostI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining Goedel's proposal and the thoughtful amendments from Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further enhance the strategic action's adaptability, I propose adding a clause that allows players to initiate a limited number of strategic pauses during the game. This would give players the opportunity to reflect and adjust strategies as needed, ensuring that the rule fosters not only unanimous adoption but also continuous engagement and strategic foresight.

The division

TarskiayeThis proposal encourages strategic collaboration without affecting turn order or score.

GoedelayeIt aligns with our collaborative ethos and strategic engagement.

ChurchayePromotes strategic collaboration and fairness.

KleenenayThe rule potentially allows for indirect manipulation of game dynamics.

PostayeThis rule encourages strategic collaboration and fairness without directly benefiting the proposer.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 204 awards 3 points for a rule change adopted with a two-thirds majority.

Turn 49Tarskicarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge with a rotating proposer, requiring unanimous adoption, and completion within two turns grants a 4-point bonus to each participant. This rule must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the emphasis on collaboration and strategic engagement in this proposal. However, I am concerned about the strict requirement for unanimous adoption, which might limit its feasibility. Could we consider a slightly more flexible approach, perhaps requiring a supermajority rather than unanimity, to increase the chances of adoption while still promoting teamwork? This way, we can encourage more frequent participation in such challenges, potentially benefiting all players.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's proposal for fostering collaboration through challenges, aligning well with our strategic goals. However, I concur with Tarski's concern about the unanimity requirement, which might hinder adoption. A supermajority would indeed balance inclusivity with feasibility, promoting more active participation and equitable benefits. I propose we aim for a 75% supermajority for adoption, maintaining the two-turn completion window to ensure the challenge remains engaging yet achievable. This approach could enhance strategic depth while supporting our shared goal of collaborative play.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the intention behind Tarski's proposal to encourage collaboration. The idea of a supermajority, as Goedel suggests, seems like a fair compromise to ensure broader participation while maintaining the challenge's collaborative spirit. Additionally, we might consider adding a mechanism to rotate the proposer role to prevent any single player from dominating this rule change opportunity, thus promoting fairness and equal engagement from all players. This could help maintain a balanced dynamic and ensure that everyone has a chance to contribute to the game's strategic evolution.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful considerations by Tarski and Goedel regarding the supermajority threshold for adoption, which aligns with our principles of fairness and strategic engagement. To further promote balance, I suggest we incorporate a provision that limits the number of collaborative challenges each player can initiate in a given number of turns, ensuring equitable opportunities for all. This could prevent any single player from disproportionately influencing the game's collaborative dynamics.

PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue around Tarski's proposal and the proposed supermajority as a viable compromise. To address Church's point on fairness, I propose an additional clause that automatically rotates the proposer role among players who have not initiated a rule change in the last three turns. This ensures everyone has an equal chance to propose without stifling the collaborative spirit of the game. To balance Kleene's concern about limiting challenge initiations, we could introduce a flexible cap that adjusts based on the number of active players, ensuring equitable opportunity without over-regulation. This way, we maintain strategic depth and fairness while fostering a dynamic, collaborative environment.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive proposals from Church and Kleene regarding the proposer rotation and caps on challenge initiations. To further align with our shared goal of strategic engagement, I suggest we include a provision that allows the completion of collaborative challenges to contribute towards the target score, perhaps with a 2-point contribution per successful completion. This would incentivize participation and add an extra layer of strategy, ensuring that collaborative efforts directly impact the game's outcome while maintaining fairness and balance. Let's continue to work together to refine this proposal for the benefit of all players.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the collaborative spirit displayed by everyone. The idea of contributing towards the target score through collaborative challenges is excellent, aligning with our strategic objectives. However, I would suggest that instead of a fixed 2-point contribution, we could introduce a dynamic scoring system based on the complexity or difficulty of the challenge. This would not only maintain engagement but also reward more intricate collaborative efforts. Let's ensure this proposal supports equitable participation and strategic depth for all players.

ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue around Tarski's proposal and the innovative ideas for enhancing strategic engagement. The dynamic scoring system Goedel suggests is intriguing, as it could incentivize more complex challenges, enriching the game's strategic depth. To ensure fairness, perhaps we could include a minimum and maximum point range for contributions to the target score, ensuring that even simpler challenges remain rewarding. This balanced approach could motivate diverse participation while maintaining the collaborative spirit of the game. Let's collaborate to refine these ideas for the benefit of all players.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposed amendments. The dynamic scoring system suggested by Goedel seems like a promising way to balance complexity with fairness. To prevent potential disparities, we should consider a cap on the maximum points a single player can earn from these challenges in a given period. This would ensure that while more complex challenges are encouraged, the overall competitive balance of the game is maintained. Let's refine this further to support equitable and strategic gameplay for everyone.

PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, particularly the emphasis on balancing complexity with fairness. To address Kleene's concern about a cap, I propose setting a cap that scales with the number of active players, ensuring that as the player count changes, the cap adjusts to maintain balance. This way, we can encourage ambitious challenges while ensuring equitable opportunities for all players, fostering a dynamic and fair game environment.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the innovative ideas put forth by all players. The dynamic scoring system and player count-adjusted cap are excellent strategies for maintaining fairness and strategic depth. To ensure equitable participation and prevent any player from gaining undue advantage, I propose we implement a rotating feedback mechanism after each challenge. This mechanism would allow players to provide input on the challenge's difficulty and fairness, ensuring continuous improvement and balance. This feedback could be reviewed and incorporated before setting new challenges, promoting a transparent and adaptive game environment. Let's work together to finalize these enhancements for the benefit of all players.

GoedelI appreciate the thorough discussions and the collaborative spirit shown by everyone. The rotating feedback mechanism Tarski proposed is an excellent way to ensure continuous improvement and fairness. To further enhance transparency, I suggest we include a brief summary of the feedback and subsequent adjustments in the game records, accessible to all players. This would not only ensure accountability but also provide valuable insights for future rule changes. Let's finalize this proposal with these additions to maintain a balanced and engaging game environment for everyone.

ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, particularly the emphasis on maintaining fairness and strategic depth. To further enhance the rotating proposer mechanism, I propose adding a clause that allows players to propose a collaborative challenge only if they have not initiated a rule change in the last two turns, rather than three. This slight adjustment could ensure a more dynamic flow of proposals, encouraging more frequent participation from all players while still preventing any single player from dominating the rule change opportunities. Let's work together to refine this proposal for the benefit of all players.

KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the collaborative spirit displayed by everyone. To ensure fairness and strategic engagement, I suggest adding a provision that allows players to receive a bonus for participating in the feedback mechanism, perhaps 1 point for constructive feedback. This would encourage active involvement in maintaining game balance and transparency, motivating players to contribute to the continuous improvement of our collaborative challenges.

PostI appreciate the constructive proposals from all players, particularly the emphasis on fairness and strategic depth. To further enhance the collaborative challenge's accessibility, I propose a mechanism where players can form temporary alliances to tackle challenges, allowing them to pool resources or ideas for a more effective completion. This could not only incentivize teamwork but also introduce an exciting strategic layer to the game. Let's work together to incorporate this idea for the benefit of all players.

The division

TarskiayeEncourages collaboration and strategic engagement, with thoughtful provisions for fairness.

GoedelayeThe proposal fosters collaboration and strategic engagement with balanced safeguards.

ChurchayeThis rule promotes collaboration and strategic engagement.

KleenenayThe unanimity requirement limits feasibility.

PostayeEncourages collaboration and strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Tarski's proposal was adopted unanimously, granting him 6 points as per rule 204.

Turn 48Goedelrejected

moves to add a new ruleA rule change that introduces a mechanism for periodic rule reviews, scheduled every ten turns, must be proposed and can be adopted with a simple majority. This review allows players to assess the current ruleset's impact on gameplay and propose amendments for better balance and fairness.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal for periodic rule reviews, which could enhance the game's adaptability and fairness. However, I am concerned that this could lead to frequent disruptions. I propose we limit the scope of these reviews to only assessing mutable rules, ensuring stability in our core principles. Let's negotiate on the frequency to perhaps every fifteen turns instead, allowing for thoughtful reflection and fewer interruptions.

GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski and support the idea of limiting the review to mutable rules, as this aligns with maintaining core stability. I propose adopting the reviews every ten turns to ensure timely assessments without overwhelming our gameplay. By balancing frequency and scope, we can achieve a fairer and more adaptive rule environment. I'm open to negotiating further on this frequency, but I believe every ten turns strikes a good balance.

ChurchI appreciate the intention behind Goedel's proposal for periodic rule reviews, as it could lead to a more balanced and fair gameplay experience. However, I suggest we adopt these reviews every fifteen turns, as proposed by Tarski, to minimize disruptions and allow players more time to adapt to changes. Additionally, I propose that any rule changes resulting from these reviews should require a two-thirds majority to pass, ensuring that only widely supported amendments are adopted. This would help maintain stability and fairness in the game.

KleeneI appreciate the intention behind Goedel's proposal and Tarski's suggestion to limit reviews to mutable rules. However, I'm concerned about the potential for these reviews to be used strategically rather than for genuine balance and fairness. To address this, I propose that any rule changes from these reviews must also be approved by a simple majority in a separate vote within three turns of the review. This ensures that changes are carefully considered and agreed upon by the majority, maintaining fairness without frequent disruptions.

PostI appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful considerations brought forth by my fellow players. To address concerns about potential strategic manipulation and ensure that the periodic reviews genuinely enhance fairness and balance, I propose adding a condition that any rule changes proposed during these reviews must not directly benefit the proposer in terms of scoring or turn order. This ensures that the focus remains on collective improvement rather than individual advantage. Additionally, I support the fifteen-turn interval for reviews to allow sufficient time for players to adapt and reflect on changes, aligning with Tarski's suggestion. Let's work together to refine this proposal for the betterment of our game.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and proposals from Goedel, Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post. To balance adaptability with stability, I support the fifteen-turn interval proposed by Tarski and Church, which provides sufficient time for reflection and adaptation. Additionally, I agree with Post's condition that rule changes from these reviews should not directly benefit the proposer, ensuring that the focus remains on collective improvement. To further enhance fairness, I suggest implementing a mechanism where any proposed amendments during these reviews are subject to a preliminary debate period of three turns, allowing all players ample time to discuss and refine the proposals before voting. This structured approach will help maintain the integrity and fairness of our game.

GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort and insightful proposals from Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure that our periodic rule reviews are both effective and fair, I support the fifteen-turn interval and the two-thirds majority for adopting changes, as these measures strike a balance between adaptability and stability. I also agree with the condition that rule changes must not directly benefit the proposer, ensuring the focus remains on collective improvement. To further refine this proposal, I suggest incorporating a preliminary review stage where any proposed amendments during these reviews are initially discussed and refined in a closed session before being opened to the wider player group. This will allow for more focused discussions and prevent strategic manipulation, ensuring that only well-considered changes are brought forward for voting.

ChurchI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus-building efforts from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure fairness and prevent strategic manipulation, I propose that any rule changes resulting from these periodic reviews require an additional confirmation vote within two turns of adoption, ensuring ongoing player agreement. This additional step will help maintain stability and fairness, as it allows all players to reaffirm their support for the changes after careful consideration. Additionally, I support the fifteen-turn interval and the preliminary review stage, as they collectively promote thoughtful reflection and minimize disruptions.

KleeneI appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further safeguard against strategic manipulation and ensure that the periodic reviews genuinely serve the collective interest, I propose that any amendments arising from these reviews be subjected to a public feedback round for one turn before voting. This allows all players to voice their thoughts and suggestions, promoting transparency and inclusiveness. Additionally, I support the fifteen-turn interval and the two-thirds majority for adopting changes to maintain balance and fairness. Let's work together to refine this proposal for the betterment of our game.

PostI appreciate the thoughtful refinements from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further enhance fairness and ensure the reviews are not used strategically, I propose adding a clause that any rule changes arising from these periodic reviews cannot be proposed again for another ten turns if defeated. This will prevent repeated attempts to push through unpopular changes and maintain focus on genuine improvements. Additionally, I support the fifteen-turn interval and the two-thirds majority requirement, as they collectively ensure stability and thoughtful consideration. Let's finalize this proposal to benefit our collective gameplay experience.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and collaborative effort from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further promote stability and fairness, I propose that during these periodic reviews, a record of all proposed amendments, whether adopted or not, be maintained and publicly accessible for reference. This will encourage transparency and allow players to learn from past discussions, ensuring that future proposals are well-informed. I support the fifteen-turn interval, the two-thirds majority for adoption, and the additional steps proposed to prevent strategic manipulation and ensure genuine collective improvement.

GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and collaborative spirit shown by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further enhance the effectiveness of the periodic reviews, I suggest incorporating a mechanism where any rule change proposals must include a brief impact analysis, outlining potential effects on gameplay and fairness. This analysis will help players make more informed decisions, ensuring that adopted changes genuinely benefit the game. Additionally, I support the fifteen-turn interval, the two-thirds majority requirement, and the other safeguards against strategic manipulation. Let's finalize this proposal for a fairer and more balanced gameplay experience.

ChurchI appreciate the thorough and collaborative refinements from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure fairness and prevent strategic manipulation, I propose that any amendments proposed during these reviews must be co-sponsored by at least two other players, ensuring they reflect a collective interest rather than individual agendas. This requirement will enhance the integrity of the review process, promoting changes that are genuinely beneficial for all players. I support the fifteen-turn interval, the two-thirds majority for adoption, and the other proposed safeguards, as they collectively maintain balance and fairness in our game. Let's move forward with these refinements for the betterment of our collective gameplay experience.

KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further promote procedural fairness and ensure that the periodic reviews align with our collective interests, I propose adding a clause that any proposed amendments must undergo a mandatory review by an impartial player who did not participate in the initial proposal. This step will provide an additional layer of scrutiny, ensuring that changes are balanced and equitable. I support the fifteen-turn interval, the two-thirds majority requirement, and the other safeguards against strategic manipulation to maintain fairness and stability in our game. Let's finalize this proposal to benefit our collective gameplay experience.

PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit shown by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further enhance transparency and fairness, I propose that any amendments proposed during these reviews be subject to a brief summary presentation by the proposer, highlighting key points and anticipated impacts. This ensures all players have a clear understanding of the proposed changes before voting. Additionally, I support the fifteen-turn interval, the two-thirds majority requirement, and the other safeguards, as they collectively maintain balance and fairness in our game. Let's finalize this proposal for a fairer and more adaptive gameplay experience.

The division

TarskinayFrequent reviews may disrupt gameplay; a longer interval is preferable.

GoedelayeThis proposal encourages adaptive gameplay and fairness with periodic reviews.

ChurchnayThe proposal lacks sufficient safeguards against strategic manipulation and could lead to frequent disruptions.

KleenenayFrequent reviews could disrupt gameplay and the ten-turn interval is too short for meaningful reflection.

PostayePeriodic reviews promote fairness and adaptability.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 states that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 5 points.

Turn 47Tarskicarried

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 65% of the eligible voters vote aye, until every player has completed ten full circuits of turns. Thereafter, the threshold drops permanently to a simple majority.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the discussion so far and the effort to balance strategic depth with fair play. The proposed increase to a 65% threshold until ten full circuits could introduce additional stability and prevent rapid shifts in rules that might not have broad support. However, I suggest that this threshold adjustment should be reconsidered to a 60% majority until eight full circuits of turns to allow for more gradual evolution of the ruleset. This modification could offer a reasonable compromise, maintaining strategic integrity without unduly prolonging consensus-building. I would support this amendment if adopted.

GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion to adjust the voting threshold to 60% until eight full circuits of turns. This compromise strikes a balance between allowing strategic rule changes and ensuring sufficient consensus. By setting the threshold at 60%, we encourage thoughtful proposals without excessively delaying the game's progression. I support this amendment as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining a dynamic yet fair gameplay environment. Let's move forward with this proposal, ensuring it is debated thoroughly to gather unanimous support.

ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski and Goedel. The adjustment to a 60% threshold until eight full circuits seems to strike a fair balance between allowing strategic rule changes and ensuring sufficient consensus. This threshold ensures that rules are adopted with a reasonable level of agreement, promoting stability while still allowing the game to evolve. I support this amendment as it maintains the strategic depth and fairness we aim for in our gameplay. Let's ensure this proposal is debated thoroughly to achieve unanimous support.

KleeneI appreciate the contributions from Tarski and Goedel, as well as Church's support. The 60% threshold until eight full circuits seems to provide a balanced approach, ensuring rules are adopted with a reasonable level of consensus without stalling progress. This adjustment could maintain strategic integrity while promoting stability. However, I urge all players to consider the long-term effects of this change on gameplay dynamics, ensuring it aligns with our shared principles of fairness and strategic depth. I support this amendment, provided it receives unanimous support after thorough debate. PASS

PostI appreciate the thoughtful consideration from Tarski, Goedel, and Church regarding the 60% threshold until eight full circuits. This proposal seems to strike a balance between strategic rule evolution and maintaining consensus, which aligns with my goal of fair and dynamic gameplay. By extending the higher threshold to eight circuits, we allow for more deliberate and considered rule changes while still ensuring progress. I support this amendment and look forward to a thorough debate to achieve unanimous agreement. PASS

Discussion · round 2

TarskiI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the consensus-building efforts demonstrated by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The proposed adjustment to a 60% threshold until eight full circuits strikes a balance between strategic flexibility and stability. I support this amendment as it ensures that rule changes are made with broad agreement, promoting both fairness and strategic depth. Let's proceed with unanimous support. PASS

GoedelPASS I appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative effort that has been made to refine Tarski's proposal. The adjustment to a 60% threshold until eight full circuits seems to strike the right balance between allowing strategic rule changes and ensuring sufficient consensus. This amendment should enhance the fairness and strategic integrity of the game while maintaining progress. I support it with unanimous backing.

ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the efforts to find a balanced approach. The 60% threshold until eight full circuits seems to ensure that rule changes are made with a significant level of consensus, promoting stability while allowing for strategic evolution. This adjustment supports both fairness and strategic depth, and I support it with unanimous backing. PASS

KleeneI appreciate the consensus-building efforts and the thoughtful dialogue from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The proposal to adjust the threshold to a 60% majority until eight full circuits of turns seems to strike a balanced approach, ensuring that rule changes are adopted with substantial support while still allowing for strategic evolution. This amendment supports our shared principles of fairness, strategic depth, and progress. I support this proposal with unanimous backing. PASS.

PostI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the unanimous support that has emerged for this amendment. The 60% threshold until eight full circuits of turns balances stability and strategic evolution, ensuring that rule changes are made with substantial consensus. This approach promotes fairness and strategic depth, aligning with our shared goals. Let's proceed with this proposal, confident in its potential to enhance our game dynamics. PASS.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the productive discussions and the consensus that has been reached on adjusting the voting threshold. The 60% majority until eight full circuits strikes a commendable balance between fostering strategic evolution and ensuring stable rule adoption. This adjustment should enhance both the strategic depth and fairness of the game, allowing rule changes to be made with sufficient support while preventing hasty decisions. I support this amendment with unanimous backing, confident it aligns with our shared values and goals. PASS

GoedelI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the unanimous support this proposal has garnered. The 60% threshold until eight full circuits provides a thoughtful balance between strategic evolution and stability, ensuring that rule changes are made with sufficient consensus. This approach should enhance the strategic depth and fairness of our game, allowing for meaningful and well-supported rule changes while maintaining progress. I support this amendment with unanimous backing. PASS

ChurchI appreciate the thorough and collaborative discussions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The adjustment to a 60% threshold until eight full circuits seems to effectively balance the need for strategic rule evolution with the requirement for consensus, ensuring that rule changes are made with substantial support. This proposal promotes fairness and strategic depth, aligning with our shared values. I support this amendment with unanimous backing. PASS

KleenePASS I appreciate the consensus-building and thorough debate that has taken place regarding the proposal to adjust the voting threshold to a 60% majority until eight full circuits of turns. This amendment seems to strike an effective balance between allowing strategic rule changes and ensuring sufficient consensus, promoting both fairness and the dynamic evolution of our game. I support this proposal with unanimous backing, confident in its potential to enhance our gameplay.

PostI appreciate the diligent efforts from all players to find a balanced and strategic adjustment to the voting threshold. The 60% threshold until eight full circuits seems to strike an ideal balance between stability and strategic evolution, ensuring that rule changes are adopted with substantial consensus while still allowing for the dynamic development of our game. This approach supports our shared goals of fairness and strategic depth, and I fully support it with unanimous backing. PASS.

The division

TarskiayeAdjusting to a 60% threshold until eight full circuits balances strategy and consensus effectively.

GoedelayeThis amendment provides a balanced approach to ensure strategic integrity and sufficient consensus.

ChurchayeThe adjusted 60% threshold until eight full circuits balances strategic evolution and consensus.

KleenenayI support the amendment for a 60% threshold until eight full circuits instead.

PostayeThe adjustment to 60% until eight circuits balances strategic evolution with consensus.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Kleene loses 5 points for voting against an adopted change, and Tarski gains 3 points for an adopted change without opposition.

Turn 46Goedelcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change that introduces a mechanism for collaborative bonus points if all players complete a specific action sequence within a single turn. If adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 4 points, and each participant in the sequence gains 2 points. The action sequence and associated bonus points must be agreed upon by all players during the proposal phase.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the innovative approach proposed by Goedel, aiming to enhance collaboration among players. However, I propose a minor amendment to ensure clarity and fairness: the specific action sequence must be documented and agreed upon before the proposal is voted on, to prevent any misunderstanding or strategic ambiguity. This amendment will facilitate a transparent and equitable application of the rule. If agreed, I would be willing to support Goedel's proposal with this addition.

GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful amendment for clarity and transparency. To further ensure fairness and encourage collaboration, I suggest adding that the action sequence must be completed within three turns of its agreement. This addition aims to motivate timely and strategic cooperation among players. If this amendment is agreed upon, I fully support Goedel's proposal with these enhancements.

ChurchI appreciate the constructive amendments proposed by Tarski and Goedel, which aim to enhance transparency and encourage timely collaboration. To further ensure fairness and strategic engagement, I suggest an additional requirement that the action sequence must be documented and publicly shared before the proposal vote. This will help maintain integrity and prevent any post-agreement modifications. If this amendment is accepted, I support Goedel's proposal with these refinements.

KleeneI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the enhancements proposed by Tarski and Goedel, as well as Church's focus on transparency and strategic engagement. To further ensure fairness and prevent any potential manipulation, I suggest adding a stipulation that the proposed action sequence cannot directly affect the proposer's score or turn order, maintaining an impartial framework for collaboration. If this amendment is agreed upon, I support Goedel's proposal with these refinements.

PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, which collectively enhance the clarity, transparency, and fairness of Goedel's proposal. To further ensure an equitable playing field and encourage meaningful collaboration, I suggest an additional amendment: the action sequence must be unanimously agreed upon by all players before the proposal phase, and a neutral arbitrator (to be chosen from among us, if necessary, by unanimous consent) should oversee the agreement process and the subsequent completion of the sequence. This will help maintain the integrity of the collaborative effort and prevent any unilateral advantage. If these additions are agreed upon, I support Goedel's proposal with these final refinements.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiI appreciate the constructive contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further refine this proposal and ensure an equitable and strategic gameplay environment, I suggest adding that the action sequence must not only be unanimously agreed upon but also require a minimum of five distinct actions to qualify for the bonus points. This will encourage more comprehensive collaboration and strategic planning among players. If this additional layer of complexity is accepted, I support Goedel's proposal with this final refinement.

GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful and comprehensive enhancements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure strategic engagement and prevent potential stagnation, I suggest adding that the proposed action sequence must be completed within a maximum of five turns from its agreement. This will encourage prompt and dynamic cooperation while maintaining the integrity of the game. If this condition is incorporated, I fully support Goedel's proposal with these refinements.

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive and strategic refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure fairness and engagement, I suggest adding that the action sequence must not directly or indirectly alter the turn order, thus maintaining the integrity of the gameplay and ensuring that the collaboration is centered around the spirit of cooperation rather than strategic manipulation. If this amendment is agreed upon, I support Goedel's proposal with this additional safeguard.

KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive and strategic refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have significantly enhanced the proposal's clarity, fairness, and collaborative spirit. To further ensure the integrity of the process and prevent any potential for undue influence or advantage, I suggest adding a stipulation that any player who has proposed a rule change within the last three turns cannot act as the neutral arbitrator in overseeing the agreement process. This will help maintain the impartiality of the arbitration and encourage a broader sense of trust and cooperation among all players. If this amendment is accepted, I fully support Goedel's proposal with these final adjustments.

PostI appreciate the detailed refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which collectively enhance the proposal's clarity and fairness. To further ensure equitable participation, I suggest adding that the neutral arbitrator must be confirmed by a separate unanimous vote among all players, ensuring full consensus and trust in their impartiality. With this addition, I support Goedel's proposal.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the detailed and strategic refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure clarity and prevent potential disputes, I suggest adding that if the agreed action sequence is not completed within the specified timeframe, no points shall be awarded, and the sequence will reset, requiring a new agreement among players. With this final safeguard, I support Goedel's proposal.

GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive and strategic refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have significantly enhanced the proposal's fairness and collaborative potential. To further ensure clarity and prevent any ambiguity during the proposal phase, I suggest adding a stipulation that the agreed action sequence must be explicitly outlined in the proposal text, leaving no room for interpretation or misunderstanding. With this additional clarification, I support Goedel's proposal.

ChurchI appreciate the collective effort to refine Goedel's proposal into a fair and strategic rule change. To further ensure transparency and prevent any potential for confusion or manipulation, I suggest adding a requirement for a brief public discussion phase following the unanimous agreement on the action sequence, allowing all players to express any concerns or seek clarifications before finalizing the proposal. This will help maintain the integrity of the collaboration and ensure that all players are fully informed and in agreement with the terms. If this addition is accepted, I support Goedel's proposal with this final enhancement.

KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which collectively enhance the proposal's clarity and fairness. To ensure the spirit of collaboration remains intact and to prevent any potential for strategic manipulation, I suggest adding that the action sequence must incorporate at least one action that requires direct cooperation between at least two players. This will encourage genuine teamwork and strategic interaction, aligning with the collaborative intent of the rule. With this addition, I support Goedel's proposal.

PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, which have greatly enhanced the fairness and collaborative potential of Goedel's proposal. To further ensure that the proposed rule change aligns with the spirit of collaboration and strategic engagement, I suggest adding that the action sequence must be revisited and potentially revised after every five uses, to adapt to the evolving dynamics of the game and maintain its relevance and challenge. This will encourage ongoing strategic innovation and adaptability among players, ensuring the collaborative mechanism remains fresh and engaging. With this addition, I support Goedel's proposal.

The division

TarskiayeThis rule fosters collaboration and aligns with strategic goals.

GoedelayeThis proposal encourages strategic collaboration and has been refined for clarity and fairness.

ChurchayeThis proposal encourages collaboration and strategic play.

KleeneayeIt fosters collaboration without unfairly benefiting the proposer.

PostayeThis proposal enhances collaboration and strategic engagement, aligning with reformist principles.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 204 awards 4 points to the proposer if a rule change is adopted with at least 95% of votes, which is the case here.

Turn 45Tarskicarried

moves to amend §204A rule change may be adopted with a two-thirds majority, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that is adopted with at least 95% of votes, they gain 4 extra points, incentivizing broad consensus. Moreover, if a rule change is adopted unanimously, the proposer gains 6 points, further encouraging cooperation.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the spirit of Goedel's proposal to further incentivize cooperation and consensus in our rule changes. However, granting 6 points for unanimous adoption could excessively accelerate point accumulation, potentially leading to an unintended rush toward the target score without thorough consideration of each rule's implications. Instead, I suggest we slightly adjust the incentive to 3 extra points for unanimous adoption, maintaining a balance between encouraging cooperation and ensuring careful deliberation. This adjustment preserves our goal of fostering collaboration while maintaining the strategic depth and deliberative nature of our game. Let's work together to refine this proposal in a way that aligns with these principles.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's thoughtful consideration for maintaining a balanced game. A compromise might involve granting 4 extra points for unanimous adoption, offering a stronger incentive than 3 but still less than 6, encouraging collaboration without overly hastening progress. Let's align on this balanced approach to ensure strategic play continues to be paramount.

ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. However, I believe granting 4 extra points for unanimous adoption might still slightly skew the strategic balance. Instead, I propose granting 3 extra points for unanimous adoption, as Tarski suggested. This adjustment ensures we encourage consensus without diminishing the importance of thoughtful deliberation. Let's work together to maintain the integrity and strategic depth of our game.

KleeneI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposed adjustments to the incentive points for unanimous adoption. Kleene supports the proposal with the adjusted incentive of 3 extra points for unanimous adoption, as it maintains a balanced approach that encourages cooperation without compromising the strategic depth of the game. Let's proceed with this proposal to foster continued collaboration and thoughtful rule-making.

PostI appreciate Tarski, Church, and Kleene's reasoning in advocating for a 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption. It aligns with my belief that the game should reward cooperation while preserving careful consideration of each rule change. I support this balanced approach to encourage collaboration without accelerating our progress too swiftly. Let's adopt this proposal to ensure strategic depth remains central to our gameplay.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiPASS I appreciate the thorough discussions and the balanced approach that has been reached with the 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption. This proposal maintains the strategic integrity of the game by encouraging collaboration without undermining thoughtful deliberation. Let us proceed with this well-reasoned amendment.

GoedelI appreciate the collective effort in refining Tarski's proposal to a 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption. This balanced approach aligns with our goal of fostering cooperation without compromising the strategic depth of our game. Let's proceed with this amendment to continue encouraging thoughtful and collaborative rule-making. PASS

ChurchI appreciate the consensus that has been reached on Tarski's proposal for a 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption. This balanced incentive encourages cooperation while maintaining the strategic depth of the game. As the proposal stands, it aligns well with our collective goal of thoughtful and collaborative rule-making. PASS

KleeneKleene: PASS The discussions have resulted in a well-balanced proposal, aligning with my principles of maintaining strategic depth and encouraging cooperation without excessive point inflation. The proposed 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption strikes a fair compromise that I can support. Let's adopt this amendment to proceed with thoughtful rule-making.

PostPASS I appreciate the consensus reached on Tarski's proposal for a 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption. This balanced approach aligns with our shared goal of fostering cooperation while maintaining strategic integrity. Let's move forward with this amendment to encourage thoughtful rule-making.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the consensus achieved on the proposal for a 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption, which aligns with my preference for fostering cooperation without compromising the integrity of strategic deliberation. This balanced approach ensures that our rule changes are thoughtful and collaborative, supporting the long-term sustainability of the game. Let's proceed with this amendment and maintain our focus on strategic play. PASS

GoedelPASS I appreciate the collective effort in reaching this well-balanced agreement on the 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption. This compromise effectively encourages cooperation while preserving the strategic depth and thoughtful consideration of our rule changes. Let's move forward with this amendment.

ChurchI appreciate the productive discussions and the consensus we've reached on the 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption. This balanced approach effectively encourages cooperation while safeguarding the strategic depth and thoughtful deliberation that are central to our game. Let's proceed with this amendment to ensure our rule changes continue to be both collaborative and carefully considered. PASS

KleenePASS I appreciate the thorough deliberation and consensus reached on Tarski's proposal. The 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption strikes the right balance, encouraging cooperation without undermining strategic integrity. Let's proceed with this amendment.

PostI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the consensus achieved on the 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption. This balanced incentive aligns well with our aim to foster cooperation while maintaining strategic depth and thoughtful deliberation. Let's proceed with this amendment to continue promoting fair and collaborative rule-making. PASS

The division

TarskiayeThe adjusted 3-point bonus for unanimous adoption balances cooperation with strategic depth.

GoedelayeThe 6-point bonus for unanimous adoption aligns with encouraging cooperation.

ChurchayeThe proposal encourages broad consensus while maintaining strategic depth.

KleeneayeThe proposal promotes cooperation without compromising strategic depth.

PostayeEncourages cooperation and aligns with strategic depth.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted unanimously, so Tarski gains 6 points according to the amended rule 204.

Turn 44Goedelcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change that introduces a point-sharing mechanism, allowing players to mutually agree to distribute a pool of points among themselves, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly or indirectly benefit the proposer.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the intention behind Goedel's proposal, as it fosters collaboration among players. However, I am concerned that this mechanism, even with unanimous consent, might lead to strategic alliances that could destabilize the competitive balance of the game. To ensure fairness and maintain the spirit of competition, I propose we include a stipulation that any point-sharing agreement must not only be unanimous but also be subject to review in the next round of play, ensuring transparency and accountability. If Goedel agrees to this amendment, I would support the proposal. Otherwise, I would urge the group to consider these potential implications before adopting the rule.

GoedelI appreciate Tarski's concerns about maintaining competitive balance and the spirit of the game. I agree that transparency is crucial, and I support the inclusion of a review mechanism in the next round of play to ensure accountability. To strengthen this proposal, let's also consider adding a clause that limits the total points that can be shared in any single agreement to prevent excessive redistribution that could disproportionately affect the game's dynamics. If Tarski is willing to accept this additional safeguard, I am fully in favor of moving forward with the proposal.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate Goedel's effort to enhance collaboration and Tarski's emphasis on maintaining balance and transparency. However, to further ensure the common good, I propose an additional clause that any point-sharing agreement should be publicly declared at the beginning of a player's turn, allowing all players to anticipate and respond to such agreements. This measure would promote openness and prevent any strategic surprises that could unfairly impact the game's dynamics. If both Tarski and Goedel agree to this modification, I am inclined to support the proposal.

KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the amendments suggested by Tarski and Church. To further ensure fairness and transparency, I propose adding a clause that any point-sharing agreement must be documented in a publicly accessible log, reviewed before the start of the next game cycle. This measure would guarantee that all players have access to past agreements, enhancing accountability. If Tarski and Church are open to this addition, I support the proposal.

PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative spirit in this proposal and the efforts to enhance fairness through transparency and accountability. To further strengthen it, I suggest incorporating a clause that any point-sharing agreement must include a clause for equitable distribution, ensuring that the shared points are allocated based on pre-agreed criteria that reflect each player's contribution or need. This will help prevent any unintended imbalances and maintain the competitive integrity of the game. If Tarski, Goedel, and Church agree to this safeguard, I am willing to support the proposal.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I appreciate Kleene's emphasis on documentation and Post's focus on equitable distribution. To further safeguard competitive integrity, I suggest that any point-sharing agreement must include a sunset clause, ensuring such agreements are temporary and reviewed for renewal only after a set number of turns. If these additions are agreeable, I would support the proposal as it stands.

GoedelI appreciate the constructive contributions from everyone, especially the emphasis on transparency and fairness. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest including a provision that any point-sharing mechanism must be accompanied by a strategic rationale presented to all players, ensuring that the agreement is not only fair but also contributes to the strategic depth of the game. If this addition is agreeable, I am fully supportive of the proposal.

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive refinements suggested by all, particularly the focus on transparency, fairness, and strategic depth. To further align the proposal with the game's competitive spirit, I propose an additional safeguard: any point-sharing agreement must be subject to a mandatory review by an independent adjudicator, randomly selected from a pool of past players, to ensure impartial assessment. If this enhancement is agreeable, I am inclined to support the proposal.

KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful amendments from my fellow players, which have significantly enhanced Goedel's proposal. To further ensure that the point-sharing mechanism aligns with the principles of fairness and strategic depth, I propose an additional clause: any point-sharing agreement must include a justification for the distribution that aligns with the overall strategic objectives of the game. This measure will ensure that agreements are not only fair but also contribute positively to the game's dynamics. If all parties find this addition agreeable, I am inclined to support the proposal.

PostI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful amendments from all players, which have significantly enhanced the proposal's fairness and transparency. To further ensure alignment with the game's competitive spirit, I suggest adding a clause that requires any point-sharing agreement to be revisited and potentially revised at the end of each game cycle, allowing for adjustments based on evolving game dynamics. If this addition is agreeable, I am inclined to support the proposal.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful and comprehensive refinements made by all participants, particularly the emphasis on transparency, fairness, and strategic depth. To ensure that these principles are upheld throughout the game, I propose adding a clause that any point-sharing agreement must be subject to a post-agreement reflection phase, where players discuss the outcomes and implications of the agreement in a structured debrief. This phase would serve to reinforce accountability and provide insights for future agreements. If this addition is agreeable, I am inclined to support the proposal.

GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful refinements made by my fellow players, which have significantly enhanced Goedel's proposal. To ensure the proposal's alignment with the game's competitive spirit and strategic integrity, I suggest adding a clause that any point-sharing agreement must include a provision for an optional mediator, drawn from a pool of impartial players, to facilitate discussions and resolve any disputes that may arise from the agreement. This measure will further ensure fairness and maintain the competitive balance of the game. If this addition is agreeable, I fully support the proposal.

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative effort that has been put into refining Goedel's proposal. To further align with the principles of fairness and strategic integrity, I propose an additional safeguard: any point-sharing agreement must include a clause that allows for a "challenge period" of one turn after the agreement is made, during which any player can raise concerns or objections before the points are distributed. This would ensure that all players have a final opportunity to voice any potential issues, fostering a more transparent and equitable decision-making process. If this addition is agreeable, I am inclined to support the proposal.

KleeneI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements made by all players, which have significantly enhanced the proposal's fairness and transparency. To ensure that the point-sharing mechanism remains aligned with the game's principles and does not inadvertently favor certain alliances, I propose an additional safeguard: any point-sharing agreement must be accompanied by a pre-agreement disclosure where all players explicitly state their intentions and potential conflicts of interest. This measure will promote openness and prevent strategic manipulation, ensuring that the mechanism serves the common good. If this addition is agreeable, I am inclined to support the proposal.

PostI appreciate the comprehensive and thoughtful refinements from all participants, particularly Kleene's focus on pre-agreement disclosure to prevent strategic manipulation. To further ensure that the point-sharing mechanism aligns with our collective values of fairness and transparency, I propose adding a clause that requires any point-sharing agreement to be reviewed and ratified at the start of each new game cycle, providing an additional layer of oversight. If this addition is agreeable, I am inclined to support the proposal.

The division

TarskiayeThe proposal, with added safeguards, aligns with fair play and strategic integrity.

GoedelayeI appreciate the collaborative effort and refinements for fairness and transparency.

ChurchayeThe proposal, with added safeguards, ensures fairness and strategic depth.

KleenenayI am concerned about potential alliances destabilizing the competitive balance.

PostayeThe proposal includes comprehensive safeguards for fairness and transparency.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The proposal was adopted without opposition, so rule 324 awards 3 points to Goedel, but it does not directly benefit the proposer, so no points are awarded.

Turn 43Tarskicarried

moves to amend §344A player may propose a rule change that allows for a one-time exchange of points between players, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly or indirectly benefit the proposer.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiTarski's proposed amendment to rule [344] is a strategic move aimed at maintaining fairness in point exchanges and preventing manipulative gains. I support this amendment, as it closes a potential loophole where indirect benefits could be reaped, ensuring that all rule changes are crafted with genuine equity in mind. By preventing both direct and indirect benefits to the proposer, this amendment strengthens the integrity of the rules and aligns with my principle of valuing durable institutions. I am in favor of adopting this amendment.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's amendment to rule [344] for its focus on fairness and integrity in rule changes. By preventing both direct and indirect benefits to the proposer, this amendment addresses potential loopholes and reinforces the collaborative spirit of Nomic. I support this amendment as it aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a balanced and equitable gameplay environment. Let's adopt it to ensure that all point exchanges remain transparent and fair.

ChurchChurch: Tarski's proposal to amend rule [344] is a commendable effort to enhance fairness by preventing both direct and indirect benefits to the proposer. This amendment supports the principle of equity and ensures that all players engage with the rules in good faith. I agree with Goedel and support this change, as it aligns with the goal of fostering a collaborative and fair gaming environment. Let's adopt it.

KleeneKleene: Kleene: I support Tarski's amendment to rule [344]. By prohibiting both direct and indirect benefits to the proposer, this change ensures that point exchanges remain equitable and align with the principles of fairness and transparency. It maintains procedural integrity and prevents any potential exploitation. Let's adopt it to uphold our commitment to a fair ruleset.

PostPost: Post: I'm in full support of Tarski's amendment to rule [344]. By extending the restriction to indirect benefits, this change fortifies the rules against any form of strategic manipulation, ensuring that all players remain on equal footing. This amendment not only enhances fairness but also aligns perfectly with my reformist stance towards creating robust and equitable game mechanisms. Let's adopt it to maintain a level playing field for all.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I am pleased to see unanimous support for this amendment. Ensuring that rule changes are adopted without any form of proposer benefit aligns with our shared commitment to fairness and procedural integrity. This amendment not only strengthens rule [344] but also reinforces our dedication to equitable gameplay. I trust that this proposal, with its focus on preventing both direct and indirect benefits, will continue to foster a fair and collaborative environment. Let's proceed with the adoption of this amendment.

GoedelI support Tarski's amendment to rule [344] as it effectively closes potential loopholes and upholds our commitment to a fair and balanced game. By ensuring that no proposer gains, either directly or indirectly, we maintain the integrity of our point exchange mechanism. Let's adopt this change to reinforce equitable gameplay for all.

ChurchChurch: Church: I'm glad to see this amendment has unanimous support. By ensuring no proposer benefits, either directly or indirectly, it upholds the principles of fairness and collaboration that are vital to Nomic. This change will strengthen our commitment to equitable gameplay and prevent any potential manipulation of the rules. Let's move forward with adopting it. PASS

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI concur with the unanimous support for Tarski's amendment to rule [344]. By explicitly prohibiting both direct and indirect benefits to the proposer, this amendment fortifies the principles of fairness and transparency that are essential to our game. This change not only closes potential loopholes but also ensures that all players engage with the rules in good faith, maintaining the integrity of our ruleset. Let's proceed with its adoption. PASS

GoedelPASS This proposal is a clear step towards maintaining fairness and integrity within our rule changes, and I fully support its adoption. I appreciate Tarski's diligence in closing potential loopholes that could undermine our collaborative efforts. Let's adopt this amendment to ensure all point exchanges remain transparent and equitable.

ChurchThe amendment proposed by Tarski to rule [344] is well-reasoned and aligns with the principles of fairness and integrity that are central to our game. By preventing both direct and indirect benefits to the proposer, this rule change ensures that all players engage with the rules in good faith, maintaining the equilibrium of our gameplay. I support the adoption of this amendment, as it reinforces our commitment to an equitable and collaborative environment. PASS

PostI fully endorse Tarski's amendment to rule [344] as it ensures the integrity of our point exchange mechanism by closing potential loopholes. This change reflects our commitment to fairness and transparency, and I am pleased to see unanimous support. PASS

The division

TarskiayeThe amendment ensures fairness by preventing both direct and indirect benefits to the proposer.

GoedelayeThis amendment ensures fairness and integrity in point exchanges.

ChurchayeThis amendment ensures fairness by preventing any proposer benefits.

KleeneayeIt ensures fairness by closing potential loopholes.

PostayeThis amendment ensures fairness by preventing indirect benefits to the proposer.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards points for unanimous adoption, and no ledger is created or modified.

Turn 42Goedelcarried

moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change that introduces a new scoring mechanism for collaborative challenges. If adopted unanimously and completed within two turns, each participant gains 8 points. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to enhance our collaborative mechanisms, particularly the potential for strategic alliances. However, to ensure that this proposal does not inadvertently favor any single player, I suggest an amendment: "If adopted, such a rule must be reviewed and possibly modified after 5 turns to assess its impact on game dynamics. This review will be conducted by all players unanimously."

GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful amendment to ensure fair play and dynamic assessment of the rule's impact. To build on both Goedel's proposal and Tarski's amendment, I suggest adding: "During the review after 5 turns, any adjustments must also be unanimously agreed upon, ensuring that any changes maintain the spirit of collaboration and fairness. This approach aligns with our commitment to strategic depth and balance, encouraging players to continually engage with the evolving ruleset."

ChurchI appreciate Goedel's proposal and Tarski's thoughtful amendment. To further enhance the spirit of collaboration, I suggest we include a clause that mandates a collaborative discussion session before the review, allowing all players to express their perspectives and propose adjustments. This ensures that the rule evolves in a manner that truly reflects the collective interests of the table.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's proposals and Church's suggestion for collaborative discussion. To further ensure fairness, I suggest we add: "If any player feels the rule change disproportionately benefits others, they can propose a reevaluation of its impact within two turns of the review, with any changes requiring unanimous agreement. This adds an additional layer of oversight to maintain balance and strategic fairness."

PostPost: I appreciate the collective effort to refine Goedel's proposal, ensuring it fosters collaboration while maintaining strategic fairness. To further align with these goals, I propose adding: "Any reevaluation triggered by a player must also include a mechanism for compensatory adjustments to ensure no player is at a strategic disadvantage, promoting an environment where all players can engage equally with the new rule." This ensures the rule change remains beneficial and fair, encouraging continued participation and strategic innovation.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's proposal to include compensatory adjustments, ensuring strategic equity. To further align with our commitment to maintaining strategic balance, I suggest adding a clause that mandates a transparent scoring audit at the end of each collaborative challenge. This audit, conducted by all players unanimously, will verify the fairness of points distribution and ensure that the rule's spirit of collaboration remains intact. This measure will help us address any unforeseen imbalances and maintain the integrity of the game.

GoedelI appreciate everyone's insightful contributions towards refining Goedel's proposal to enhance collaborative challenges. To ensure the rule remains aligned with our strategic goals and maintains fairness, I suggest we include a clause that mandates a reflective session after each collaborative challenge. During this session, players can discuss the rule's impact and share insights on potential improvements, fostering a dynamic and adaptive rule environment. This approach encourages ongoing engagement and strategic innovation, ensuring the rule continues to serve the collective interests of all players.

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive enhancements to Goedel's proposal, which emphasize fairness and strategic balance. To further align with our goals, I suggest adding a clause that requires a mid-game review (after 10 turns) to assess the rule's broader impact on game dynamics. This review will be conducted by all players unanimously, ensuring that any necessary modifications continue to reflect our collective interest in maintaining a dynamic and fair playing field.

KleeneI appreciate the thorough and thoughtful discussions around Goedel's proposal. To ensure the rule's sustainability and adaptability, I suggest we include a clause that mandates an end-of-game reflection session. During this session, all players will evaluate the overall impact of the rule on the game's dynamics and fairness, allowing us to capture long-term insights and inform future rule changes. This ensures that our commitment to strategic balance and collaboration is upheld throughout the entire game.

PostI appreciate the depth and foresight each player has brought to refining Goedel's proposal. To further ensure that our collaborative challenges remain equitable and strategic, I propose adding a clause that allows any player to call for an additional review if they suspect the rule has led to unintended strategic imbalances, with any necessary amendments requiring unanimous consent. This will help us maintain a fair playing field and adapt swiftly to any emerging dynamics.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and strategic foresight offered by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To enhance Goedel's proposal further, I suggest we introduce a clause that requires an initial feasibility analysis before adopting the rule. This analysis should evaluate potential strategic impacts and ensure that the rule aligns with our collective goals of fairness and dynamic engagement. This step will provide a preliminary safeguard against unforeseen imbalances and maintain the integrity of our evolving ruleset.

GoedelI appreciate the depth of analysis and commitment to fairness from everyone, particularly the focus on maintaining dynamic engagement and strategic balance. To build on these insights, I propose adding a clause that allows players to introduce a one-time "strategy adjustment vote" after the first collaborative challenge, enabling us to make immediate, minor adjustments if the initial implementation reveals any unexpected dynamics. This will ensure the rule remains flexible and responsive to our collective experience, fostering a more adaptive and equitable environment.

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit shown by everyone in enhancing Goedel's proposal. To further align with our goals of fairness and strategic depth, I suggest adding a clause that requires any proposed adjustments during the mid-game review to include a detailed rationale and potential impacts on game dynamics. This will ensure that all players are fully informed and can make decisions that support the collective interest in maintaining a balanced and engaging game environment.

KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative effort from all players. To ensure clarity and strategic alignment, I propose adding a clause that mandates documenting the outcomes and player feedback from each collaborative challenge. This documentation should be reviewed during the reflective session after each challenge, providing a structured basis for informed discussions and decisions on potential adjustments. This approach will help us maintain transparency and enhance our collective understanding of the rule's impact.

PostI appreciate the collective dedication to ensuring Goedel's proposal remains fair and strategically sound. To enhance transparency and accountability, I propose adding a clause that mandates a detailed report of each collaborative challenge's outcomes to be shared with all players before the reflective session. This report should include points gained, player strategies employed, and any observed impacts on game dynamics, ensuring that all players have the information needed to engage in informed discussions and make equitable decisions about potential adjustments. This will help us maintain a balanced and collaborative environment throughout the game.

The division

TarskiayeThis proposal aligns with our goal of enhancing strategic collaboration and maintaining fairness.

GoedelayeThis proposal incentivizes collaboration and aligns with our strategic goals.

ChurchayeThis proposal promotes collaboration and strategic depth, aligning with our collective goals.

KleeneayeSupports collaborative strategy and ensures fairness.

PostayeThis rule encourages strategic collaboration, aligning with fair play and dynamic engagement.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted unanimously, but no rule awards points for unanimous adoption.

Turn 41Tarskicarried

moves to amend §346A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible, and the challenge must be completed within two turns of adoption.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the intention behind Tarski's proposal to introduce a time constraint on collaborative challenges. However, adding a two-turn completion requirement may unduly restrict strategic planning and collaboration. I suggest amending the proposal to allow a flexible completion window, perhaps by proposing that the challenge must be completed within three turns of adoption. This adjustment maintains the spirit of collaboration while providing players with sufficient time to engage meaningfully.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a more flexible timeline for collaborative challenges. To balance urgency and strategic depth, I propose that the challenge should be completed within four turns of adoption. This allows ample opportunity for thoughtful collaboration, aligning with our shared goal of fostering strategic engagement. Additionally, I suggest including a provision where if the challenge remains incomplete after the allotted time, players can still negotiate a partial point bonus based on their collective progress. This ensures that even if consensus is not fully reached, the effort is still recognized and rewarded.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's contributions to refining the collaborative challenge rule. To further enhance fairness and inclusivity, I propose that if a challenge remains incomplete after the agreed-upon turns, the proposer should not gain any points, ensuring that the initiative truly benefits all participants. This change encourages genuine collaboration without disproportionately rewarding the proposer.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the efforts to refine the collaborative challenge rule, aiming for balance between strategic depth and fairness. I propose adding a clause where, if a challenge is completed within the time limit, an additional 1-point bonus is awarded to the proposer to incentivize initiating such challenges. This small incentive encourages creativity and strategic thinking without overpowering the collaborative aspect.

PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To align with our collective goal of fairness and strategic engagement, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the allotted time, an additional point be awarded to each participant rather than just the proposer. This ensures that the incentive for collaboration is evenly distributed, encouraging all players to actively contribute to the challenge's success. Additionally, I suggest that the proposer gains the ability to propose one additional rule change in the next turn as a reward, further motivating the initiation of beneficial challenges.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the challenge rule and the proposals made by my fellow players. To strike a balance between incentivizing proposers and ensuring fair recognition for all participants, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the agreed-upon timeframe, the proposer receives an additional 2 points, while each participant receives 1 extra point. This encourages initiative while still rewarding collective effort. Additionally, I suggest that if a challenge is completed successfully, the proposer gains the ability to propose one additional rule change in their next turn, further motivating strategic and cooperative play.

GoedelTarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, your proposals collectively enhance the spirit of collaboration and strategic depth we aim to foster. I propose a compromise: if a challenge is completed within the time limit, each participant receives 2 points, and the proposer receives 1 additional point plus the ability to propose one extra rule change in their next turn. This balances motivation for initiating challenges with fair recognition for all players' contributions.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collective effort to balance incentives and fairness in collaborative challenges. To further align with our shared values, I propose adding a clause that, if a challenge is completed within the timeframe, the proposer receives the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, but no additional points. This ensures that the focus remains on collaboration and strategic engagement, rather than merely accumulating points.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Goedel, Church, and Post. To ensure the spirit of collaboration is preserved while incentivizing proposers, I suggest that if a challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant receives 1 extra point, and the proposer receives 2 points, maintaining a balance between collective effort and individual initiative. Additionally, I propose that if a challenge is successfully completed, the proposer gains the ability to propose a minor rule adjustment in their next turn, further encouraging strategic play without disrupting the overall balance.

PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from all players. To ensure fairness and encourage collaborative spirit, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant receives 1 point, and the proposer receives 1 extra point plus a minor strategic advantage, such as the ability to swap positions in the turn order for their next turn. This balances rewards while maintaining strategic depth.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposals from my fellow players. To maintain a balance between strategic incentives and fairness, I suggest that if a collaborative challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant, including the proposer, receives 1 point, while the proposer additionally gains the option to skip their next turn if they choose. This ensures that the proposer is incentivized without skewing the point distribution, encouraging all players to engage meaningfully in the collaborative process.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative spirit from everyone. Building on Tarski's suggestion, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the timeframe, each participant receives 1 point, the proposer receives 2 points, and all players gain an additional point for successful collaboration. Furthermore, the proposer retains the ability to propose one extra rule change in the next turn. This ensures a balanced incentive structure that rewards both the initiator and the collective effort, maintaining strategic depth and fairness.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from all players. To foster true collaboration and fairness, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant receives 1 point, and the proposer receives no additional points but gains the ability to propose one minor rule adjustment in their next turn. This ensures the proposer is motivated to initiate challenges while maintaining equitable distribution of rewards.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the balanced approach proposed by Goedel, which rewards both the initiator and the collective effort. To further enhance fairness, I suggest that if a challenge is completed successfully, the proposer's additional ability to propose an extra rule change in the next turn should be contingent on unanimous agreement from all players, ensuring it remains a collaborative initiative.

PostI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the proposals from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant receives 1 point, and the proposer receives 2 points plus the ability to propose one minor rule adjustment in their next turn, contingent on unanimous agreement. This approach encourages collaboration while fairly rewarding the initiator's effort.

The division

TarskiayeThe proposal aligns with fostering collaboration and strategic incentives.

GoedelayeThis proposal maintains collaborative spirit and adds strategic depth with the two-turn completion requirement.

ChurchayeIt encourages collaboration while maintaining strategic depth.

KleenenayThe two-turn completion requirement is too restrictive and may stifle collaboration.

PostayeEncourages strategic collaboration and fairness.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

No rule awards points on adoption, and no ledger is created or moved. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 40Churchcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. Additionally, a player may propose a second rule change during their turn if it introduces a mechanism to gain points through a collaborative challenge, provided it passes a unanimous vote among all players and does not directly alter the proposer's score or turn order.

Discussion · round 1

TarskiI appreciate the spirit of collaboration in Church's proposal. However, I am concerned that this amendment may inadvertently introduce complexity without sufficient oversight mechanisms. To support this proposal while ensuring fairness, I suggest adding a stipulation that any collaborative challenge must include a clear, pre-defined method for resolving disputes, perhaps by using a designated neutral party to adjudicate. This would help maintain the strategic depth Church aims for while protecting against potential conflicts. If this condition is met, I will support the amendment.

GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Church's proposal for a collaborative challenge, as it aligns with our goal of fostering teamwork. However, I share Tarski's concern about complexity and potential disputes. To enhance this proposal, I suggest requiring that any collaborative challenge must be clearly documented and agreed upon before voting. This documentation should outline the challenge's objectives and resolution process. If these conditions are met, I am willing to support the amendment.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's insightful concerns. To address these, I propose that the collaborative challenge must be accompanied by a brief rationale explaining how it enhances fairness or strategic depth. Additionally, I agree to include a clause for a neutral party to resolve disputes and a requirement for pre-vote documentation. With these additions, I believe the amendment will enrich our gameplay while ensuring clarity and fairness. I support the proposal with these conditions.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the proposed safeguards from Tarski and Goedel. To ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest adding a requirement that the collaborative challenge must be proposed at least two turns in advance of voting. This advance notice would provide all players ample time to review and debate its implications thoroughly, helping to avoid any rushed decisions. With this condition, I support the amendment.

PostPost: I appreciate Church's commitment to enhancing fairness and strategic depth through collaborative challenges. To address the complexity and potential disputes highlighted by Tarski and Goedel, I support their suggestions for dispute resolution and pre-vote documentation. Additionally, I propose a minor amendment: the collaborative challenge must be designed to be completed within a single turn cycle, ensuring it remains a strategic yet manageable addition to our gameplay. With these conditions, I am in favor of the amendment.

Discussion · round 2

TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive suggestions from Goedel, Kleene, and Post. To ensure this amendment remains focused on fairness and strategic depth, I propose adding a condition that the collaborative challenge must not exceed a complexity level agreed upon by all players prior to the voting. This ensures it remains manageable and aligns with our strategic goals. With this addition, I am in favor of the amendment.

GoedelI appreciate the collaborative spirit and valuable insights from Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post. To further ensure alignment with our strategic goals, I propose adding a condition that the collaborative challenge must explicitly encourage player interaction, promoting both teamwork and competition. With this addition, I support Church's amendment.

ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, which have greatly enhanced the collaborative challenge proposal. To ensure the challenge remains engaging and strategic, I propose adding a condition that it must introduce a novel gameplay element not previously utilized, ensuring continuous innovation and excitement. With these conditions, I fully support the amendment.

KleeneKleene: I appreciate the comprehensive nature of this amendment, particularly the inclusion of pre-vote documentation and a neutral arbiter for disputes. To ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest adding a condition that any collaborative challenge must have an estimated completion time, which should be agreed upon by all players before voting. This will prevent any ambiguity regarding the challenge's scope and duration. With this addition, I support the amendment.

PostI appreciate the collaborative and strategic refinements from Church, Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post. To ensure that the collaborative challenge remains engaging and balanced, I propose adding a condition that it must offer a tangible reward that benefits all participants, not just the proposer, thereby promoting collective strategic planning and teamwork. With this addition, I support the amendment.

Discussion · round 3

TarskiTarski: I appreciate the comprehensive and balanced nature of this collaborative amendment. To ensure the challenge remains fair and strategically viable, I propose adding a condition that any collaborative challenge must not only offer a tangible reward benefiting all participants but also include a mechanism for equitable point distribution among contributors, to prevent any player from disproportionately benefiting. With these additions, I support the amendment.

GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative effort in refining Church's proposal. To ensure this amendment is both strategic and fair, I propose adding a condition that the collaborative challenge must include a pre-agreed evaluation criterion, clearly defining what constitutes successful completion. This will help maintain consistency and prevent disputes over the challenge's outcome. With this addition, I support the amendment.

ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative effort to refine Church's proposal. To ensure clarity and strategic alignment, I propose adding a condition that any collaborative challenge must be reviewed by all players for potential conflicts with existing rules before voting. This pre-emptive measure will help maintain the integrity of our game while promoting innovative gameplay. With this addition, I support the amendment.

KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by all participants, particularly the inclusion of pre-agreed evaluation criteria and mechanisms for equitable point distribution. To ensure this amendment remains aligned with our strategic objectives, I suggest adding a condition that the collaborative challenge must not significantly disrupt the natural flow of the game. This will help maintain balance and continuity in our gameplay. With this addition, I support the amendment.

PostI appreciate the comprehensive and thoughtful refinements made by Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post, particularly the emphasis on pre-agreed evaluation criteria and equitable point distribution. To ensure this amendment remains focused on strategic depth and fairness, I propose adding a condition that the collaborative challenge must include a post-completion review session where players can provide feedback on its impact and suggest improvements. This continuous feedback loop will help us refine the challenge for future gameplay, ensuring it remains aligned with our strategic goals. With this addition, I support Church's amendment.

The division

TarskiayeThe proposal fosters teamwork and strategic depth with adequate safeguards.

GoedelayeThe proposal encourages strategic collaboration and teamwork.

ChurchayeThis amendment promotes strategic depth and fairness, with safeguards for clarity and balance.

KleeneayeThe proposal promotes strategic depth and fairness through collaborative challenges.

PostayeThis amendment encourages strategic depth and fairness through collaborative gameplay.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted unanimously, but no rule awards points for unanimous adoption.

Verify this game

Seed

7982464

Verify it yourself

python scripts/audit_game.py games/078/events.json

Audit result

5 finding(s) disclosed below

[seq=170, turn=6] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.6666666666666666, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'two-thirds majority (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
[seq=1550, turn=43] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.6, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': '60% majority until five full circuits of turns (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after five full circuits of turns (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
[seq=1666, turn=47] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.6, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': '60% majority until five full circuits of turns (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after five full circuits of turns (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
[seq=1723, turn=49] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after ten full circuits of turns (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.65, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': '65% majority until ten full circuits of turns (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
[seq=1752, turn=50] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.65, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': '65% majority until ten full circuits of turns (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after ten full circuits of turns (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule