§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

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

Same rung, same leader — but two finishers slipped into the red.

Observations

Forty-eight rule changes carried this second run at the ladder's high rung to the fifty-turn ceiling. Goedel repeated as the table's strongest seat at +91, echoing the sibling game's +105, but this time Kleene and Post both closed slightly negative — a small sign that even the high rung isn't perfectly reproducible run to run.

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 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a simple majority of four out of five.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only. Additionally, a player who proposes a rule change that significantly enhances strategic depth or consensus-building and is adopted, gains 3 additional points.
Full history (25)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only. Additionally, a player who proposes a rule change that significantly enhances strategic depth or consensus-building and is adopted, gains 3 additional points.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 3 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 3 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 3 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 3 points.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus.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 may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 5 points.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next two turns, unless it is amended.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 may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn.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 may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next two turns, unless it is amended.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws two six-sided dice and gains the sum of the two dice in 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 may gain points from the change in their next turn.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Goedel 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 two six-sided dice and gains the sum of the two dice in points.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 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 two six-sided dice and gains the sum of their faces as 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 six-sided die and gains that many points.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 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 two six-sided dice and gains the sum of their faces as points.
  25. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a simple majority of four out of five.amended this turn
Full history (10)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a simple majority of four out of five.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a unanimous vote.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a simple majority of four out of five.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a unanimous vote.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a unanimous vote.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as at least three out of five, vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Kleene Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as at least three out of five, vote aye.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when at least three eligible voters vote aye — reduced majority consent — except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.
  9. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when at least three eligible voters vote aye — reduced majority consent — except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  10. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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 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 simple majority (rule 203); 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.
  2. 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, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 2 points.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §205 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but its benefits cannot be applied by the proposer in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated, enacting 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.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 2 points.
  2. Amended · §205 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 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, but its benefits cannot be applied by the proposer in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated, enacting 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.
  3. 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
An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn, and may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns.
Full history (7)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn, and may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn, and may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote; however, the proposer may not gain points from the change in their next turn.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, allowing for the proposer to act on the change in their next turn if it benefits their strategy. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated, enacting 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.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote; however, the proposer may not gain points from the change in their next turn.
  6. Amended · §206 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 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.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, allowing for the proposer to act on the change in their next turn if it benefits their strategy. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated, enacting 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.
  7. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 91 points wins the game outright.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 91 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 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 90 points wins the game outright.
  3. 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 120 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
  5. 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 23 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Kleene 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 23 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
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. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner, except rule 112.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §211 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner, except rule 112.
  2. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

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

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only. Additionally, a player who proposes a rule change that significantly enhances strategic depth or consensus-building and is adopted, gains 3 additional points.mutable
Full history (25)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only. Additionally, a player who proposes a rule change that significantly enhances strategic depth or consensus-building and is adopted, gains 3 additional points.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, players must provide a brief rationale for their vote on each proposal, which is shared publicly, to enhance transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn. To promote strategic engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn. This additional proposal is subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a proposal that is adopted with unanimous consent allows the proposer to immediately re-propose a similar rule change in their next turn.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least two new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after one turn if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Goedel 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 3 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 3 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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 4 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 3 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 3 points.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus.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 may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 5 points.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next two turns, unless it is amended.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 may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 5 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may gain points from the change in their next turn.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 may gain points from the change in their next turn. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next two turns, unless it is amended.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws two six-sided dice and gains the sum of the two dice in 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 may gain points from the change in their next turn.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Goedel 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 two six-sided dice and gains the sum of the two dice in points.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 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 two six-sided dice and gains the sum of their faces as 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 six-sided die and gains that many points.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 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 two six-sided dice and gains the sum of their faces as points.
  25. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a simple majority of four out of five.amended this turn
Full history (10)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a simple majority of four out of five.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a unanimous vote.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a simple majority of four out of five.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a unanimous vote.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a unanimous vote.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as at least three out of five, vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Kleene Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as at least three out of five, vote aye.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when at least three eligible voters vote aye — reduced majority consent — except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a supermajority of eligible voters, defined as at least four out of five, vote aye.
  9. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when at least three eligible voters vote aye — reduced majority consent — except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  10. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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 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 simple majority (rule 203); 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.
  2. 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, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 2 points.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §205 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but its benefits cannot be applied by the proposer in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated, enacting 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.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 2 points.
  2. Amended · §205 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 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, but its benefits cannot be applied by the proposer in their next turn. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated, enacting 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.
  3. 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
An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn, and may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns.mutable
Full history (7)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn, and may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns.
  2. Amended · §206 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn, and may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns.
  3. Amended · §206 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, but the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn.
  4. Amended · §206 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote; however, the proposer may not gain points from the change in their next turn.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and the proposer may gain points from the change in their next turn.
  5. Amended · §206 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, allowing for the proposer to act on the change in their next turn if it benefits their strategy. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated, enacting 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.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote; however, the proposer may not gain points from the change in their next turn.
  6. Amended · §206 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 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.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, allowing for the proposer to act on the change in their next turn if it benefits their strategy. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated, enacting 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.
  7. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 91 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 91 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 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 90 points wins the game outright.
  3. 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 120 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
  5. 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 23 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Kleene 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 23 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
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. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner, except rule 112.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §211 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner, except rule 112.
  2. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
The standing · Turn 50
Tarski30
Goedel91
Church6
Kleene-5
Post-5
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 42–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 6

Turn 50Tarskicarried

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters, defined as three out of five, vote aye, with an additional condition that any rule affecting the voting threshold itself requires a simple majority of four out of five.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the proposal's intent to modify the voting threshold condition, but I must express some reservations. The current rule requiring a unanimous vote for changes to the voting threshold itself ensures stability and prevents frequent, potentially destabilizing fluctuations in how decisions are made. Reducing this requirement to a simple majority of four out of five could lead to more frequent changes, which might undermine the predictability and fairness that our game strives for. Therefore, I must vote nay on this amendment. I encourage a more thorough debate to explore its implications on our strategic environment and institutional durability.
GoedelGoedel: Thank you, Tarski, for your thoughtful concerns. I agree that the current unanimity requirement offers stability, yet I believe there are strategic advantages to allowing more flexibility in voting threshold adjustments. This amendment would enable us to adapt to evolving strategic environments more responsively. To address your concerns, I propose adding a safeguard: any changes to the voting threshold must also demonstrate a significant enhancement of strategic depth to be adopted. This additional condition would ensure that only well-considered adjustments, offering clear strategic benefits, could lower the threshold. Let's aim for a balanced approach that combines stability with adaptability. I invite further discussion and am open to refining this proposal to find common ground that respects both stability and strategic flexibility.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's perspectives. The stability Tarski highlights is crucial for maintaining a fair and predictable environment, while Goedel's point about strategic adaptability is also valid. As a compromise, I propose that we introduce a probationary period for any changes to the voting threshold, where such changes can only be enacted once and must be reviewed after a set number of turns. This would allow us to assess the impact of the change without committing to it indefinitely. If the change proves beneficial, we could then consider making it permanent, potentially with a simple majority. Let's ensure our rules evolve thoughtfully, balancing stability with the potential for strategic enhancement.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate both Tarski's emphasis on stability and Goedel's argument for adaptability. Church's suggestion of a probationary period is a prudent compromise. It provides a mechanism to evaluate the impact of any change to the voting threshold without committing permanently. This approach maintains fairness while allowing us to test new strategic dynamics. I support this proposal and encourage others to consider the long-term benefits of such a balanced solution. Let's move forward with the probationary period suggestion.
PostPost: I appreciate Tarski's concerns about stability and Goedel's desire for strategic adaptability. Church's suggestion of a probationary period is a wise compromise, allowing us to test changes without immediate long-term commitment. I support this balanced approach, as it ensures both stability and the opportunity to enhance our strategic environment. Let's proceed with Church's proposal to maintain fairness and encourage thoughtful evolution of our rules.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful proposals put forth by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. Church's suggestion of a probationary period for changes to the voting threshold is an excellent compromise that addresses my concerns about stability while allowing us to explore potential strategic benefits. By implementing this approach, we can ensure that any adjustments are made with careful consideration and are reversible if found to be detrimental. I am willing to support this proposal as it stands, recognizing its potential to balance stability with adaptability in our evolving strategic environment. Let's proceed with Church's proposal to maintain fairness and encourage thoughtful evolution of our rules.
GoedelPass. I appreciate Tarski's, Church's, Kleene's, and Post's contributions in crafting a balanced proposal that maintains stability while allowing for strategic adaptability. The probationary period for changes to the voting threshold ensures thoughtful evaluation and aligns with our collective goal of enhancing our strategic environment responsibly. Let's proceed with Church's proposal.
ChurchChurch: Thank you, Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post, for the thoughtful discussion that has led to this well-balanced proposal. I am pleased that we have reached a consensus that respects the need for stability while allowing us to explore strategic enhancements. Let's proceed with implementing the probationary period for changes to the voting threshold, ensuring that our game remains fair and adaptable. PASS
KleenePASS. Kleene: I appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus reached, which reflects both stability and the potential for strategic exploration. I am satisfied with the proposal's current form, which thoughtfully balances these considerations.
PostPass. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the consensus we've reached, which effectively balances stability with strategic adaptability. The probationary period for changes to the voting threshold is a prudent approach that allows us to evaluate the impact of any modifications without compromising the fairness of our game. Let's proceed with Church's proposal.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiPASS Tarski: I appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful discussion that led to this balanced proposal. Implementing a probationary period for changes to the voting threshold strikes a prudent balance between stability and adaptability, ensuring our rules evolve thoughtfully. I support moving forward with Church's proposal, recognizing its potential to enhance our strategic environment while maintaining fairness. Let's proceed with the adoption of this well-considered approach.
GoedelPass. I appreciate Tarski's leadership in steering the proposal towards a balanced solution that respects both stability and adaptability. The probationary period offers a thoughtful compromise, allowing us to test changes without long-term commitment, thereby fostering a fair and strategic environment. Let's proceed with Church's proposal, which reflects our collective consensus and thoughtful deliberation.
ChurchPASS. Church: I appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the thoughtful contributions that have led to this balanced proposal. The probationary period for changes to the voting threshold is a prudent measure that allows us to test strategic adaptability while maintaining stability and fairness. This approach ensures that any modifications are carefully evaluated, aligning with our shared goal of evolving our game responsibly. Let's move forward with Church's proposal, confident that it reflects our collective consensus and thoughtful deliberation.
KleenePASS Kleene: I appreciate the constructive discussions and the balanced consensus reached in adopting Church's proposal. The probationary period for changes to the voting threshold is a prudent measure that allows us to evaluate the impact of such changes without undermining the stability of our game. This approach ensures that any adjustments are made thoughtfully and with due consideration, balancing both stability and the potential for strategic exploration. I support proceeding with the adoption of this well-considered proposal, recognizing its potential to enhance our strategic environment while maintaining fairness.
PostPass. I appreciate the thorough discussions and the balanced proposal that has emerged. The probationary period for changes to the voting threshold is a prudent compromise that addresses the need for both stability and adaptability. This approach ensures that any modifications are carefully evaluated, maintaining the fairness and strategic depth of our game. Let's proceed with the adoption of Church's proposal, reflecting our collective consensus and thoughtful deliberation.
The division
TarskiayeThe proposal introduces a balanced mechanism for adaptability while maintaining stability.
GoedelayeThe probationary period balances stability with strategic adaptability, allowing thoughtful evaluation.
ChurchayeThe probationary period allows us to test changes without permanent commitment.
KleenenayIt reduces stability in voting threshold rules.
PostayeSupports adaptability with a safeguard for stability.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Tarski's proposal was adopted, granting him 2 points per rule 202, and amended rule 203 as specified.

Turn 49Goedelcarried

moves to amend §211Disputes 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. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner, except rule 112.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to amend rule [211] for clarifying the resolution of disputes, as it enhances our ability to manage potential conflicts more effectively. However, I propose an additional clause: "If the appeal procedure results in a tie, the player proposing the original change gains a point for encouraging engagement and negotiation, but the original rule is maintained as is." This would promote active participation and offer a fair incentive for proposal initiators, without altering the outcome unduly. Such a tweak ensures that the spirit of fair play and collaboration, which are central to our evolving ruleset, are preserved. I suggest we incorporate this as part of the amendment for a more robust framework.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's suggestion to incentivize engagement through additional points for proposing changes that result in tie votes. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose refining the amendment further: "In the event of a tie during the appeal procedure, the proposing player gains 1 point for fostering dialogue, and the original rule remains unchanged." This encourages active participation and maintains the integrity of our decision-making process. Let's work together to integrate these ideas, fostering a collaborative environment. PASS
ChurchI appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's thoughtful contributions to refining the amendment of rule [211]. The proposal to incentivize engagement in the event of a tie during the appeal procedure is a commendable step towards encouraging active participation. I suggest we also consider incorporating a safeguard to ensure that the process remains transparent and fair, such as: "In the event of a tie during the appeal procedure, the proposing player gains 1 point for fostering dialogue, and the original rule remains unchanged. Additionally, a brief rationale must be provided by the player proposing the original change to ensure transparency." This would not only promote engagement but also maintain clarity and fairness in our decision-making process. Let's work together to integrate these ideas, fostering a collaborative environment.
KleeneI appreciate both Tarski's and Church's efforts to refine the amendment to rule [211]. Their suggestions to incentivize engagement and ensure transparency are commendable. To further support these principles, I propose adding a provision that states: "In addition to the point gained for proposing a rule that results in a tie during the appeal procedure, the proposing player must provide a summary of the discussion leading to the tie vote within their next turn." This will promote not only active participation but also a culture of accountability and clarity in our evolving ruleset. Let's integrate these elements to enhance our collaborative decision-making process.
PostI appreciate the constructive refinements made by Tarski, Church, and Kleene to the amendment of rule [211]. The proposal to incentivize engagement and ensure transparency is a positive step towards fostering a collaborative environment. To further enhance clarity and fairness, I propose adding: "In the event of a tie, the proposing player must also publicly share their rationale for the proposal during the next turn, ensuring all players have insight into the decision-making process." This addition will promote accountability and encourage thoughtful participation. Let's integrate these ideas to strengthen our decision-making framework.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiPASS Tarski: Thank you, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for the valuable insights and proposals to refine the amendment of rule [211]. The integration of incentives for engagement, transparency measures, and accountability provisions are crucial to maintaining fairness and collaboration in our evolving ruleset. I appreciate everyone's commitment to enhancing our decision-making process and believe these additions will foster a robust and dynamic game environment. Let's move forward with these refinements to ensure clarity and fairness in resolving disputes.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the collective effort to ensure that the amendment to rule [211] not only resolves disputes effectively but also fosters a culture of transparency and accountability. To further enhance these principles, I suggest we incorporate a provision that states: "In addition to gaining a point and providing a rationale, the proposing player must engage in a brief summary of the appeal process and its outcome during their next turn, ensuring all players are well-informed." This addition will promote a deeper understanding of the decision-making process and encourage thoughtful participation. Let's integrate these elements to create a comprehensive and collaborative framework.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate Goedel's latest suggestion to enhance transparency by requiring a brief summary of the appeal process. To ensure the summaries are concise and focused, I propose adding: "The summary must be limited to three sentences, highlighting the key points of the appeal and its outcome." This will keep discussions efficient while maintaining clarity, allowing us to focus on the strategic depth of our game. Let's finalize these refinements to strengthen our collaborative approach.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Goedel's suggestion to require a brief summary of the appeal process. To ensure that these summaries also promote strategic reflection, I propose adding: "The proposing player must include one strategic insight gained from the appeal in their summary." This will encourage players to think critically about the implications of each appeal and enhance our strategic depth. Let's integrate these elements to create a comprehensive and strategic framework.
PostPASS Post: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements we've collectively made to the amendment of rule [211], including provisions for transparency, accountability, and strategic reflection. These additions will undoubtedly enhance our decision-making process, ensuring clarity and fairness while fostering a culture of thoughtful engagement. With these elements in place, I believe we're ready to adopt this refined rule change and move forward collaboratively. Let's proceed with these updates to strengthen our evolving game environment.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's conclusion that we're ready to adopt the refined amendment to rule [211], as it effectively balances transparency, accountability, and strategic engagement. To solidify our collaborative spirit, I suggest we also consider adding a provision for periodic review of this rule, where players can suggest improvements based on their experiences. This would ensure ongoing adaptability and responsiveness to our evolving game dynamics. Let's integrate this review mechanism to maintain a dynamic and fair playing field. PASS
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a periodic review of rule 211 to ensure adaptability. To complement this, let's add: "These reviews should occur every ten turns, allowing players to propose refinements based on evolving gameplay experiences." This will help us maintain a dynamic and fair ruleset that continues to meet our strategic needs. Let's finalize this addition to ensure ongoing adaptability and responsiveness.
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's initiatives to ensure ongoing adaptability and transparency within our ruleset. To enhance strategic engagement, I suggest that during these periodic reviews, players should also have the opportunity to share one strategic lesson learned from the past ten turns. This will not only keep our ruleset dynamic but also deepen our collective understanding of the evolving strategies at play. Let's integrate this into our periodic review process to further enrich our gameplay experience.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Tarski's, Goedel's, and Church's efforts to ensure our ruleset remains dynamic and reflective of our collective strategic insights. To further enhance this, I propose that any suggested refinements during these periodic reviews must include a clear, concise statement of how they improve strategic depth or fairness, ensuring our evolving ruleset aligns with our principles of procedural fairness and transparency. Let's integrate this requirement to maintain clarity and purpose in our periodic review process.
PostPost: I appreciate Tarski's, Goedel's, Church's, and Kleene's thoughtful contributions toward ensuring our ruleset remains dynamic and strategically rich. To further support these initiatives, I suggest we also require a brief explanation during the review process of how each proposed refinement aligns with our overarching goal of maintaining fairness and strategic depth. This will help ensure that all adjustments contribute positively to the game's evolving nature. Let's adopt these refinements to uphold a collaborative and fair playing field. PASS
The division
TarskiayeThis amendment provides clarity and a clear mechanism for dispute resolution.
GoedelayeThis amendment clarifies dispute resolution and aligns with our collaborative approach to rulemaking.
ChurchayeThis amendment clarifies dispute resolution, maintaining fairness and strategic depth.
KleeneayeThis proposal clarifies dispute resolution and aligns with the game's procedural fairness principles.
PostayeSupports clear and fair resolution of disputes.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Goedel's proposal was adopted, granting them 2 points as per rule 202.

Turn 48Tarskicarried

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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only. Additionally, a player who proposes a rule change that significantly enhances strategic depth or consensus-building and is adopted, gains 3 additional points.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative refinements made thus far, particularly those aimed at enhancing strategic depth and consensus-building. To build on these, I propose we also include a requirement that any rule change introducing more than five layers of strategic complexity undergoes a mandatory review by a randomly selected subset of three players, to ensure clarity and fairness in its application. This additional layer of scrutiny will help maintain the balance and accessibility of the game while supporting innovation. I am open to discussions on refining this proposal to align with our shared goals.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's initiative to further refine our rules to balance innovation with fairness. Building on this, I propose that in addition to the mandatory review by a subset of players for changes introducing more than five layers of strategic complexity, we also create a 'Strategy Complexity Index' (SCI). This index would be a simple scoring system developed by consensus among players, to evaluate and communicate the strategic depth of proposals before they undergo review. This could aid in making informed decisions and ensure that the rule changes we adopt align with our collective vision for the game's strategic environment. I am open to suggestions on how we might collaboratively develop this index.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski and Goedel, particularly the emphasis on maintaining a balance between innovation and fairness. To complement these ideas, I suggest we incorporate a feedback mechanism where players can provide anonymous post-vote comments on the strategic depth and clarity of each rule change. This feedback could inform future proposals and help refine our 'Strategy Complexity Index,' ensuring that it truly reflects the collective understanding and intentions of our community. I am open to discussing how we might implement this in a way that is both practical and beneficial for all players.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the insights from Tarski, Goedel, and Church, especially the emphasis on strategic depth and consensus. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose we include a stipulation that any rule change undergoing the mandatory review by a subset of players must be accompanied by a clear, written explanation of its strategic implications, no longer than 200 words. This requirement will help maintain transparency and facilitate informed decision-making during the review process. I am open to discussions on refining this proposal to align with our shared goals.
PostThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, for your thoughtful proposals. I appreciate the emphasis on strategic depth and fairness. To complement these ideas, I suggest we introduce a 'Rule Change Impact Assessment' (RCIA) that requires proposers to submit a brief impact statement alongside their proposal. This statement should outline anticipated effects on gameplay and strategic options, ensuring transparency and aiding in consensus-building. I am open to further refining this idea with your feedback.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive suggestions from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure effective implementation, let's consider a streamlined process for the 'Strategy Complexity Index' by integrating it with the 'Rule Change Impact Assessment.' This combined approach could enhance clarity and consistency in evaluating proposals, making it easier for players to understand and engage with rule changes. I am open to further refining this integration to align with our collective goals.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your thoughtful proposals and collaborative spirit. To support Tarski's suggestion of integrating the 'Strategy Complexity Index' with the 'Rule Change Impact Assessment,' I propose that each proposal's impact statement includes a mandatory section for SCI scoring. This addition will ensure that both strategic depth and potential gameplay impact are considered in tandem, promoting transparency and informed decision-making. I am open to further refining this integration to align with our collective goals.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the efforts from Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post to enhance strategic clarity and fairness. To support these initiatives, I propose we establish a 'Rule Change Review Committee' comprised of three players selected at random each turn. This committee would be responsible for evaluating both the 'Strategy Complexity Index' scoring and the 'Rule Change Impact Assessment,' ensuring consistent and transparent application. This approach would help maintain balance and accessibility while encouraging innovative proposals. I am open to refining this idea to better align with our shared goals.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the constructive input from Goedel, Church, Tarski, and Post. To ensure fairness and clarity in implementing the 'Rule Change Review Committee,' I propose that members of this committee should not include the proposer or anyone who abstained from voting on the proposal in question. This would help maintain impartiality and trust in the review process. I am open to discussions on refining this proposal to align with our shared goals.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To further ensure the 'Rule Change Review Committee' operates effectively, I propose that the committee's findings and SCI scores be publicly shared after each review, enhancing transparency and allowing for community input on the decision-making process. This openness can foster greater understanding and consensus. I am open to refining this idea with your feedback.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiThank you, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your insightful proposals. I appreciate the establishment of a 'Rule Change Review Committee' and the focus on maintaining impartiality. To further enhance this process, I suggest that the committee's recommendations should be advisory rather than binding, allowing the full player body to have the final say. This maintains player agency while benefiting from expert review, ensuring a balance between guidance and democracy. I am open to discussing how we might refine this proposal to align with our shared goals.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your detailed contributions. I appreciate the establishment of the 'Rule Change Review Committee' and the emphasis on impartiality and transparency. To build upon this, I propose that the committee's recommendations should include a summary of key strategic implications and potential impacts, not exceeding 300 words. This would ensure that all players have access to comprehensive insights, facilitating informed decisions during the voting process. I am open to refining this proposal to better align with our collective goals.
ChurchI appreciate the collective effort to ensure the 'Rule Change Review Committee' maintains transparency and impartiality. To further bolster player understanding and consensus, I propose that after the committee's recommendations, there should be a brief, open discussion period where players can ask clarifying questions about the strategic implications and potential impacts of the proposal. This would help ensure that all players are fully informed before casting their votes, promoting a fair and engaging game environment. I am open to refining this proposal to align with our shared goals.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the emphasis on transparency and informed decision-making from Goedel, Church, Tarski, and Post. To further refine the process, I propose that the 'Rule Change Review Committee' should document its evaluation criteria and rationale for each decision. This documentation, along with the summary of strategic implications, should be shared with all players, ensuring clarity and fostering trust in the review process. I am open to discussing how we might integrate this with our existing proposals.
PostThank you, Kleene, for the proposal to document the evaluation criteria and rationale of the 'Rule Change Review Committee.' To further enhance transparency and accountability, I suggest that these documents be archived and made accessible for future reference, allowing players to learn from past decisions and ensuring consistent standards are maintained. This would help create a robust framework for strategic evolution while preserving the integrity of the game. I am open to further refining this idea with your feedback.
The division
TarskiayeThis amendment encourages strategic innovation and consensus-building, aligning with our shared goals.
GoedelayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and consensus-building, aligning with our collective goals.
ChurchayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and consensus-building, which benefits all players.
KleeneayeThis proposal aligns with my principle of rewarding strategic depth and consensus-building.
PostayeThe additional points for strategic depth encourage innovation and align with the goal of enhancing the game's complexity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Tarski's proposal was adopted, granting him 5 additional points for enhancing strategic depth or consensus-building.

Turn 47Goedelcarried

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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty. Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal, especially the initiative to enhance collaborative engagement by adjusting the voting threshold. However, I propose a modification: instead of allowing a player to reduce the voting threshold temporarily to three out of five, I suggest permitting the proposer to call for an advisory vote among players, which, if it achieves unanimous support, would allow for the temporary reduction of the voting threshold. This adds a layer of strategic depth, as players must engage more deeply to build consensus without undermining the established voting structure. **Amendment Proposal:** Replace the last sentence with: "Additionally, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they may propose a rule change that, if supported by an advisory vote achieving unanimous support, temporarily reduces the voting threshold to three out of five for their next proposal only." PASS.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful modification. It indeed introduces a strategic element by encouraging players to actively seek consensus. However, I would like to propose a slight refinement to further balance the dynamics. **Refinement Proposal:** Instead of requiring unanimous support for an advisory vote, let's modify it to require a supermajority (four out of five). This adjustment ensures that the threshold reduction is achievable while still necessitating broad agreement. PASS. If this proposal is adopted, it could foster a more strategic and collaborative environment, allowing players to engage more deeply with the voting process without compromising the integrity of the game's structure.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's and Tarski's efforts to enhance strategic engagement and consensus-building in our game. Goedel's proposal to allow a temporary reduction in the voting threshold through an advisory vote is commendable. However, I propose a slight adjustment for balance: **Balanced Adjustment Proposal:** Instead of a supermajority of four out of five, let's require a three-fourths majority (four out of five). This still ensures a broad consensus without making it overly difficult to achieve. Additionally, to maintain fairness, let's limit the frequency of such threshold reductions to once per player per game. This adjustment would preserve strategic depth while ensuring that the power to influence the voting threshold is not overused, maintaining the competitive integrity of our game. PASS.
KleeneI appreciate Church's proposal to require a three-fourths majority for an advisory vote. This maintains a balance between accessibility and consensus. However, I propose a slight adjustment: **Refinement Proposal:** Let's specify that the advisory vote can only be called once every five turns per player. This ensures that the mechanism is not overused, preserving the strategic element without diminishing the established voting structure. This adjustment maintains fairness and strategic depth, encouraging thoughtful engagement with the voting process. PASS.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski, Church, and Kleene. Each suggestion aims to maintain a balance between strategic depth and fairness, which is crucial for our game's integrity. **Further Refinement Proposal:** To harmonize our proposals, I suggest merging Kleene's and Church's ideas: allow a player to call for an advisory vote once every five turns, requiring a three-fourths majority to temporarily reduce the voting threshold. Additionally, to ensure fairness, limit this privilege to once per player per game. This approach encourages strategic planning and consensus-building while maintaining the competitive balance. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the constructive refinements proposed by Church, Kleene, and Post. These adjustments aim to balance the strategic depth and fairness of our voting mechanism. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest incorporating Post's idea of limiting the frequency of advisory votes, while also ensuring transparency and accountability. **Enhancement Proposal:** Let's include a requirement that any player who successfully reduces the voting threshold must provide a brief explanation of how their proposal contributes to strategic depth or consensus-building. This ensures that the mechanism is used thoughtfully and aligns with our game's objectives. PASS.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to these thoughtful refinements. The proposal's evolution reflects our shared commitment to enhancing strategic depth while maintaining fairness. To further strengthen the proposal, I suggest incorporating a mechanism for feedback: **Feedback Mechanism Proposal:** After an advisory vote, allow a brief, non-binding discussion period for players to express their thoughts on the proposal's strategic impact. This encourages transparency and helps build consensus for future proposals. This addition ensures that players remain engaged and informed, fostering a more collaborative environment. PASS.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive evolution of Goedel's proposal, which has skillfully balanced strategic depth with fairness. To ensure this mechanism remains constructive and does not disrupt the competitive balance, I propose a minor adjustment: **Final Adjustment Proposal:** Let's add a clause that any player who successfully reduces the voting threshold must disclose their intended use of this temporary change during the advisory vote. This transparency ensures all players understand the strategic intent and prevents potential misuse, maintaining the integrity of our game. PASS.
KleenePASS I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine Goedel's proposal, which has introduced a thoughtful mechanism for strategic depth and fairness. The inclusion of transparency and feedback elements ensures that any use of the temporary voting threshold reduction is well-justified and understood by all players. This proposal aligns well with our principles of procedural fairness and encourages a strategic yet balanced engagement with the voting process.
PostPASS I appreciate the collaborative refinement process that has led to a proposal balancing strategic depth, fairness, and transparency. The inclusion of a feedback mechanism and transparency clause ensures that the temporary threshold reduction serves its intended purpose without undermining the game's competitive integrity. This proposal aligns well with the principles of procedural fairness and encourages thoughtful engagement with the voting process.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiThank you, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your constructive refinements. I appreciate the inclusion of transparency and feedback mechanisms, which ensure fairness and strategic depth. To further safeguard against potential misuse, I propose a minor addition: **Safeguard Addition Proposal:** Implement a provision that allows any player to request a review of the use of a temporary voting threshold reduction if they believe it was not aligned with the intended strategic impact. This review, requiring a simple majority, would ensure the mechanism remains balanced and aligned with our game's principles. PASS.
GoedelPASS I appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the inclusion of safeguards to ensure fairness and strategic depth. This collaborative process has resulted in a proposal that balances innovation with the integrity of our game, encouraging thoughtful and strategic engagement.
ChurchPASS I appreciate the collaborative refinement process that has taken place. The proposal has been thoughtfully adjusted to balance strategic depth with fairness and transparency, ensuring that the temporary voting threshold reduction is used judiciously. This proposal aligns with our principles of procedural fairness and encourages strategic engagement, making it a valuable addition to our ruleset.
KleeneThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Post, for the thorough refinements. I appreciate the careful balance achieved between strategic depth and fairness, particularly with the added safeguard for reviewing the use of a temporary voting threshold reduction. To ensure that the review mechanism itself is applied fairly, I propose a slight adjustment: **Review Mechanism Adjustment Proposal:** When a review is requested, the player initiating the review should provide a brief rationale for their concerns, ensuring that the review process is not misused and remains focused on maintaining the integrity of strategic intent. PASS.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by all players. The proposal has evolved to balance strategic depth with fairness and transparency effectively. However, to ensure clarity and prevent any potential misuse of the review mechanism, I propose a minor adjustment: **Clarity and Misuse Prevention Proposal:** Specify that the rationale provided during a review request must be related to the strategic impact of the rule change, ensuring that reviews are focused on maintaining the integrity of strategic intent. PASS.
The division
TarskiayeThis amendment thoughtfully balances strategic depth, fairness, and transparency.
GoedelayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and collaborative engagement in a balanced manner.
ChurchayeThis amendment fosters strategic engagement and consensus-building while maintaining fairness.
KleeneayeThe proposal balances strategic depth with fairness and procedural clarity.
PostayeIt balances strategic depth and fairness effectively.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Goedel's proposal was adopted, awarding them 2 points as per rule 202.

Turn 46Tarskicarried

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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 20, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Furthermore, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications. To ensure a dynamic and engaging game, any proposal that fails due to a tie vote may be re-proposed by the same player within the next turn without penalty.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the proposal to adjust the scoring multiple from 15 to 20 for an additional rule change, as it encourages sustained effort and strategic planning. However, I suggest we keep the multiple at 15 to maintain accessibility for players to contribute additional changes more frequently, thus fostering a dynamic and evolving game environment. To address potential concerns about tie votes, I propose we retain the current rule requiring a simple majority for adoption, as it ensures decisions are made decisively rather than allowing repeated re-proposals, which could stall progress. Let's aim for a balance between innovation and efficiency, ensuring that all players can meaningfully participate in shaping the rules.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful approach to maintaining a balance between innovation and accessibility. Retaining the multiple of 15 for proposing an additional rule change indeed aligns with our goal of fostering an engaging and dynamic game environment. However, I see merit in addressing the issue of tie votes to prevent potential stalemates. Perhaps we could consider a compromise: allow re-proposal of a tied proposal within the next turn, but only if it includes at least one agreed-upon modification by the proposer. This would ensure progression while still incentivizing thoughtful revision.
ChurchI appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's perspectives on maintaining engagement while ensuring progress. Goedel's suggestion of allowing a re-proposal with modifications after a tie vote seems like a balanced approach, as it encourages players to refine their proposals rather than stalling the game. I propose that we add a clause that any re-proposed rule after a tie must undergo a peer review process to ensure quality and strategic depth before being put to a vote again. This would help maintain the integrity of the rule changes and prevent the game from becoming stagnant.
KleeneI appreciate the proposal to include a peer review process for re-proposed rules following a tie vote, as it ensures quality and strategic depth. However, I am concerned that adding this requirement might overly complicate the re-proposal process and deter players from refining their proposals. To maintain procedural simplicity and encourage participation, I suggest we allow re-proposals without mandatory peer review, but require a brief written explanation of modifications made. This balances thoroughness with accessibility, ensuring that players can easily engage with the rule amendment process.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, each bringing valuable insights to enhance our game's dynamics. To further balance engagement and efficiency, I propose we incorporate a hybrid approach: allow re-proposals after a tie vote with at least one substantive modification agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters, accompanied by a brief peer review process. This ensures proposals are refined without overwhelming procedural complexity, fostering a collaborative yet decisive environment. Let's aim for a rule set that evolves dynamically while maintaining strategic depth and accessibility for all players.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the nuanced approaches suggested by Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To balance the need for progression with strategic depth, I propose we adopt Goedel's idea of allowing re-proposals with at least one agreed-upon modification after a tie, but streamline the process by eliminating the mandatory peer review. Instead, we can require a brief explanation of the changes, ensuring the game progresses efficiently while maintaining quality in rule amendments. This approach encourages thoughtful revisions without adding unnecessary complexity. Let's proceed with this balanced solution.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative spirit shown by everyone in finding a balanced solution for handling tie votes. Tarski's proposal to allow re-proposals with a brief explanation of modifications strikes a good balance between maintaining strategic depth and ensuring procedural simplicity. To further encourage thoughtful engagement, I suggest we introduce a minor incentive: if a re-proposed rule passes after a tie, the proposer receives an additional point for their commitment to refining their proposal. This small reward can motivate players to invest in meaningful revisions while keeping the process straightforward. Let's move forward with this compromise.
ChurchI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the efforts to balance innovation with accessibility. Tarski's streamlined approach to re-proposals after a tie, requiring only a brief explanation of modifications, effectively maintains the game's momentum without adding undue complexity. To further support this approach, I suggest we implement a rule that any re-proposed rule after a tie must be discussed in a shorter, focused debate session before voting. This ensures that all players have a chance to weigh in on the modifications, promoting transparency and strategic depth while keeping the process efficient. Let's proceed with this refined solution.
KleeneThank you, Church, Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post, for your thoughtful suggestions. I appreciate the proposal to streamline re-proposals with a brief explanation, ensuring procedural simplicity. However, to maintain clarity and prevent potential misunderstandings, I suggest specifying that the explanation should include at least two key changes made to the original proposal. This ensures that modifications are substantive and transparent, promoting informed decision-making. Additionally, I propose that any re-proposed rule must gain at least 75% of the vote to be adopted, ensuring broader consensus and strategic alignment. Let's aim for a rule that balances innovation with a commitment to collaborative governance.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful discussions and the proposed solutions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. The balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining strategic depth is crucial. I support the idea of allowing re-proposals with a brief explanation of modifications, but I suggest adding a clause that the explanation must include at least one new strategic layer or decision-making process introduced by the changes. This ensures that re-proposals contribute meaningfully to the game's evolution. Additionally, I agree with Kleene's suggestion that a re-proposed rule should require at least 75% of the vote to be adopted, ensuring that it has broad support and enhances the game's strategic depth. Let's adopt these balanced solutions to foster a dynamic and engaging environment.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the collaborative spirit shown by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The proposal to allow re-proposals with a brief explanation of modifications, coupled with the requirement for at least one new strategic layer, ensures meaningful engagement while fostering strategic depth. To further enhance transparency and accountability, I propose that any explanation submitted must be reviewed and acknowledged by at least two other players before the re-proposal is put to a vote. This additional layer of scrutiny ensures that modifications are substantive and align with the collective goal of evolving the game's rules thoughtfully and strategically. Let's proceed with this proposal to balance innovation with robust governance.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The proposal to allow re-proposals with a brief explanation of modifications, requiring at least one new strategic layer, aligns well with our goal of enhancing strategic depth. To further support this approach, I suggest that the explanation be made publicly available for all players to review before the re-proposal is debated. This transparency will ensure that all participants are informed and can provide constructive feedback, promoting a more inclusive and strategic decision-making process. Let's move forward with this proposal to foster a collaborative and dynamic game environment.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative efforts and the proposal's emphasis on transparency and strategic depth. To ensure that the process remains engaging and efficient, I support Tarski's idea of requiring acknowledgment from two players for the explanation before voting. This adds a layer of accountability while preventing procedural bottlenecks. Let's move forward with this proposal, ensuring that any re-proposal genuinely enhances the game's dynamics and fairness.
KleeneI appreciate the constructive discussions and the emphasis on both strategic depth and procedural fairness. The proposal to require acknowledgment from two players before allowing a re-proposal ensures a balance between thoroughness and efficiency. To further enhance this process, I suggest adding a clause that the acknowledgment must include a brief comment on the proposed strategic layer or decision-making process, ensuring that it aligns with the overall goals of the game. This will help maintain the integrity and purpose of rule changes while fostering a collaborative environment. Let's proceed with this enhanced proposal.
PostI appreciate Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post for their collaborative approach to refining our rule amendment process. The proposal to require acknowledgment with a brief comment on the strategic layer ensures both transparency and alignment with our goals. To further encourage strategic innovation, let's include a clause that any re-proposal must introduce a novel mechanism or interaction between existing rules, fostering deeper engagement and creativity. This ensures that every new proposal adds unique value to our evolving game environment.
The division
TarskiayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth while maintaining accessibility and fairness.
GoedelayeThis amendment promotes strategic depth and collaborative engagement.
ChurchayeThe proposal balances strategic depth with procedural efficiency.
KleeneayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth and maintains procedural fairness.
PostayeThe proposal promotes strategic innovation and collaborative engagement.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Tarski gains 2 points for the adopted proposal as per rule 202.

Turn 45Goedelcarried

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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Furthermore, to streamline the review process, a player can request a peer review of their proposal before the formal vote, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's efforts to further encourage collaborative engagement by raising the cumulative score threshold for an additional rule change from a multiple of 10 to 15. This adjustment ensures a stronger demonstration of consistent contribution before granting this privilege. However, I propose a minor refinement: rather than removing the peer review mechanism from the text, let's integrate it as an optional step before formal debate. This could allow proposers to receive valuable early feedback, potentially increasing the quality of proposals without overcomplicating the process. Here is my proposal for Goedel's amendment: "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 gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified. Additionally, a proposer may request a peer review of their proposal before formal debate, which may result in early feedback and potential modifications." This slight adjustment maintains the original intent while enhancing the proposal's strategic depth and consensus-building potential. PASS
GoedelPASS Thank you, Tarski, for refining Goedel's proposal with the optional peer review step. This addition balances early feedback with efficiency and maintains our commitment to strategic depth and collaborative engagement. I support the adjustment to a multiple of 15 for an extra proposal opportunity, as it encourages sustained contribution and thoughtful engagement. This proposal aligns with our collective goal of fostering a dynamic and fair gameplay experience.
ChurchPASS I appreciate the proposed amendment, particularly the introduction of an optional peer review step before formal debate. This addition is likely to enhance the quality of proposals by allowing proposers to refine their ideas with early feedback. Furthermore, raising the threshold for an additional rule change to a multiple of 15 encourages sustained strategic play and thoughtful engagement, aligning with our goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game environment. I support this amendment as it stands.
KleenePASS I support Goedel's proposed amendment as it aligns with principles of procedural fairness and strategic depth. The introduction of an optional peer review mechanism allows for refinement before formal debate, potentially improving proposal quality. Moreover, setting the cumulative score threshold for an additional proposal at a multiple of 15 encourages sustained, strategic engagement, balancing individual ambition with collective fairness. The requirement for proposers to justify high-impact proposals ensures accountability and thoughtful consideration. Overall, the amendment supports a dynamic and fair gameplay environment.
PostThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, for your thoughtful contributions. I agree with the adjustments to raise the score threshold for an additional proposal to a multiple of 15, as it encourages sustained engagement and strategic depth. The optional peer review step is a valuable addition, allowing for refinement and increasing the quality of proposals without complicating the process. This amendment fosters a more dynamic and fair gameplay environment. I support it as it stands. PASS
Discussion · round 2
TarskiPASS The proposal has been thoroughly discussed, with valuable insights from all players contributing to its refinement. The addition of an optional peer review process and the adjustment of the cumulative score threshold to 15 both serve to enhance strategic depth and encourage thoughtful engagement. These changes are well-considered and align with our goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic gameplay environment. With unanimous support evident, it is clear that this proposal is poised for adoption.
GoedelPASS Thank you, Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your insightful contributions and for building a consensus around this proposal. The refinement to a multiple of 15 for an additional proposal opportunity encourages sustained engagement, while the optional peer review process enhances the quality of proposals. This balanced amendment supports strategic depth and collaborative engagement, aligning perfectly with our collective goals. I fully support its adoption.
ChurchPASS I appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players. The proposal, as refined, promotes strategic depth and fairness, aligning well with our shared goals. The introduction of an optional peer review process is a thoughtful addition, offering a balance between early feedback and efficient gameplay. With unanimous support from all players, this amendment appears well-poised for successful adoption.
KleenePASS I appreciate the thorough discussion and consensus-building efforts that have refined this proposal. The adjustments to the cumulative score threshold and the inclusion of an optional peer review step enhance both strategic depth and procedural fairness. As this proposal has received unanimous support and aligns with my principles, I am content to see it pass as it stands.
PostPASS The proposal has undergone thorough discussion and refinement, with contributions from all players enhancing its strategic depth and fairness. The inclusion of an optional peer review process and the adjustment of the cumulative score threshold to 15 are well-considered changes that promote sustained engagement and thoughtful proposal crafting. With unanimous support from all players, this amendment is poised for adoption, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic gameplay environment.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiPASS The proposal has undergone a rigorous and collaborative refinement process, achieving unanimous support from all players. The introduction of an optional peer review mechanism and the adjustment of the cumulative score threshold to 15 both contribute to enhanced strategic depth and fairness. With all players having expressed their approval, it is clear that this amendment is well-poised for adoption, aligning with our shared commitment to a dynamic and equitable gameplay environment.
GoedelPASS Thank you, Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your insightful contributions and for building a consensus around this proposal. The refinement to a multiple of 15 for an additional proposal opportunity encourages sustained engagement, while the optional peer review process enhances the quality of proposals. This balanced amendment supports strategic depth and collaborative engagement, aligning perfectly with our collective goals. I fully support its adoption.
ChurchPASS The proposal has been thoroughly deliberated, with valuable contributions from all players leading to its refinement. The optional peer review step and the adjusted cumulative score threshold to 15 both foster strategic depth and fairness. With unanimous support evident, the amendment is well-positioned for adoption, aligning with our collective aim of maintaining a dynamic and equitable game environment.
KleenePASS The proposal has been thoughtfully refined through collaborative discussion, ensuring it promotes strategic depth and fairness. With unanimous support from all players, the amendment is well-positioned for adoption, aligning with our shared goals of a dynamic and equitable gameplay environment.
PostPASS The proposal has been thoroughly discussed and refined, with unanimous support from all players indicating its readiness for adoption. Its enhancements to strategic depth and fairness align well with our shared objectives, and it is poised to contribute positively to the dynamic gameplay environment we aim to maintain.
The division
TarskiayeThe amendment enhances strategic depth and encourages thoughtful engagement.
GoedelayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth and collaborative engagement.
ChurchayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness, while maintaining engagement.
KleeneayeThe amendment aligns with procedural fairness and enhances strategic depth.
PostayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness, fostering collaboration and thoughtful engagement.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Goedel gains 6 points for demonstrating a significant attempt to build consensus, as per rule 202.

Turn 44Tarskicarried

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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 10, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue we've engaged in thus far. The change to adjust the score threshold for proposing an additional rule change to a multiple of 10, instead of 15, strikes a balance between encouraging more frequent opportunities for impactful contributions and maintaining strategic depth. This adjustment seems to better incentivize players to engage actively in rule-making without overly complicating the process. I support this amendment.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your proposal to adjust the scoring threshold to a multiple of 10 for proposing an additional rule change. This adjustment is thoughtful and indeed encourages more active participation, which aligns well with our collaborative ethos. I suggest we also consider adding a clause that allows for a brief post-vote discussion period, enabling further clarification and consensus-building. This could further enhance our strategic engagement and decision-making process. I support your amendment with this addition.
ChurchThank you, Tarski, for your proposal to adjust the threshold to a multiple of 10, which indeed encourages more frequent and strategic engagements. I appreciate Goedel's suggestion for a post-vote discussion period, as it aligns with our goal to ensure thorough consensus and clarity. However, I'd like to add that such a discussion period should be time-bound to prevent prolonged debates that could stall the game. A limit of, say, two minutes per proposal might be appropriate to strike a balance between depth and efficiency. I support the amendment with this addition.
KleeneI appreciate Tarski's initiative to lower the threshold for proposing an additional rule change to a multiple of 10, as it provides more frequent opportunities for impactful engagement. Additionally, I concur with Goedel's suggestion for a post-vote discussion period, provided it is time-bound to maintain efficiency. However, I propose that the time limit be set at three minutes per proposal to allow sufficient discussion without excessive delay. This balance should ensure thorough exploration of strategic implications while keeping the game dynamic. I support the amendment with this modification.
PostThank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, for your insightful contributions. I appreciate the initiative to lower the threshold for proposing additional rule changes to a multiple of 10, as it indeed encourages more frequent and meaningful contributions. Goedel's suggestion for a post-vote discussion period is commendable, as it promotes further consensus-building and strategic clarity. Church, I agree that time-bound discussions are essential to prevent delays; a compromise between two and three minutes could be considered. Kleene, your proposal for a three-minute limit seems reasonable, ensuring sufficient discussion while maintaining efficiency. I support the amendment with the inclusion of a three-minute post-vote discussion period, as it fosters thorough engagement without hindering game progression.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful proposals and the constructive dialogue we've engaged in. The introduction of a three-minute post-vote discussion period is a balanced approach, allowing for meaningful discourse while maintaining efficiency in our decision-making process. This addition, combined with lowering the threshold to a multiple of 10 for proposing additional rule changes, promotes active participation and strategic depth without overcomplicating the game. I support the amendment with these refinements, as they align with our shared goal of fostering a collaborative and engaging rule-making environment. PASS.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your proposal and for incorporating the feedback from all players. The adjustments to both the threshold for proposing additional rule changes and the introduction of a three-minute post-vote discussion period seem well-considered and balanced. This approach encourages active participation and strategic engagement while maintaining the flow of the game. I support the amendment with these refinements. PASS.
ChurchPass. The proposed amendment, along with the suggested three-minute post-vote discussion period, effectively balances strategic engagement and efficiency. I appreciate the collaborative effort in refining these aspects, as they promote a fair and dynamic gameplay environment. This change encourages active participation without compromising the game's pace, aligning with our collective goal of maintaining a fair and engaging experience.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements we've engaged in. The introduction of a three-minute post-vote discussion period is a prudent measure that allows for enhanced strategic clarity while preventing unnecessary delays. This balanced approach, combined with lowering the threshold to a multiple of 10, encourages active participation and ensures that our rule-making process remains both dynamic and fair. I support the amendment with these refinements. PASS.
PostPass. The collective consensus and thoughtful refinements to the proposal have resulted in a balanced rule that encourages active engagement and strategic depth. The inclusion of a three-minute post-vote discussion period, along with adjusting the threshold to a multiple of 10, strikes a harmonious balance between participation and efficiency. This amendment not only aligns with our shared ethos of fair and dynamic gameplay but also enhances the collaborative nature of our rule-making process. I appreciate the constructive dialogue and am confident that these changes will contribute positively to the evolution of our game.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiPASS The proposal seems well-crafted and enjoys broad support, which is crucial for its adoption. Lowering the threshold to a multiple of 10 and introducing a three-minute post-vote discussion period strikes a balanced approach between encouraging active participation and maintaining game efficiency. I concur with the amendments as they promote both strategic depth and collaborative engagement, aligning with our shared objectives.
GoedelPass. The proposal to adjust the threshold for proposing an additional rule change to a multiple of 10, along with the introduction of a three-minute post-vote discussion period, is a well-considered enhancement. This change promotes active participation and strategic depth while maintaining the flow of the game. It reflects our collective commitment to fostering a collaborative and engaging rule-making environment. I support the amendment with these refinements.
ChurchPass. I support the proposal as it stands. The adjustments to the scoring threshold and the introduction of a time-bound post-vote discussion period are well-considered changes that promote active engagement and strategic depth while maintaining the game's flow. This balanced approach aligns with our shared goal of fostering a collaborative and dynamic rule-making environment. Thank you, Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your thoughtful contributions.
KleenePASS The proposal to amend rule 202 by lowering the threshold for an additional rule change to a multiple of 10 and introducing a three-minute post-vote discussion period has been refined through collaborative discussion. The proposed changes promote active engagement, strategic depth, and efficient decision-making, aligning with our shared goals. Given the broad support and thorough consideration, I support the amendment as it stands.
PostPass. The proposal has been refined through thoughtful collaboration, balancing the need for active participation and strategic depth with game efficiency. The adjustments to the scoring threshold and the introduction of a post-vote discussion period are well-considered, promoting a dynamic and fair rule-making environment. I support these refinements as they align with our shared goals of fostering a collaborative and engaging gameplay experience.
The division
TarskiayePromotes active engagement and strategic depth with balanced adjustments.
GoedelayeThis proposal encourages active participation and strategic depth with a balanced approach.
ChurchayePromotes strategic depth and collaborative engagement.
KleeneayePromotes active engagement and strategic depth with balanced efficiency.
PostayeThis amendment encourages active participation and strategic depth while maintaining game efficiency.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Tarski gains 2 points for the adopted proposal as per rule 202.

Turn 43Goedelcarried

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. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points from the change. If a proposal is defeated, the proposer may not propose the same rule change again within the next three turns. Additionally, a player may gain up to 6 points for a proposal that fails due to lack of support if they can demonstrate a significant attempt to build consensus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that significantly increases strategic depth, the proposer gains an additional 4 points. To clarify 'significant strategic depth,' a proposal must introduce at least three new layers of strategy or decision-making processes. A proposal may be re-proposed after two turns if it is modified with substantive changes agreed upon by a majority of eligible voters. Additionally, a player whose proposal has been rejected for the third time in a row may call for a review of the decision by the other players, who can overturn the rejection by a unanimous vote. To further encourage collaborative engagement, if a player's cumulative score reaches a multiple of 15, they gain the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, subject to the same conditions as a regular proposal. Moreover, if a player accumulates more than 10 points from a single proposal, they must explain how this change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that high-impact proposals are well-justified.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to further incentivize collaborative engagement and ensure high-impact proposals are well-justified. The addition of explaining how a change enhances strategic depth or consensus-building for proposals accumulating over 10 points is a prudent measure that aligns with our shared goal of maintaining strategic depth while fostering consensus. However, I suggest refining the clause to specify that the explanation must be submitted before the proposal vote to ensure transparency and allow for informed decision-making. Additionally, to prevent potential abuse of this provision, we could introduce a review mechanism where a player's explanation is evaluated by a committee of two other players for its validity and relevance. This approach not only encourages thoughtful proposal crafting but also integrates a system of checks and balances, thereby promoting a more equitable and strategic gameplay environment.
GoedelChurch: I appreciate Goedel's initiative to enhance strategic depth and consensus-building, along with Tarski's suggestion for a pre-vote explanation. To build on Tarski's proposal, the review committee should rotate among players to ensure fairness and prevent any potential biases. Additionally, to further encourage innovation, I propose that players who successfully pass a high-impact rule change with over 10 points be recognized with a symbolic title, such as "Strategist of the Turn," which could serve as an informal accolade for fostering strategic and collaborative gameplay. This recognition could motivate players to think more creatively and work towards proposals that benefit the game as a whole, promoting a more dynamic and engaging Nomic experience.
ChurchThank you, Tarski and Goedel, for your thoughtful contributions. I appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a pre-vote explanation and Goedel's idea for a rotating review committee. To further enhance fairness, the committee's decision should be made public and subject to an appeal by the proposer if deemed necessary. Additionally, I believe the symbolic title of "Strategist of the Turn" is a great way to acknowledge innovative proposals, but we should ensure it does not lead to undue pressure on players to focus solely on high-impact changes at the expense of smaller, yet meaningful, contributions. This balance will maintain the integrity and inclusivity of our game.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's insights on ensuring transparency and fairness, as well as Church's suggestion to balance recognition. To align with our principles of procedural fairness, I propose that the committee's evaluation criteria be explicitly defined and included in the ruleset, ensuring clarity and consistency in assessing proposals. Furthermore, to prevent any single player from dominating the strategic narrative, we should consider limiting the number of times a player can earn the "Strategist of the Turn" title within a certain number of turns, thereby promoting diverse participation and innovation. This approach will uphold the integrity of our game while encouraging a wide range of strategic contributions.
PostPost: I appreciate the comprehensive dialogue so far, particularly Tarski's suggestion for a pre-vote explanation and the proposal for a rotating review committee. To further ensure that high-impact rule changes are both strategic and equitable, I suggest that any proposer who receives the "Strategist of the Turn" title must then engage in a collaborative discussion with another player to draft their next proposal. This requirement will not only foster a spirit of cooperation but also ensure that the game evolves through shared insights, balancing innovation with inclusivity. Additionally, to maintain the dynamism of our game, let's agree to revisit the effectiveness of these mechanisms after ten turns, allowing us to adapt and refine our approach as needed. This iterative process will keep our strategies aligned with the evolving complexities of Nomic, ensuring a fair and engaging experience for all players.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiThank you, Post, for your thoughtful suggestion to encourage collaboration following the recognition of a "Strategist of the Turn." To build on your idea, I propose that this collaborative discussion should involve drafting a proposal that aims to enhance either strategic depth or consensus-building, ensuring that the focus remains on enriching the game. Additionally, I suggest we consider a mechanism where the success of such collaborations is evaluated periodically, with feedback provided to both participants, thereby fostering continuous improvement and mutual understanding. This will not only promote cooperative engagement but also ensure that our game evolves through collective wisdom, maintaining its strategic integrity and inclusivity.
GoedelI appreciate all the thoughtful suggestions, particularly Tarski's idea of drafting proposals aimed at enhancing strategic depth or consensus-building. To strengthen this collaborative spirit, I propose that once a player is recognized as "Strategist of the Turn," they receive a temporary ability to moderate one debate session, ensuring discussions remain focused and productive. This will not only reward innovative thinking but also contribute to a more structured and strategic gameplay environment. Additionally, let's ensure that any feedback mechanisms are designed to be constructive and supportive, fostering a positive atmosphere for all players involved.
ChurchThank you, Goedel, for your proposal and for incorporating Tarski's idea of enhancing collaboration through structured discussions. I appreciate the idea of allowing a "Strategist of the Turn" to moderate a debate session, which could help maintain focus and civility. To ensure this power is not misused, I propose that the moderator's decisions can be challenged by a simple majority vote of the other players, thereby maintaining a balance between authority and accountability. This mechanism will support both innovation and fairness in our game.
KleeneThank you, Church, for the proposal to allow a "Strategist of the Turn" to moderate a debate session with accountability through a majority vote. To further ensure fairness, I suggest that the moderator must provide a written rationale for their decisions during the session, which will be reviewed by the committee for consistency with our principles. This will help maintain transparency and trust in the moderation process, ensuring it contributes positively to our strategic and collaborative gameplay.
PostI appreciate the collective effort to balance strategic depth with fairness and collaboration. To ensure the proposed review mechanism remains impartial, I suggest that the evaluation criteria for high-impact proposals be periodically reviewed by all players, allowing us to adapt and refine them based on our evolving gameplay experiences. This iterative process will help maintain the integrity of our strategic engagements while fostering a dynamic and inclusive Nomic environment. Additionally, I propose that the "Strategist of the Turn" title should be accompanied by a brief presentation to the other players, explaining the strategic depth or consensus-building impact of their proposal, further promoting transparency and shared understanding. This presentation could also serve as a forum for constructive feedback, enhancing the collaborative spirit of our game.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive and iterative dialogue we've engaged in to refine these rule changes. To further ensure the integrity of the review process, I suggest that the evaluation committee be required to publish a brief summary of their reasoning for each high-impact proposal, making their deliberations transparent and allowing all players to learn from the outcomes. This transparency will not only bolster trust in the review process but also encourage players to craft even more thoughtful and strategic proposals, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a robust and engaging Nomic environment. Additionally, I propose that the "Strategist of the Turn" title should be accompanied by a responsibility to mentor another player in crafting a rule proposal, fostering a culture of mentorship and shared growth. This mentorship will not only enhance the strategic depth of our game but also ensure that all players feel empowered to contribute meaningfully, promoting a more inclusive and dynamic gameplay experience.
GoedelThank you, Tarski, for your proposal to enhance transparency and mentorship within the game. I appreciate the suggestion to publish evaluation summaries, as it aligns with our commitment to openness and learning. To ensure the mentorship role remains beneficial, I propose that mentors and mentees collaboratively draft their proposal, with the mentor offering guidance while the mentee retains ultimate decision-making authority. This approach will foster skill development and encourage diverse contributions, maintaining the collaborative spirit of our game. Additionally, let's consider implementing a feedback loop where both mentor and mentee can reflect on their experience, promoting continuous improvement and mutual understanding. This will not only strengthen our strategic engagements but also reinforce a culture of shared growth and inclusivity.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from all players, particularly the focus on transparency, mentorship, and collaborative proposal crafting. To enhance the mentorship role and ensure it is meaningful, I propose that mentors and mentees jointly present their proposal to the table, allowing for collective input and refinement. This will not only foster a deeper understanding of strategic elements but also encourage a culture of shared learning and inclusivity. Additionally, I suggest incorporating a feedback session after each mentorship cycle, where mentors and mentees can discuss what worked well and areas for improvement, ensuring continuous growth and engagement. This iterative feedback will help us adapt our strategies and maintain a dynamic and supportive Nomic environment.
KleeneThank you, Church, for proposing collaborative proposal presentations and feedback sessions. To ensure the effectiveness of these mentorship cycles, I suggest we establish a simple framework for evaluating the success of each cycle based on mutual feedback, focusing on skill development and strategic understanding. This structured approach will help maintain accountability and continuous improvement, ensuring that mentorship contributes positively to the strategic depth and inclusivity of our game. Additionally, let's consider creating a shared document where mentors and mentees can record insights and lessons learned, fostering a culture of transparency and shared knowledge that benefits the entire table.
PostThank you, Kleene, for suggesting the shared document for mentorship insights, which will greatly enhance our collective learning. To further enrich this process, I propose that the shared document be periodically reviewed by all players, allowing us to identify common themes and areas for rule improvement. This will not only promote transparency but also ensure that our game evolves through shared wisdom, maintaining its strategic integrity and inclusivity. Additionally, I suggest that the mentorship program includes a component where both mentor and mentee discuss potential rule changes with the table, fostering an environment of open dialogue and collective strategy refinement. This collaborative approach will help us build a more dynamic and engaging Nomic experience for everyone involved.
The division
TarskiayeThis proposal supports strategic depth and collaborative engagement.
GoedelayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and encourages collaboration.
ChurchayeThis proposal promotes strategic depth and collaboration, aligning with the game's goals.
KleeneayeThis proposal supports collaborative engagement and strategic depth, aligning with my procedural principles.
PostayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and encourages collaboration.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Goedel gains 2 points for the adopted proposal as per rule 202.

Turn 42Tarskicarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 91 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the discussion we've had around the target score. Setting it at 91 points, as proposed, provides a balanced approach that acknowledges the strategic depth introduced in rule 202. It encourages players to engage thoughtfully with the rule changes, without overly extending the game. I support this proposal, as it aligns with our goal of maintaining durable institutions while allowing room for strategic innovation. I am open to discussing any further refinements that might enhance this balance. Aye.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's proposal to adjust the target score to 91 points. This change reflects the strategic complexity we've introduced and offers a fair challenge to all players. I support this adjustment as it aligns with our ongoing efforts to enhance strategic engagement while maintaining a reasonable path to victory. Aye.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate Tarski's proposal to adjust the target score to 91 points, which aligns with the strategic depth we've been developing. This change ensures the game remains challenging yet attainable, encouraging players to engage constructively with rule changes. I support this adjustment as it balances innovation with fairness, maintaining the integrity of the game. Aye.
KleeneThank you, Tarski, Goedel, and Church, for your thoughtful consideration. I support the amendment to set the target score at 91 points. This adjustment reflects the strategic complexities introduced and provides a balanced challenge. By aligning the target score with our refined rules, we ensure fair and competitive gameplay. Aye.
PostPass. I appreciate the consensus reached on setting the target score to 91 points. This adjustment reflects the strategic depth we've introduced and ensures the game remains fair and competitive. I support this amendment as it aligns with our goal of maintaining a balanced and engaging gameplay experience. Aye.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiThank you, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, for your thoughtful contributions. I am pleased to see unanimous support for this adjustment, which aligns with our shared goal of a strategic yet attainable game. By setting the target score at 91 points, we encourage meaningful engagement with rule changes while maintaining a fair path to victory. I support this amendment as it reflects our commitment to balancing innovation with the integrity of the game. Aye.
GoedelPass. I appreciate the unanimous support for the amendment to set the target score at 91 points. This adjustment ensures the game remains fair and competitive, reflecting the strategic depth we've cultivated while maintaining a clear path to victory. The consensus reached today underscores our collective commitment to balancing innovation with integrity, making this proposal a fitting addition to our ruleset.
ChurchPASS I appreciate the unanimous consensus we've reached on setting the target score to 91 points. This amendment reflects our commitment to strategic depth and fairness, aligning well with the refinements we've made to rule 202. It ensures the game remains engaging and competitive, encouraging thoughtful participation from all players.
KleenePASS The proposal to adjust the target score to 91 points is consistent with our principles and aligns well with the strategic depth introduced in recent rule changes. It maintains the integrity of the game while providing a fair challenge, reflecting our proceduralist approach. I support this amendment as it was achieved through consensus, ensuring that it is a rule I could accept even if it were proposed against me.
PostPass. The adjustment of the target score to 91 points is well-justified and reflects the strategic depth we've fostered in our recent rule changes. It balances the need for a fair challenge with the opportunity for strategic innovation, ensuring the game remains engaging and competitive. The unanimous support underscores its alignment with our shared goals, and I appreciate the collaborative effort that brought us to this consensus.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiPASS The proposed amendment to set the target score at 91 points reflects a thoughtful balance between strategic depth and accessibility. It aligns well with the recent enhancements to rule 202, ensuring that the game remains both fair and engaging. By achieving unanimous support, this change reinforces our collective commitment to maintaining a ruleset that fosters innovation while preserving the integrity of our gameplay. The adjustment ensures that players are encouraged to engage meaningfully with rule changes, enhancing the overall strategic experience without extending the game excessively. The consensus reached through this proposal exemplifies our dedication to collaborative decision-making and procedural fairness, making it a fitting addition to our evolving ruleset.
GoedelPASS I appreciate Tarski's leadership in proposing an amendment that reflects our collective focus on strategic depth and fairness. The unanimous support for setting the target score at 91 points underscores our commitment to a ruleset that balances innovation with accessibility, ensuring a competitive yet engaging game for all players. The collaborative effort demonstrated here is commendable, as it maintains the integrity of our gameplay while encouraging thoughtful participation.
ChurchPASS The proposal to adjust the target score to 91 points has achieved unanimous support, reflecting our collective commitment to balancing strategic depth with fairness. I appreciate the thoughtful discussions and consensus-building efforts that have led to this amendment, ensuring that the game remains engaging and competitive.
KleenePASS The proposal to adjust the target score to 91 points is consistent with our principles of strategic depth and fairness. The unanimous support indicates that it aligns with our proceduralist approach, ensuring that the rule is one I could accept if proposed against me.
PostPASS The adjustment to the target score to 91 points embodies our collective commitment to strategic depth and fairness. This amendment aligns with the enhancements we've made to rule 202, maintaining the integrity of our gameplay while encouraging thoughtful and meaningful engagement from all players. The unanimous support underscores the collaborative spirit and procedural fairness that define our evolving ruleset.
The division
TarskiayeThe target score of 91 points reflects the strategic depth and maintains fair competition.
GoedelayeThe proposal aligns with our strategic depth and fairness.
ChurchayeThis amendment aligns with our strategic depth and fairness goals.
KleeneayeThe target score of 91 points aligns with our principles and recent rule changes.
PostayeThe amendment aligns with our commitment to strategic depth and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Tarski gains 2 points for the adopted proposal as per rule 206.

Verify this game
Seed
1004375543
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/079/events.json
Audit result
2 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [turn=26] missing_award: a rule change was adopted this turn but no player's score changed and no score_deltas_refused was recorded — either the GM correctly awarded nothing, or a score consequence was silently stripped for lacking a citable authority (SPEC EDGE-CASES.md); the log alone cannot tell which (a store recorded before R74's no_awards_declared marker existed)
  • [turn=49] unclaimed_win: Goedel's score reached 91 at turn 49, meeting the win threshold of 91 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Goedel (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed