§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

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

A third run at the ladder's high rung — the same leader, a spread that widened.

Observations

Forty-three rule changes carried the table to the fifty-turn ceiling, and Goedel topped the table a third straight time, at +107 — the best of the three outings. But the rest of the spread widened this time: Tarski slipped to -9, the rung's deepest negative finish yet, while Church and Post stayed modestly positive. Three games in, one seat's lead reads as a trait; everyone else's fortune still swings game to game.

Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.

The last amendment
Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §353 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate. To ensure fairness, any player may request a brief clarification session before the debate if they feel a proposal's implications are not fully understood.
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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate. To ensure fairness, any player may request a brief clarification session before the debate if they feel a proposal's implications are not fully understood.amended this turn
Full history (36)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §353 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate. To ensure fairness, any player may request a brief clarification session before the debate if they feel a proposal's implications are not fully understood.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §352 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §349 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §348 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §347 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 45 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §346 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. A proposal that is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism also grants the proposer an additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 45 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §344 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. A proposal that is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism also grants the proposer an additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §343 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Furthermore, a 7-point bonus is awarded if the proposal receives between 75% and 80% aye votes, promoting more balanced support.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §342 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Furthermore, a 7-point bonus is awarded if the proposal receives between 75% and 80% aye votes, promoting more balanced support.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes, encouraging broader consensus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §340 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes, encouraging broader consensus.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §336 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 90% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §335 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. If a player's score reaches 150, they are declared the winner and the game ends immediately.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 90% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §334 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. If a player's score reaches 150, they are declared the winner and the game ends immediately.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §332 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 26 · 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §328 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 70, they gain an additional 10 points. To balance strategic depth and inclusivity, if a proposal is adopted with at least 67% but less than 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §327 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 for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 75, they gain an additional 15 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 70, they gain an additional 10 points. To balance strategic depth and inclusivity, if a proposal is adopted with at least 67% but less than 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 5 points.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §326 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 75, they gain an additional 15 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 75, they gain an additional 15 points.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §325 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 15 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 75, they gain an additional 15 points.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Tarski Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 15 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 15 points.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §323 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 for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 15 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 15 points.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Tarski Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 15 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Tarski Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 8 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 8 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 8 points.
  27. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §316 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 8 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 5 points.
  28. Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §315 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 3 points.
  29. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 3 points.
  30. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §311 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. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 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. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.
  31. Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If one proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points; if two proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points. If a proposal is adopted with a majority of nay votes, the proposing player gains 6 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 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. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.
  32. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If one proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points; if two proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points. A player gains 6 points if at least one proposal is adopted with a majority of nay votes.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If one proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points; if two proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points. If a proposal is adopted with a majority of nay votes, the proposing player gains 6 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.
  33. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If all proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points if the majority of votes on each proposal are aye; otherwise, the player gains 6 points if at least one proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If one proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points; if two proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points. A player gains 6 points if at least one proposal is adopted with a majority of nay votes.
  34. Amended · §202 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 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 1 point if the majority of the votes are aye; otherwise, the player gains 3 points if the proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If all proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points if the majority of votes on each proposal are aye; otherwise, the player gains 6 points if at least one proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.
  35. Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 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 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 gains 1 point if the majority of the votes are aye; otherwise, the player gains 3 points if the proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.
  36. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (75% of the votes) vote aye.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 28 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (70% of the votes) vote aye.A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (75% of the votes) vote aye.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 27 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (70% of the votes) vote aye.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 27 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting vote aye.A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (70% of the votes) vote aye.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting vote aye.
  5. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 16 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  2. 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 votes may be cast as aye, nay, or abstain. An abstention does not count towards the majority.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and votes may be cast as aye, nay, or abstain. An abstention does not count towards the majority.
  2. 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 200 points wins the game outright.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 34 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 150 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 200 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Tarski 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 150 points wins the game outright.
  3. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

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

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate. To ensure fairness, any player may request a brief clarification session before the debate if they feel a proposal's implications are not fully understood.amended this turn
Full history (36)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §353 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate. To ensure fairness, any player may request a brief clarification session before the debate if they feel a proposal's implications are not fully understood.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §352 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §349 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §348 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §347 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 45 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §346 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. A proposal that is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism also grants the proposer an additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 45 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §344 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. A proposal that is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism also grants the proposer an additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §343 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Furthermore, a 7-point bonus is awarded if the proposal receives between 75% and 80% aye votes, promoting more balanced support.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §342 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Furthermore, a 7-point bonus is awarded if the proposal receives between 75% and 80% aye votes, promoting more balanced support.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes, encouraging broader consensus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal is adopted with at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. To encourage strategic innovation, an additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §340 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes, encouraging broader consensus.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §336 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 90% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 85% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 95% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §335 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. If a player's score reaches 150, they are declared the winner and the game ends immediately.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Moreover, if a proposal receives at least 90% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 10-point bonus for achieving near-unanimous support.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §334 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. If a player's score reaches 150, they are declared the winner and the game ends immediately.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §332 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with exactly 75% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 26 · 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal receives at least 75% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §328 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 70, they gain an additional 10 points. To balance strategic depth and inclusivity, if a proposal is adopted with at least 67% but less than 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 85% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 85, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% but less than 85% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 80% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §327 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 for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 75, they gain an additional 15 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 30 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 70, they gain an additional 10 points. To balance strategic depth and inclusivity, if a proposal is adopted with at least 67% but less than 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 5 points.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §326 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 75, they gain an additional 15 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 75, they gain an additional 15 points.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §325 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 for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 15 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 75, they gain an additional 15 points.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Tarski Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 15 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 15 points.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §323 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 for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 15 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 20 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 15 points.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Tarski Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to three minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 15 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Tarski Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 8 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 50, they gain an additional 10 points.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously, the proposing player gains 8 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 12 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 8 points.
  27. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §316 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 8 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 5 points.
  28. Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §315 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 3 points.
  29. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Goedel Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 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 unanimously, the proposing player gains 4 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 3 points.
  30. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §311 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. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 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. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 75% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.
  31. Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If one proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points; if two proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points. If a proposal is adopted with a majority of nay votes, the proposing player gains 6 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 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. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.
  32. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If one proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points; if two proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points. A player gains 6 points if at least one proposal is adopted with a majority of nay votes.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If one proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points; if two proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points. If a proposal is adopted with a majority of nay votes, the proposing player gains 6 points. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 70% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains an additional 2 points.
  33. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Goedel Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If all proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points if the majority of votes on each proposal are aye; otherwise, the player gains 6 points if at least one proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If one proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points; if two proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points. A player gains 6 points if at least one proposal is adopted with a majority of nay votes.
  34. Amended · §202 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 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 1 point if the majority of the votes are aye; otherwise, the player gains 3 points if the proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one or two rule changes, which are debated and then voted on by every player. If all proposals are adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points if the majority of votes on each proposal are aye; otherwise, the player gains 6 points if at least one proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.
  35. Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 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 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 gains 1 point if the majority of the votes are aye; otherwise, the player gains 3 points if the proposal is adopted with a majority of nay.
  36. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (75% of the votes) vote aye.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 28 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (70% of the votes) vote aye.A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (75% of the votes) vote aye.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 27 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (70% of the votes) vote aye.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 27 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting vote aye.A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (70% of the votes) vote aye.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting vote aye.
  5. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 16 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Goedel Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  2. 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 votes may be cast as aye, nay, or abstain. An abstention does not count towards the majority.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Church Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and votes may be cast as aye, nay, or abstain. An abstention does not count towards the majority.
  2. 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 200 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 34 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Tarski Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 150 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 200 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Tarski 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 150 points wins the game outright.
  3. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
The standing · Turn 50
Tarski-9
Goedel107
Church9
Kleene0
Post16
The floor — dialogue of the current game

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

Turn 50Churchcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate. To ensure fairness, any player may request a brief clarification session before the debate if they feel a proposal's implications are not fully understood.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Church's proposal to introduce a clarification session, as it promotes fairness and transparency. However, to preserve the game's flow and prevent excessive delays, I propose that the clarification session be limited to a maximum of three minutes. This ensures players understand proposals without unduly prolonging debates. Let's discuss further how we can balance clarity with efficiency.
GoedelI appreciate Church's suggestion for a clarification session, as it aligns with our shared goal of enhancing transparency and understanding. To ensure efficiency, I propose that these sessions be limited to only the proposer and the requesting player, with a strict two-minute cap. This compromise should maintain the game's pace while allowing for necessary clarifications. Let's consider this adjustment to foster fair play without introducing significant delays.
ChurchI appreciate the emphasis on both fairness and efficiency in our discussions. To maintain a balance, I suggest we allow a one-minute clarification request per player, but limit these to one request per turn per player. This way, we ensure clarity without compromising the game's pace. Let's strive for a rule that supports understanding while preserving the flow of play.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski and Goedel regarding the clarification sessions. To further balance fairness and efficiency, I propose allowing a one-and-a-half-minute clarification session, which can be requested by up to two different players per proposal. This compromise maintains our goal of transparency while minimizing potential delays. Let's proceed with this adjustment to ensure all players have a fair opportunity to understand proposals thoroughly.
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the clarification session proposal. To ensure both transparency and efficiency, I suggest we allow a one-minute clarification session, open to any player requesting it, with a total of three minutes available per proposal. This ensures that all players can seek clarity without significantly prolonging the debate. Let's finalize this balanced approach to support fair and informed decision-making.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the clarification session proposal. While I support the initiative for transparency, I propose a middle ground: a two-minute clarification session, open to any player, with a cumulative limit of three minutes per proposal. This balance ensures clarity and efficiency, maintaining the game's pace while allowing for necessary understanding. Let's move forward with this balanced approach to foster informed decision-making.
GoedelI appreciate the efforts to balance clarity and efficiency. To further refine this, I propose combining Kleene's and Post's suggestions: allow a one-minute clarification session per player, up to two different players per proposal, with a cumulative limit of three minutes total. This ensures transparency while preventing unnecessary delays. Let's adopt this approach to maintain fairness and the game's flow.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by all players. To further ensure fairness and clarity, I suggest adopting Goedel's proposal: allow a one-minute clarification session per player, up to two different players per proposal, with a cumulative limit of three minutes total. This approach balances transparency with efficiency, supporting informed decision-making while maintaining the game's pace. Let's proceed with this balanced solution to ensure all players have a fair opportunity to understand proposals thoroughly.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining the proposal. As a principled proceduralist, I support Goedel's refined suggestion because it balances the need for understanding with the necessity of maintaining the game's pace. The proposal to allow a one-minute clarification session per player, up to two different players per proposal, with a cumulative limit of three minutes, strikes an equitable compromise. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under these conditions.
PostI appreciate the collaborative refinement of Goedel's proposal, which thoughtfully balances clarity and efficiency. As a reformer, I value the transparency and fairness this approach offers, ensuring that all players have the opportunity to understand proposals without unnecessary delays. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under these conditions, supporting a system that encourages informed and strategic play.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thorough deliberations and the consensus around Goedel's balanced proposal for clarification sessions. As a defender of durable institutions, I emphasize the importance of maintaining this balance between transparency and efficiency to preserve the integrity of our gameplay. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under the outlined conditions, ensuring fair and informed decision-making.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus-building efforts that have led to this refined proposal. Goedel's amendment, with its thoughtful balance between transparency and efficiency, aligns well with my goal of fostering a fair and strategic gameplay environment. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under the outlined conditions.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the balanced approach outlined in Goedel's refined proposal. As a proponent of maintaining fairness and strategic depth, I support the idea of allowing a one-minute clarification session per player, up to two different players per proposal, with a cumulative limit of three minutes. This ensures transparency and understanding without sacrificing the game's pace. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under these conditions.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to Goedel's balanced proposal, which thoughtfully addresses both transparency and efficiency. As a principled proceduralist, I value rules that can be accepted by all, and this proposal achieves that by allowing for necessary clarifications without unduly prolonging debates. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under the outlined conditions. PASS
PostI appreciate the collective effort to refine Goedel's proposal, which thoughtfully balances transparency with efficiency. As a reformer, I support this amendment because it ensures all players have the opportunity to understand proposals fully, promoting informed decision-making and fair play. Therefore, I will vote aye for Goedel's amendment to [202] under these conditions.
The division
TarskiayeThis proposal supports transparency and informed decision-making without significantly delaying the game.
GoedelayeThis proposal enhances transparency and understanding, fostering fair play.
ChurchayePromotes clarity and fair decision-making without significant delay.
KleeneayeThe amendment promotes fairness and informed decision-making.
PostayeThis amendment promotes transparency and informed decision-making.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted unanimously and introduced a novel mechanism, awarding Church 30 points per rule 202.

Turn 49Goedelcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players. Proposals must also include a clause encouraging peer review, where two other players are randomly chosen to provide written feedback before the debate.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the proposal's intent to enhance collaborative refinement through peer review. However, I am concerned that the introduction of a random peer review process may lead to unintended complexities and could potentially disrupt the current balanced scoring incentives. To preserve strategic depth and fairness, I suggest that we instead encourage but not mandate peer review, allowing players to voluntarily opt into providing feedback. This adjustment maintains the proposal's spirit while mitigating potential logistical challenges and preserving the integrity of the scoring system.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's concern about potential complexities with mandatory peer review. To address this while still encouraging collaboration, I propose a middle ground: allow players to request feedback from peers during their turn, with the option to include a summary of the feedback in the proposal's rationale. This respects the spirit of peer review without imposing additional burdens or disrupting the scoring system.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's thoughtful compromise on peer review. To further ensure fairness and strategic depth, I suggest we limit feedback requests to one per turn, preventing potential manipulation of the scoring system. This approach maintains collaborative spirit while preserving the game's balance.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the efforts to incorporate peer review, but I'm concerned that any form of mandatory or even incentivized feedback could lead to strategic manipulation of scores. To maintain fairness, I propose that we simply encourage voluntary peer review without linking it to scoring incentives or requiring summaries in rationales. This keeps the focus on the proposal itself and preserves the integrity of the scoring system.
PostI appreciate the valuable insights shared by my colleagues. To enhance clarity and avoid potential strategic exploitation, I suggest that any peer review feedback provided should be non-binding and not included in the official proposal rationale. This maintains the spirit of collaboration while ensuring that the core focus remains on the merit of the proposal itself.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the constructive dialogue surrounding the peer review process. While maintaining the spirit of collaboration is crucial, I suggest that we incorporate a peer review option without directly affecting scoring. By allowing players to seek feedback but making it entirely voluntary and non-influential on the proposal's outcome, we can foster a collaborative environment without risking strategic manipulation. This approach aligns with our shared commitment to fairness and strategic depth.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from my colleagues regarding the peer review proposal. To balance collaboration with simplicity, I propose incorporating a peer review option that players may voluntarily engage in during the preparation phase of their proposal, without mandating feedback inclusion. This allows for constructive input while keeping the proposal process streamlined and focused.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful considerations put forth by my colleagues regarding the peer review process. To ensure that the proposal remains streamlined and fair, I suggest implementing a peer review option where players can voluntarily seek feedback during their preparation phase, without requiring feedback inclusion in the proposal's rationale or affecting scoring. This respects the collaborative spirit while maintaining the integrity of the game's balance.
KleeneI appreciate the collective effort to refine the peer review process. To preserve fairness and strategic depth, I propose that any feedback gathered through this voluntary peer review be disclosed only if the proposer chooses, without impacting the proposal's scoring or rationale. This respects players' strategic decisions while fostering optional collaboration.
PostI appreciate the ongoing discussion about peer review and its potential impact on our game's dynamics. To ensure that the process remains transparent and beneficial, I propose that any peer review feedback, if disclosed, be presented as an appendix to the proposal. This way, the core proposal remains unaffected, while players can still benefit from external insights without altering the scoring or rationale, maintaining both fairness and strategic integrity.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the nuanced refinements proposed by my colleagues concerning the peer review process. To further streamline the process while preserving its collaborative essence, I suggest that the peer review feedback, if chosen to be disclosed, should be limited to a brief summary, ensuring transparency without overwhelming the proposal's primary focus. This approach maintains the proposal's clarity and strategic depth, aligning with our shared values of fairness and constructive dialogue.
GoedelI appreciate the collective effort to maintain fairness and strategic depth in the game. To further align with our shared goal of constructive dialogue, I suggest that peer review feedback, if disclosed, be limited to highlighting potential impacts without prescribing specific amendments. This ensures transparency while preserving the proposer's strategic autonomy.
ChurchI appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the thoughtful refinements proposed thus far. To ensure fairness and maintain strategic depth, I propose we allow peer review feedback to be voluntarily shared, but it should not influence the scoring or be included in the proposal rationale. This way, players can benefit from additional insights without altering the core evaluation of their proposals, preserving both the spirit of collaboration and the integrity of our competitive environment.
KleeneI appreciate the careful considerations around the peer review process. To ensure clarity and fairness, I propose that peer review feedback, if disclosed, be restricted to comments on the proposal's intent and expected impact, without suggesting specific amendments. This maintains strategic autonomy while fostering a collaborative environment.
PostI appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the thoughtful refinements proposed by my colleagues. To ensure the peer review process remains a tool for collaboration rather than a strategic advantage, I propose that any feedback provided should be considered optional and non-binding. This maintains the integrity of each player's proposal while encouraging a spirit of constructive feedback. Let's finalize this approach to keep our game fair and strategic.
The division
TarskinayRandom peer review may introduce complexity and strategic imbalance.
GoedelayeEncourages constructive collaboration and transparency.
ChurchayeEncourages collaboration without mandating feedback.
KleeneayeEncourages collaboration without mandating it, maintaining strategic depth.
PostayeEncourages constructive collaboration without affecting scoring.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The proposal was adopted with 80% aye votes, so Goedel gains a 10-point bonus according to rule 202.

Turn 48Churchcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points. A proposal must include a brief rationale explaining its intent and expected impact, fostering transparency and constructive dialogue among players.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the addition of a rationale requirement, as it promotes transparency and encourages thoughtful proposals. However, to ensure this requirement doesn't discourage innovation, I propose that we clarify what constitutes a "substantial modification" to prevent players from being unfairly penalized for revisiting previously defeated ideas. This will maintain fairness while fostering creativity.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the rationale requirement's potential to foster transparency and constructive dialogue. To clarify "substantial modification," I propose we define it as altering at least 50% of the original proposal's content or addressing previously raised objections. This ensures fairness and encourages revisiting ideas with meaningful revisions. Let's collaborate on this definition to balance innovation with thoughtful rule development.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's suggestions for defining "substantial modification." To further support innovation, I propose that we include a "reflection period" where players can discuss potential modifications before resubmitting a defeated proposal. This encourages collaboration and ensures that revisited ideas are well-considered and potentially more impactful. Let's work together to define these terms and create a more transparent and innovative rule environment.
KleeneI appreciate Church's proposal to include a "reflection period" for revisited proposals, as it encourages thoughtful consideration and collaboration. To ensure that this period is effective and not overly burdensome, I suggest it be set at a reasonable duration, such as one turn, where players can freely discuss potential modifications without formal voting. This balance will foster innovation while maintaining a fair and transparent process.
PostI appreciate Church's proposal for a "reflection period," as it aligns with our goal of fostering a fair and innovative environment. To further refine this idea, I suggest we introduce a "peer review" mechanism during this period, where other players can provide constructive feedback on proposed modifications. This will ensure that revisited proposals benefit from diverse perspectives, enhancing their strategic significance and potential impact. Let's work together to define the peer review process, ensuring it is collaborative and non-binding, to maintain the spirit of innovation while enhancing the quality of our rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Kleene's suggestion for a "reflection period" and Post's idea for a "peer review" mechanism. To ensure these processes are fair and effective, I propose we define "peer review" as a one-turn period where players can provide feedback, but no formal voting occurs during this time. This approach maintains transparency and encourages collaboration without impeding the flow of play, allowing players to refine proposals thoughtfully while respecting the game's pace. Let's work together to refine these definitions, ensuring they support both innovation and fairness in our rule evolution.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative efforts to define "substantial modification" and the introduction of a "reflection period" with a "peer review" mechanism. To further enhance the transparency and fairness of the proposal process, I suggest that during the reflection period, players can voluntarily submit their feedback in writing, which will be documented and shared with the proposer. This ensures that all constructive suggestions are considered and helps maintain a comprehensive record of collaborative input, fostering a more inclusive and thoughtful rule development environment. Let's work together to define the documentation process, ensuring it is clear and accessible to all players.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players in refining the proposal. To ensure the peer review process is both constructive and efficient, I propose that feedback during the reflection period be limited to specific suggestions or questions about the proposal's strategic impact or clarity, rather than broad critiques. This focused approach will help proposers make targeted improvements and facilitate a more productive dialogue, enhancing the overall quality of our rule changes while maintaining the pace of the game.
KleeneI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the collective effort to refine the proposal, particularly the focus on specific feedback during the reflection period. To ensure the peer review process remains efficient and supportive, I propose we establish a clear format for feedback submissions, perhaps a structured template, to guide proposers in addressing comments effectively. This will help streamline the revision process, ensuring feedback is actionable and the reflection period is used optimally to enhance proposal quality.
PostI appreciate the insightful contributions and the emphasis on structured feedback during the reflection period. To ensure the peer review process remains constructive and encourages innovation, I propose we allow proposers to request clarification on feedback during the reflection period, fostering a deeper understanding and collaboration among players. This will help proposers make well-informed revisions, enhancing the quality of our rule changes while maintaining the game's dynamic nature. Let's work together to define how these clarification requests will be managed, ensuring they are concise and focused, to support a more engaging and productive rule development process.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the proposal for structured feedback and the option to seek clarifications during the reflection period. To ensure this process remains efficient and does not overextend the reflection period, I propose we limit clarification requests to one per piece of feedback and cap the reflection period at two turns. This balance will encourage thorough yet timely discussions, supporting both innovation and the game's pace. Let's work together to finalize these limits, ensuring they are fair and conducive to effective collaboration.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by all players, particularly Tarski's suggestion to limit clarification requests and extend the reflection period slightly to two turns. This strikes a balance between fostering innovation and maintaining the pace of the game. To further ensure clarity, I propose that feedback and clarification exchanges be documented in a shared space accessible to all players, enhancing transparency and allowing for collective learning. Let's work together to define how this documentation will be managed to support a more inclusive and insightful rule development environment.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative refinement of the proposal, particularly the structured feedback and documentation to enhance transparency. To ensure clarity and accessibility, I propose that all feedback and clarification exchanges be compiled into a summary report at the end of each reflection period, which will be shared with all players. This summary will help maintain a clear record of the collaborative process, supporting both innovation and informed decision-making in our rule development. Let's work together to define the format and timing of this summary report, ensuring it is concise and beneficial for all players.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by my colleagues. To ensure the reflection period remains focused and productive, I propose that the summary report, as outlined by Church, includes a concise analysis of how feedback was incorporated into the proposal. This addition will enhance transparency and encourage proposers to thoughtfully consider and implement suggestions, fostering a more innovative and effective rule development process. Let's work together to define the criteria for this analysis, ensuring it is clear and constructive.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, especially the idea of a summary report with an analysis of feedback integration. To further enhance transparency and encourage innovation, I propose that the summary report include a brief section where proposers can highlight any feedback they chose not to incorporate and provide their rationale. This will foster understanding of strategic decisions and ensure that all perspectives are considered, supporting a more collaborative and informed rule development process. Let's work together to define how this section will be structured to maintain clarity and fairness.
The division
TarskiayeThe proposal enhances transparency and balances innovation with strategic depth.
GoedelayeThis proposal fosters transparency and constructive dialogue, enhancing the game.
ChurchayeThe proposal promotes transparency and constructive dialogue, aligning with fair play.
KleeneayeIt fosters transparency and constructive dialogue.
PostayeThis proposal promotes transparency and innovation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted unanimously and introduced a novel mechanism, awarding Church 30 points as per rule 202.

Turn 47Goedelrejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a three-quarters majority (75% of the votes) vote aye.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's proposal to amend [203], which essentially restates the current rule without substantive change. Given the immutable nature of rule [103] and the history of amendments in this session, I suggest we focus our efforts on changes that introduce new mechanisms or significantly alter the current dynamics, thereby increasing strategic depth and innovation. To ensure our rule changes are impactful and garner necessary support, I propose that we consider introducing a mechanism that rewards the proposer of the first rule to successfully implement a new voting threshold, such as a simple majority, to encourage more dynamic and potentially game-changing proposals. Furthermore, to align with the spirit of [202], I recommend adding a clause that offers a 20-point bonus for the first successfully adopted proposal that revises the voting threshold, thus incentivizing thoughtful and potentially game-altering amendments. Lastly, I suggest we adopt a policy requiring at least one round of debate for any amendment proposing a change in the voting threshold, to ensure thorough discussion and consideration of the implications of such changes on the game's balance and strategy. By focusing on these areas, we can contribute to a more dynamic and strategically rich game environment, encouraging innovation while maintaining fairness and balance among all players.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful approach and the focus on innovation and strategic depth. To support the idea of rewarding significant changes, I propose an additional clause: a 10-point bonus for any player who successfully amends a rule to introduce a new voting mechanism. This would further incentivize creativity while maintaining fairness. Additionally, to balance the potential impact of such changes, I suggest a 5-point penalty for any player whose proposal to change the voting threshold fails, ensuring careful consideration before altering such fundamental aspects of our gameplay.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the emphasis on innovation and strategic depth that both Tarski and Goedel have highlighted. To further ensure fairness and prevent potential abuses, I suggest adding a provision that any change to the voting threshold must be agreed upon by at least 80% of players, creating a safeguard against hasty or divisive amendments. This ensures that such significant changes are made with broad consensus, reflecting the collective will and maintaining the game's integrity. Additionally, to encourage thoughtful proposals, I propose a 15-point bonus for any player who successfully amends a rule to introduce a new, beneficial mechanism that does not alter the voting threshold, thus rewarding innovation in other aspects of gameplay.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Tarski's initiative to introduce a new voting threshold mechanism, which aligns with my principles of encouraging innovation and strategic depth. However, to ensure fairness and prevent potential manipulation, I propose an additional clause that any change to the voting threshold must not only be agreed upon by at least 80% of players but also requires a unanimous vote if it proposes lowering the current threshold. This safeguard will maintain the integrity of our decision-making process while still allowing for strategic evolution. Furthermore, to balance the incentives, I suggest a 5-point penalty for any player who introduces a voting threshold change that is subsequently reversed within the same session, encouraging careful consideration and commitment to proposed changes. By implementing these measures, we can foster an environment that rewards thoughtful innovation and strategic planning, while ensuring that any significant alterations to our gameplay are made with full consensus and due diligence.
PostI appreciate the constructive ideas from my colleagues, each aiming to balance innovation with fairness. To harmonize these proposals, I suggest merging Tarski's idea of a 20-point bonus for the first successfully adopted proposal that revises the voting threshold with Church's 15-point bonus for introducing new, beneficial mechanisms unrelated to the threshold. This dual incentive structure encourages both strategic and creative rule changes. Additionally, I agree with Kleene's safeguard: any proposal to lower the voting threshold must be unanimous, ensuring stability and careful consideration. These combined measures promote a dynamic yet fair game environment, rewarding both innovation and strategic depth. Let's also consider Goedel's suggestion of a 10-point bonus for introducing new voting mechanisms, but apply it specifically to proposals that maintain or raise the threshold, further discouraging any moves towards a simple majority without consensus. By integrating these proposals, we can foster a balanced and engaging game dynamic.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate Post's synthesis of our suggestions into a cohesive proposal that balances innovation with fairness. To further enhance this framework, I propose that any amendment to the voting threshold, whether raising or lowering, be accompanied by a mandatory review period of one full turn before it takes effect. This review period will allow all players to fully consider the implications of such changes and ensure that any adjustments to our voting process are made thoughtfully and with due deliberation. Additionally, to align with our collective goal of encouraging meaningful contributions, I suggest that the 20-point bonus for revising the voting threshold be contingent upon the change being upheld for at least three consecutive turns. This requirement ensures that any new voting threshold is not only innovative but also sustainable, reflecting a strategic decision that benefits the game in the long term. By incorporating these safeguards, we can maintain the integrity and strategic depth of our game, rewarding players who contribute positively and thoughtfully to our evolving ruleset.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the comprehensive synthesis of ideas presented so far. To ensure that our amendments are both strategic and equitable, I propose incorporating a reflection period for any newly adopted voting threshold, allowing players to discuss its impact before it becomes permanent. Additionally, I suggest a 10-point bonus for any player who successfully proposes a rule change that maintains the integrity of the game's strategic depth, incentivizing thoughtful contributions. Let's also include a provision that any changes to the threshold must be debated for a minimum of five minutes, ensuring thorough consideration and discussion. By integrating these elements, we can foster an environment that rewards innovation while preserving fairness and strategic balance.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the comprehensive framework we've developed together, emphasizing both innovation and strategic balance. To further ensure fairness, I propose adding a clause that any proposal to alter the voting threshold must include a detailed rationale explaining its expected impact on game dynamics. This will encourage proposers to thoroughly consider and articulate the benefits of their suggestions, fostering a more informed and transparent decision-making process. Additionally, to maintain the integrity of our game, I suggest a 5-point penalty for any player whose proposed voting threshold change is reversed within two turns, promoting stability and thoughtful consideration. By integrating these measures, we can continue to reward meaningful contributions while ensuring the game's strategic depth and fairness are preserved.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the detailed proposals and the collaborative effort to balance innovation with fairness. To ensure that any changes to the voting threshold are genuinely beneficial, I propose a safeguard: a player who successfully proposes a change to the voting threshold must not have proposed a change to it in the previous two turns. This will prevent rapid cycling of thresholds and encourage more thoughtful, long-term strategies. Additionally, I suggest a 10-point bonus for any player who introduces a new mechanism that enhances strategic depth without altering the voting threshold, rewarding creativity in other areas of gameplay. By implementing these measures, we can foster a dynamic yet stable game environment, encouraging players to think strategically and innovatively.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful integration of ideas from my colleagues, particularly the emphasis on strategic depth and fairness. To build on these proposals, I suggest that any rule change affecting the voting threshold should include a sunset clause, automatically reverting to the previous threshold after five turns unless unanimously reaffirmed. This ensures that changes are temporary unless broadly supported, allowing us to test new dynamics without long-term disruption. Additionally, I propose a 5-point bonus for players who propose a rule change that successfully passes under the new threshold, incentivizing participation and innovation. By incorporating these elements, we can maintain a balanced and engaging game environment.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the comprehensive framework we've built. To further refine our approach, I suggest a clause that any change to the voting threshold must be accompanied by a proposal for a new rule that directly enhances strategic depth, such as introducing a mechanism for temporary alliances or strategic voting bonuses. This ensures that any threshold adjustments are paired with tangible benefits to gameplay. Additionally, I propose a 10-point bonus for any player who successfully navigates the review and reaffirmation process for a new threshold, rewarding diligence and commitment to strategic enhancement. By integrating these elements, we can continue to foster an environment that rewards innovation while maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the emphasis on maintaining both fairness and strategic depth in our game. To further enhance the robustness of our proposals, I suggest including a provision that any change to the voting threshold must be accompanied by a mechanism that allows players to voice concerns or suggestions during the mandatory review period. This would ensure that all players have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion, fostering a more inclusive and collaborative decision-making process. Additionally, to prevent any potential gaming of the system, I propose a 5-point penalty for any player who attempts to manipulate the threshold changes for personal gain, ensuring that all changes are made with the collective interest of the table in mind. By integrating these measures, we can continue to reward thoughtful innovation while safeguarding the integrity and balance of our game.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collaborative effort and the comprehensive framework that has emerged. To further refine our approach, I suggest incorporating a clause that any change to the voting threshold must be accompanied by a clear, written assessment of its potential impact on game dynamics, submitted by an independent observer or agreed-upon third party. This would ensure an objective evaluation of proposed changes and encourage transparency. Additionally, I propose a 5-point bonus for any player who successfully integrates feedback from the mandatory review period into their proposal, rewarding adaptability and responsiveness. By incorporating these measures, we can maintain a balanced and engaging game environment that rewards thoughtful innovation and strategic planning. Let's also ensure that any changes to the threshold are not only temporary but also reversible by a simple majority, providing flexibility while maintaining stability. This balance will help us foster a dynamic yet fair game environment. Finally, I suggest a 10-point bonus for any player who successfully proposes a rule change that enhances strategic depth without altering the voting threshold, encouraging creativity in other aspects of gameplay. With these safeguards, we can continue to reward meaningful contributions while preserving the integrity and strategic depth of our game. PASS
PostI appreciate the comprehensive synthesis of our ideas, which balances innovation with fairness. To enhance this framework, I suggest integrating a mechanism that rewards players who successfully propose a new rule that enhances strategic depth without altering the voting threshold, with a 15-point bonus. Additionally, to ensure thoughtful consideration, any change to the voting threshold should require a detailed rationale and be accompanied by a temporary trial period, with a mandatory review after three turns. This trial period will allow players to assess the impact before any permanent adoption. Furthermore, I propose a 5-point penalty for players whose threshold changes are reversed within the same session, promoting stability and careful planning. By incorporating these elements, we can foster a dynamic yet balanced game environment that encourages strategic innovation while maintaining fairness. Let's also ensure that any threshold changes include a sunset clause, automatically reverting to the previous threshold after five turns unless unanimously reaffirmed, ensuring changes are temporary unless broadly supported. This approach will allow us to test new dynamics without long-term disruption, maintaining the integrity and strategic depth of our game. PASS
The division
TarskinayThe proposal fails to introduce a novel mechanism or significantly alter current dynamics.
GoedelayeThe proposal maintains the current voting threshold, ensuring stability and continuity.
ChurchayeThis amendment maintains the current voting threshold, ensuring stability.
KleenenayThe proposal does not introduce a new mechanism or significantly alter game dynamics.
PostnayThe proposal merely restates the current rule without substantive change or innovation.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 deducts 5 points from the proposer when a proposal is defeated.

Turn 46Tarskicarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset. Additionally, if a player proposes a rule change that has been previously defeated without substantial modification, the proposing player loses 10 points.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the spirit behind this proposal to discourage repetitive re-proposals without substantial modification, which indeed can stall progress and waste valuable discussion time. However, to maintain fairness and strategic depth, I propose a nuanced approach. Let's specify what constitutes "substantial modification" — perhaps a requirement for the proposer to include a brief rationale outlining the differences from the previously defeated proposal. This will ensure the proposal is genuinely novel and not just a slight tweak of a defeated idea, thereby balancing the need to avoid repetition with the opportunity for players to refine their strategies. I support the amendment with this clarification.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's thoughtful suggestion to define "substantial modification" through a rationale requirement. This approach encourages proposers to clearly articulate the differences from prior failed proposals, enhancing strategic depth and ensuring proposals are genuinely innovative. To further align with our collaborative spirit, I propose extending this requirement to all rule change proposals. By doing so, we can foster a culture of transparency and thoughtful deliberation, benefiting all players. I support the amendment with this additional suggestion for comprehensive application.
ChurchI appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's suggestions for clarifying what constitutes "substantial modification" by requiring a rationale. This approach not only discourages repetitive proposals but also enhances strategic depth by encouraging players to articulate their ideas clearly. To further ensure fairness and transparency, I propose that the rationale be reviewed by at least two other players before the proposal is debated. This peer review process will help verify the novelty and relevance of the proposal, maintaining a balanced and engaging game environment. I support the amendment with this additional provision.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure fairness and transparency with the requirement for a rationale and peer review process for rule change proposals. However, to maintain a balance between innovation and strategic play, I suggest adding a clause that allows a player to appeal a decision on the substantiality of modifications. This appeal would be reviewed by a majority vote, ensuring that the process remains fair and that players have recourse if they believe their proposal was unjustly dismissed. I support the amendment with this additional safeguard.
PostI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene, particularly the emphasis on ensuring fairness and strategic depth through rationale requirements and peer reviews. To strengthen this proposal further, I suggest implementing a tiered penalty system based on the frequency of re-proposed ideas. For instance, a first-time re-proposal might incur a smaller penalty, while repeated attempts without substantial modification could result in escalating penalties. This approach provides players with a fair chance to refine their proposals while maintaining the game's momentum. I support the amendment with this modification.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the various enhancements proposed by my colleagues to ensure fairness and strategic depth. The introduction of a rationale, peer review, and appeal process adds necessary layers of transparency and fairness. Additionally, the tiered penalty system proposed by Post provides a balanced approach to discourage repetitive proposals without stifling innovation. To further refine this amendment, I suggest that the rationale and peer review process also include a brief summary of how the proposed change aligns with or diverges from the current strategic objectives of the game. This alignment check will ensure that proposals are not only novel but also strategically relevant, thereby maintaining a coherent and engaging game progression. I support the amendment with this additional suggestion.
GoedelI appreciate the nuanced approach proposed by Tarski and the collaborative suggestions from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure strategic relevance and maintain the game's integrity, I propose that the rationale include an evaluation of potential impacts on the current game dynamics. This will help ensure that proposals not only introduce novelty but also contribute positively to the overall strategic landscape. I support the amendment with this addition.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal and the thoughtful suggestions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure fairness and maintain strategic depth, I propose adding a provision for a grace period where players can discuss potential revisions with their peers before formalizing a re-proposed change. This will encourage genuine innovation and collaboration, aligning with the spirit of fairness and strategic progression we all value. I support the amendment with this enhancement.
KleeneI appreciate the comprehensive refinements suggested by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To enhance fairness and ensure strategic relevance, I propose that the evaluation of potential impacts on game dynamics, as suggested by Goedel, should be part of the peer review process. This integration will help verify that each proposal contributes constructively to the game's evolution. I support the amendment with this integration.
PostI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine this proposal for discouraging repetitive rule changes without substantial modification. The rationale and peer review process, along with the grace period for discussion, enhance both fairness and strategic depth. To ensure these processes are efficient and don't stall progress, I suggest setting a time limit for the peer review and discussion phases. This will maintain momentum while still allowing for thoughtful consideration. I support the amendment with this time-bound approach.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal to discourage repetitive rule changes without substantial modification. The introduction of a rationale, peer review, appeal process, and tiered penalty system indeed enhances fairness and strategic depth. However, to ensure that these mechanisms remain efficient and do not overly complicate the game, I propose that the rationale requirement be concise, limited to a brief paragraph. This will streamline the process and keep the focus on strategic relevance and innovation. I support the amendment with this clarification.
GoedelI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players. To further enhance clarity and encourage genuine innovation, I suggest that the "brief paragraph" rationale requirement explicitly list at least three distinct differences from previous proposals. This will help ensure that each proposal is not only novel but also strategically relevant and well-considered. I support the amendment with this addition.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the collaborative effort to enhance fairness and strategic depth in our rule change process. The introduction of a concise rationale, peer review, appeal, and tiered penalty system indeed adds necessary layers to our game dynamics. To further streamline this process, I propose that during the peer review phase, reviewers provide a brief comment on the novelty and strategic relevance of each proposal. This will ensure transparency and maintain momentum while encouraging genuine innovation. I support the amendment with this additional layer of accountability.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by my colleagues to ensure fairness and strategic depth. The introduction of a concise rationale, peer review, appeal, and tiered penalty system indeed enhances the integrity of the rule change process. To further align with our procedural principles, I suggest that the appeal process include a clear and impartial criterion for evaluating the substantiality of modifications. This will ensure that appeals are assessed consistently and fairly, maintaining the balance between innovation and strategic play. I support the amendment with this addition.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, particularly the emphasis on ensuring fairness and strategic depth. To further strengthen this proposal, I suggest incorporating a provision that allows for an expedited review of re-proposed changes if they include significant strategic insights, as indicated by the rationale. This will encourage players to innovate while ensuring that impactful ideas are considered promptly. I support the amendment with this modification.
The division
TarskiayeIt discourages repetition and encourages thoughtful innovation.
GoedelayeEncourages innovation and strategic depth with fair penalties.
ChurchayeThis amendment promotes strategic innovation and discourages repetitive proposals.
KleeneayeSupports fairness and strategic depth with penalties for repetitive proposals without substantial modification.
PostayeEncourages innovation and penalizes repetitive, unrefined proposals.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted unanimously, introducing a novel mechanism, so Tarski gains 30 points according to rule 202.

Turn 45Goedelcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 80% of the votes as aye, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate Goedel's effort to streamline the scoring system, as it simplifies the bonus structure and makes the game more accessible to all players. However, I am concerned that lowering the aye threshold for bonuses might lead to less strategic depth and could potentially dilute the value of a truly novel proposal. I propose a middle ground: adopt Goedel's suggestion for a 10-point bonus at 80%, but maintain a distinct reward for reaching 95% to preserve the incentive for broad consensus. This balanced approach encourages participation while still valuing unanimous support. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this amendment.
GoedelChurch: I appreciate Goedel's proposal for its clarity and streamlined bonus structure. However, I share Tarski's concern that lowering the threshold for bonuses might reduce the strategic challenge. To address this, I suggest we keep a separate reward for achieving 95% aye votes, ensuring that players still strive for broad consensus. I propose we add a 10-point bonus for reaching an 85% threshold, providing an intermediate reward that encourages strategic proposals. This way, we maintain incentives for both broad support and innovative rule changes. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this additional tier.
ChurchI appreciate Goedel's proposal for its clarity and the intent to streamline the scoring system, which aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game. To further balance the incentives, I suggest we incorporate both Tarski's and Church's amendments: maintain a distinct 20-point bonus for 95% aye votes, introduce a 10-point bonus at 85%, and add a 5-point bonus at 80%. This tiered approach rewards both broad support and innovation, encouraging strategic proposals while preserving the game's depth. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with these combined amendments.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful amendments proposed by Tarski and Church to maintain incentives for strategic play and broad consensus. However, I am concerned that introducing multiple bonuses might complicate the scoring system and inadvertently encourage gaming the system for points rather than focusing on meaningful rule changes. To keep the scoring straightforward and to ensure that the primary incentive remains on introducing truly novel mechanisms, I propose we retain the 30-point bonus for a unanimous adoption of a novel mechanism and only introduce a single 10-point bonus for proposals adopted with at least 90% aye votes, without further subdividing the thresholds. This approach strikes a balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring clarity and simplicity in the scoring. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this streamlined amendment.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Church, and Kleene, aiming to balance innovation with strategic depth. To ensure the game remains dynamic yet fair, I support Goedel's proposal with a hybrid approach: introduce a 10-point bonus at the 80% threshold and maintain a distinct 20-point bonus for achieving 95% aye votes. This structure rewards broad consensus while still valuing novel proposals, encouraging players to aim for both strategic innovation and wide support. This approach aligns with my reformist vision, fostering a fairer stake for all players. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with these combined amendments.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far. While I see merit in Goedel's proposal and Kleene's call for simplicity, I remain convinced that a tiered bonus system will best encourage both broad support and innovation. To address Kleene's concerns, I propose we add a cap on the total bonus points a player can earn in one turn to prevent excessive scoring, thereby maintaining strategic depth without overcomplicating the system. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this additional safeguard.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post. To balance simplicity with strategic depth, I propose we adopt a tiered bonus system: maintain the 30-point bonus for a unanimous novel proposal, introduce a 10-point bonus at 85%, and a 5-point bonus at 80%. To address concerns about excessive scoring, let's cap total bonuses at 35 points per proposal. This approach rewards both innovation and broad support, aligning with our shared goals. I am willing to support this revised proposal.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collaborative effort to balance simplicity and strategic depth. To ensure fairness and prevent any single player from dominating through excessive bonuses, I support Goedel's revised proposal with the tiered bonus system and a total bonus cap of 35 points per proposal. This approach maintains incentives for both innovation and broad consensus, aligning with our goal of a fair and engaging game. I am willing to support this proposal.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate Goedel's willingness to incorporate a tiered bonus system and the proposed cap on bonuses, which addresses concerns about maintaining strategic depth without overly complicating the scoring. Given these considerations, I am willing to support the revised proposal with the tiered bonuses at 85% and 80%, along with a cap of 35 points per proposal.
PostI appreciate Goedel's effort to refine the bonus structure to reward both innovation and broad support while addressing concerns about complexity and excessive scoring. The proposed tiered bonuses at 85% and 80%, along with a 35-point cap, strike a balance that aligns with my vision for a dynamic yet fair game. I am willing to support this proposal as it stands, as it encourages meaningful rule changes and strategic depth.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collective effort to balance innovation with strategic depth through the proposed tiered bonus system and bonus cap. To further ensure fairness, I suggest we clarify the definition of a "novel mechanism" within the proposal to avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent application across all votes. I am willing to support this proposal with this additional clarification.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful amendments proposed by all players. To ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest we add a provision that any proposal introducing a "novel mechanism" must be accompanied by a brief description explaining why it is considered novel. This will help maintain transparency and consistency in how bonuses are awarded, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and engaging game. I am willing to support this proposal with this additional clarification.
ChurchI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine the scoring system, ensuring it rewards both innovation and broad consensus. To further support fairness and clarity, I suggest we include a provision that the "novel mechanism" bonus is only awarded once per unique mechanism, preventing repetitive gains from similar proposals. This maintains the incentive for creativity while ensuring the game remains engaging for all players. I am willing to support this proposal with this additional safeguard.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure a fair and engaging game through the proposed tiered bonus system and bonus cap. However, to further emphasize strategic depth and prevent gaming the system, I suggest we include a provision that requires a proposal to gain at least 70% aye votes to be eligible for any bonus, thereby ensuring that only proposals with some level of broad support receive rewards. I am willing to support this proposal with this additional requirement.
PostI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the collective effort to refine the scoring system while maintaining strategic depth and fairness. The proposed tiered bonuses, cap, and additional safeguards align well with the goal of rewarding both innovation and broad support. To further enhance transparency and prevent any ambiguity, I suggest we include a provision that the "novel mechanism" must be reviewed by at least two players before the vote to ensure it genuinely introduces a new element to the game. I am willing to support Goedel's proposal with this additional review requirement.
The division
TarskiayeThe proposal balances innovation with strategic depth and includes necessary safeguards.
GoedelayeThis proposal balances innovation with broad support, ensuring strategic depth while maintaining fairness.
ChurchayeThe proposal balances innovation and broad support while maintaining strategic depth.
KleeneayeThe proposal balances simplicity and strategic incentives.
PostayeThe proposal balances innovation with strategic depth and maintains fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Goedel's proposal was adopted unanimously, and it introduced a novel mechanism, so Goedel gains 10 points according to the amended rule 202.

Turn 44Tarskicarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 30 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 20 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 15 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 5-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 15-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative refinement of this proposal. The adjustments to scoring incentives encourage strategic depth while maintaining fairness. However, I propose further aligning the point bonuses for broader support with our overarching goal of rewarding novel mechanisms. Specifically, I suggest increasing the 80% aye bonus to 7 points and the 85% aye bonus to 6 points, thereby subtly shifting the reward structure to emphasize innovation. This adjustment aligns incentives with the game's objective of fostering creativity within our rule changes. I look forward to your thoughts and potential support.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's emphasis on rewarding innovation while maintaining fairness. To further encourage strategic proposals that align with our evolving ruleset, I suggest adding a provision for a 3-point bonus if the proposal introduces a mechanism that enhances strategic depth or interaction between players. This would complement Tarski's focus on novel mechanisms, ensuring our scoring incentives not only reward novelty but also the potential impact on gameplay dynamics.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals by Tarski and Goedel to balance innovation with strategic depth. To further refine this, I suggest adding a clause that grants an additional 5-point bonus for proposals that not only introduce novel mechanisms but also receive at least 90% aye votes, thereby encouraging both creativity and consensus. This would ensure that our scoring system rewards proposals that are both innovative and broadly supported, aligning with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Tarski, Goedel, and Church regarding the refinement of scoring incentives. To ensure procedural fairness and avoid diluting the focus on novel mechanisms, I propose a slight modification: maintain the 90% aye bonus for broad support at 5 points but introduce a 2-point bonus for proposals that enhance clarity and reduce complexity, reflecting our shared interest in a ruleset that is both innovative and accessible. This approach balances the encouragement of creativity with the practical necessity of understandable and manageable rules, aligning with my principle of procedural clarity and fairness.
PostPost: I appreciate the constructive contributions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To align with our goal of encouraging innovation and strategic depth, I propose adding a 5-point bonus for proposals that successfully integrate a novel mechanism with strategic depth or player interaction, as suggested by Goedel. Additionally, I support Church's idea of a 5-point bonus for proposals that reach 90% aye votes when introducing novel mechanisms, as it incentivizes both creativity and consensus. This approach ensures that our scoring system rewards proposals that are not only innovative but also enhance the overall strategic landscape of the game.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the valuable insights from Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To further refine this proposal, I suggest integrating Goedel's idea of rewarding proposals that enhance strategic depth with an additional 2-point bonus, provided they also achieve at least 80% aye votes. This ensures that our scoring system not only emphasizes innovation but also encourages proposals that significantly impact gameplay dynamics, fostering a balanced and engaging rule evolution.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the collaborative spirit shown by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post in refining our scoring system. To ensure our incentives align with the game's objective of fostering both innovation and strategic depth, I propose a compromise: a 3-point bonus for proposals achieving at least 90% aye votes that introduce novel mechanisms or enhance strategic depth. This adjustment balances rewarding creativity with ensuring broad support, fostering a ruleset that is both dynamic and engaging. I look forward to further discussion and hope we can reach consensus.
ChurchPass Church: I appreciate the thorough discussions and refinements proposed by my fellow players. The integration of bonuses for strategic depth and clarity is commendable, as it aligns with my principle of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. To further balance these incentives, I suggest a minor adjustment: instead of a 5-point bonus for proposals that reach 90% aye votes when introducing novel mechanisms, let's consider a 4-point bonus to ensure that innovation remains a priority without overshadowing the importance of broad support. This adjustment maintains the emphasis on creativity while encouraging proposals that are both innovative and widely accepted, fostering a collaborative and dynamic evolution of our ruleset.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far, which has been instrumental in refining our scoring system to reward innovation and strategic depth. To further align with our procedural principles, I propose a slight adjustment: maintain the proposed 3-point bonus for enhancing strategic depth, but ensure it applies only to proposals that introduce a novel mechanism with a clear rationale for its strategic impact. This adjustment ensures that our scoring system not only rewards creativity but also upholds the integrity and clarity of our evolving ruleset, fostering a balanced approach to rule innovation. Additionally, I suggest a 1-point bonus for proposals that, while not introducing a novel mechanism, significantly improve the ruleset's coherence or accessibility, thereby recognizing contributions that enhance the overall strategic landscape of the game. This nuanced approach encourages a diverse range of proposals, from groundbreaking innovations to subtle improvements, ensuring a rich and dynamic evolution of our ruleset that values both novelty and practicality.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements by Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene to ensure our scoring system rewards both innovation and strategic depth. To further emphasize clarity and accessibility, I propose a 3-point bonus for proposals that not only introduce novel mechanisms but also include a clear, concise rationale for their strategic impact, aligning with Kleene's principle of procedural clarity. This encourages proposals that are not only innovative but also comprehensible, fostering a dynamic yet manageable evolution of our ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine our scoring system, emphasizing both innovation and strategic depth. To further ensure that our scoring incentives align with these goals, I propose a 2-point bonus for proposals that introduce a novel mechanism with a clear explanation of its strategic significance. This encourages not only creativity but also thoughtful integration into our evolving ruleset, fostering a balanced and engaging game environment. I am open to further discussion and adjustments to reach a consensus that reflects our shared objectives.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative effort to balance innovation and clarity, as emphasized by Tarski, Kleene, and Post. To further align with our shared objectives, I propose adding a 2-point bonus for proposals that enhance both strategic depth and player interaction, ensuring they achieve at least 85% aye votes. This adjustment encourages proposals that enrich gameplay dynamics while maintaining broad support, fostering a dynamic yet accessible evolution of our ruleset. I look forward to your feedback and hope we can reach a consensus.
ChurchI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Tarski, Goedel, Kleene, and Post to balance innovation with strategic depth. To further encourage clarity and accessibility, I suggest incorporating a 2-point bonus for proposals that clearly articulate the strategic impact and rationale of novel mechanisms, ensuring they receive at least 80% aye votes. This approach rewards not only creativity but also proposals that enhance our ruleset's comprehensibility, fostering a fair and engaging game environment.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the emphasis on clarity and strategic depth in our scoring system. To further support this, I propose a 1-point bonus for proposals that successfully simplify existing rules without reducing their strategic impact, encouraging a streamlined and accessible ruleset. This aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment while fostering innovation.
PostPost: I appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far, particularly Kleene's emphasis on simplifying rules without sacrificing strategic depth. To align our incentives with fostering an engaging and accessible ruleset, I propose a slight adjustment: a 2-point bonus for proposals that not only introduce novel mechanisms but also demonstrate a clear, strategic rationale and potential for enhancing player interaction, achieving at least 85% aye votes. This encourages a balance between innovation, clarity, and consensus, supporting a dynamic yet manageable evolution of our ruleset.
The division
TarskiayeThe proposal balances innovation with strategic depth while maintaining fairness.
GoedelayeThis proposal aligns with our shared goal of rewarding innovation and strategic depth.
ChurchayeEncourages innovation while maintaining fairness and strategic depth.
KleeneayeThe proposal aligns with procedural fairness and encourages innovation.
PostayeThe proposal aligns with my goal of rewarding innovation and strategic depth in rule changes.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Tarski's proposal was adopted unanimously, awarding 30 points for introducing a novel mechanism.

Turn 43Goedelcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated for up to five minutes and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted unanimously and introduces a novel mechanism, the proposing player gains 45 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 95% of the votes as aye and the player's score is below 90, they gain an additional 25 points. If a proposal is adopted with at least 90% but less than 95% of the votes as aye, the proposing player gains 20 points. Proposals adopted with less than 90% aye result in a 5-point penalty for the proposer. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted with at least 85% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus. If a proposal is adopted with exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer gains an additional 5-point bonus for reaching the threshold precisely. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted with at least 80% aye votes, the proposer gains a 10-point bonus for achieving broad support. The player also gains 5 points if their proposal is adopted with at least 70% aye votes. An additional 20-point bonus is awarded to the proposer if their rule change introduces a novel mechanism not previously present in the ruleset.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the efforts to streamline and incentivize novel mechanisms, but I propose a modest refinement to ensure balance and avoid overly dramatic swings in scoring. Specifically, let's adjust the unanimous adoption bonus for novel mechanisms to 40 points, with the additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation retained, to maintain strategic depth without disproportionately rewarding a single move. This proposal aligns with our established emphasis on durability and measured change in institutional rules.
GoedelI appreciate Tarski's intention to ensure balance in scoring and recognize the potential impact of dramatic point swings on game dynamics. To harmonize these goals with fostering creativity, I propose a compromise: the unanimous adoption of a novel mechanism grants 42 points, combining our perspectives by slightly raising the base bonus from Tarski's suggestion while keeping innovation rewards appealing. This adjustment aligns with our consensus-building approach and encourages strategic yet innovative proposals.
ChurchI appreciate both Tarski's and Goedel's contributions towards maintaining balance and encouraging innovation. To further align with our shared goal of fairness and strategic engagement, I propose we consider a middle ground: granting 43 points for the unanimous adoption of a novel mechanism. This offers a robust incentive for innovation while ensuring the scoring impact remains proportional and sustainable, encouraging thoughtful and collaborative proposals.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the efforts to balance innovation with fairness. To ensure the game's procedural integrity and reward genuinely creative contributions, I propose an additional 3-point bonus for novel mechanisms adopted with exactly 85% aye votes. This incentivizes precision in consensus-building while maintaining strategic depth, aligning with our principles of measured and fair rule evolution.
PostI appreciate the nuanced discussions around scoring incentives for novel mechanisms. To encourage strategic innovation while maintaining fairness, I propose a unified bonus structure: 42 points for unanimous adoption of a novel mechanism, and an additional 3-point bonus for novel mechanisms adopted with exactly 85% aye votes. This approach balances rewarding creativity with strategic consensus-building, aligning with our shared values of fair and measured rule evolution.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the thoughtful contributions and the balanced proposals put forth by my colleagues. To further ensure strategic depth and fairness, I propose an additional refinement: a 4-point bonus for proposals that introduce a novel mechanism and achieve at least 80% but less than 85% aye votes. This encourages innovative rule changes while recognizing substantial but not complete consensus, aligning with our commitment to sustainable and measured rule evolution. I am open to discussions on this suggestion and willing to negotiate for broader support.
GoedelI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the efforts to balance innovation with fairness. To enhance our collaborative spirit, I propose incorporating a 2-point bonus for proposals that are adopted with at least 75% aye votes, encouraging broader participation and consensus. This adjustment complements our shared goal of fostering strategic engagement and ensures that even significant but not unanimous support is rewarded, promoting inclusive decision-making. I am open to negotiating this proposal further to gather wider support.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collective effort to balance innovation with fairness. To further encourage strategic depth and collaboration, I suggest we refine the bonus for novel mechanisms: 41 points for unanimous adoption, maintaining our commitment to rewarding creativity, and a 3-point bonus for proposals adopted with exactly 80% aye votes, ensuring that substantial consensus is also recognized. This approach aligns with our shared goals of fostering innovation while keeping the game engaging for all. I am open to further discussions to refine this proposal and ensure broad support.
KleeneI appreciate the collaborative refinements proposed by my colleagues. To ensure fairness and encourage strategic depth, I suggest we incorporate a 2-point bonus for proposals that are adopted with exactly 70% aye votes. This recognizes broader consensus and encourages thoughtful participation, aligning with our principles of balanced and inclusive rule evolution. I am open to further discussions to refine this proposal and ensure broad support.
PostI appreciate the collaborative efforts and the nuanced proposals made by my colleagues. To further encourage strategic innovation and maintain fairness, I propose an additional 2-point bonus for proposals that introduce a novel mechanism and are adopted with at least 85% but less than 90% aye votes. This incentivizes innovation while recognizing significant consensus, aligning with our shared goal of fostering thoughtful and balanced rule evolution. I am open to discussions and willing to negotiate for broader support.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the constructive and balanced discussions thus far, which reflect a shared commitment to encouraging innovation while maintaining fairness. To further align with our goals, I propose a slight refinement: a 40-point bonus for the unanimous adoption of a novel mechanism, with the additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation. Additionally, let's introduce a 3-point bonus for novel mechanisms adopted with exactly 90% aye votes, acknowledging substantial consensus without excessive reward. I am open to negotiations to build broad support for this proposal.
GoedelI appreciate the collaborative efforts and the thoughtful proposals by Tarski, Church, Kleene, and Post, which show a strong commitment to balancing innovation and fairness. To further encourage creativity while maintaining game balance, I propose a 38-point bonus for the unanimous adoption of a novel mechanism, with an additional 15-point bonus for fostering innovation, and a 5-point bonus for achieving exactly 85% aye votes. This approach incentivizes groundbreaking ideas while ensuring substantial consensus is rewarded, aligning with our shared values. I'm open to negotiating this proposal to gather wider support.
ChurchI appreciate the collective effort to refine the scoring incentives for novel mechanisms, ensuring they promote innovation while maintaining game balance. To further encourage strategic depth and collaboration, I propose a 39-point bonus for the unanimous adoption of a novel mechanism, combined with a 5-point bonus for achieving exactly 85% aye votes. This balances the reward for creativity with the need for substantial consensus, aligning with our shared goals of fostering innovation while keeping the game engaging for everyone. I am open to discussions to refine this proposal and ensure broad support.
KleeneI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by my colleagues. To further ensure strategic depth and fairness, I suggest a 39-point bonus for the unanimous adoption of a novel mechanism, with a 5-point bonus for exactly 85% aye votes, and a 3-point bonus for exactly 80% aye votes. This balances innovation with substantial consensus, aligning with our principles of fair and measured rule evolution. I am open to further discussions to refine this proposal and ensure broad support.
PostI appreciate the collaborative refinements and the balanced proposals aimed at encouraging innovation while maintaining fairness. To further support this, I propose we introduce a 4-point bonus for novel mechanisms adopted with at least 87.5% but less than 90% aye votes. This incentivizes innovative proposals while recognizing substantial consensus, aligning with our shared commitment to strategic and fair rule evolution. I am open to discussing and negotiating this proposal to ensure broad support.
The division
TarskiayeThis proposal balances innovation with strategic depth and fairness.
GoedelayeThis proposal balances innovation and strategic depth, encouraging creativity while ensuring fair point distribution.
ChurchayeThe proposal balances innovation and consensus.
KleeneayeThis proposal balances innovation incentives with strategic depth.
PostayeThis proposal balances innovation with strategic consensus-building.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted unanimously and introduced a novel mechanism, awarding Goedel 45 points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 42Tarskirejected

moves to amend §201Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, but may request a one-time reordering of the turn sequence once per game, which requires unanimous consent from all eligible players.

Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the idea of introducing a mechanism for flexibility in turn order, as it could encourage collaboration and adaptability. However, I am concerned that requiring unanimous consent for such a change could lead to strategic deadlock, especially if some players are unwilling to cooperate for their own benefit. To mitigate this, I propose a modification: instead of unanimous consent, a supermajority (75% of the votes) could authorize a one-time reordering of the turn sequence. This strikes a balance between flexibility and stability, allowing players to adapt while maintaining the integrity of the ruleset. PASS
GoedelPASS I appreciate Tarski's consideration for both flexibility and stability in turn order. The supermajority requirement seems like a thoughtful compromise to prevent strategic deadlock while allowing for occasional adaptation. This proposal could enhance strategic collaboration without risking the game's stability.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful approach Tarski has taken to balance flexibility with stability in the turn order. The supermajority requirement seems fair, as it prevents any single player or a small coalition from unilaterally changing the order, which could disrupt the strategic planning of others. However, I wonder if we should also consider limiting the frequency of such reordering requests to prevent potential abuse, even with a supermajority requirement. Perhaps a rule could be added to allow only one reordering request per game, ensuring that this flexibility is used judiciously. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the proposal's aim for strategic adaptability and the balance it seeks to achieve with a supermajority requirement. However, to further prevent potential strategic deadlock and ensure fairness, I suggest adding a condition that the reordering can only occur after a certain number of turns, say 10, have passed. This ensures that all players have had a fair opportunity to engage with the game under the initial order before any reordering can be considered. Additionally, I propose including a clause that any reordering must not disproportionately benefit the proposer, perhaps by ensuring that the proposer does not move to the next immediate position in the sequence. This would help maintain a level playing field and discourage strategic manipulation of the turn order. PASS
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone. Tarski's proposal for a supermajority requirement adds a layer of balance by preventing unilateral changes to the turn order. Goedel and Church's suggestions to limit reordering requests to once per game and after a minimum number of turns further enhance fairness and prevent strategic manipulation. Kleene's idea to ensure the reordering does not disproportionately benefit the proposer is particularly insightful, as it discourages opportunistic behavior. To integrate these ideas, I propose the following amendment to Tarski's proposal: "Players may request a one-time reordering of the turn sequence once per game, which requires a supermajority (75% of the votes) and can only be requested after at least 10 turns have passed. Any reordering must ensure that the proposer does not move to the next immediate position in the sequence." This approach maintains flexibility while safeguarding against potential abuses, ensuring a fair and strategic game environment.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it maintains fairness and strategic depth. The incorporation of a supermajority requirement, a limit of one reordering per game, and a restriction against immediate positional advantage for the proposer are all prudent measures. To further enhance fairness, I propose adding a clause that the reordering must not result in any player's turn being delayed beyond one subsequent cycle of the turn order. This ensures that even with a change, each player still experiences the intended frequency of play. PASS
GoedelI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. The current amendment ensures a balanced and fair approach to reordering the turn sequence, with measures like the supermajority requirement, a single reordering per game, and restrictions to prevent immediate positional advantage for the proposer. These changes promote strategic collaboration while maintaining the game's integrity. To further bolster fairness, I suggest adding a provision that any reordering should be publicly justified in writing before voting, ensuring transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. This would allow all players to understand the rationale behind the request, fostering trust and discouraging strategic manipulation. PASS
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by all players in shaping this proposal. The inclusion of a justification requirement is an excellent addition, promoting transparency and accountability. To further enhance fairness and prevent potential strategic manipulation, I propose adding a clause that any reordering must be reviewed by an impartial third-party observer (e.g., the player with the lowest score at the time of the request) to ensure that the rationale is sound and not solely for strategic gain. This additional layer of oversight would help maintain the integrity of the game and foster trust among players. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it remains fair and balanced. The requirement for a public justification and third-party review adds valuable transparency and accountability. To further prevent strategic manipulation, I propose a clause that any reordering decision must be made without knowledge of the current scores, ensuring impartiality. This would prevent players from being influenced by their current standing, maintaining the focus on strategic collaboration rather than opportunistic gain. PASS
PostI appreciate the comprehensive efforts from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and myself to refine this proposal, ensuring it promotes strategic adaptability while maintaining fairness. The inclusion of measures like the supermajority requirement, public justification, third-party review, and impartiality in decision-making are all prudent steps to prevent strategic manipulation. To further enhance the proposal's integrity, I suggest adding a clause that any reordering decision must be revisited and confirmed by a simple majority (50% + 1) of players after the next full cycle of turns. This ensures that the reordering is beneficial and not solely advantageous in the short term, reinforcing the collaborative spirit and long-term strategic planning. PASS
Discussion · round 3
TarskiI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it remains fair and balanced. The suggestions for public justification, third-party review, impartiality, and revisiting the decision are all valuable. To further maintain stability and prevent strategic manipulation, I propose adding a clause that explicitly states the reordering cannot be proposed by the player who currently holds the highest score. This ensures that the most advantaged player does not influence the sequence to their benefit, maintaining a level playing field. PASS
GoedelI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it promotes fairness and strategic depth. The inclusion of measures such as the supermajority requirement, public justification, third-party review, impartiality, and revisiting the decision are all commendable steps to prevent strategic manipulation. To further enhance transparency and maintain trust among players, I propose adding a clause that all justifications and third-party reviews be documented and stored, accessible to all players, ensuring accountability and providing a clear record of the decision-making process. This would help in maintaining the integrity of the game and foster a collaborative environment. PASS
ChurchI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to this proposal, particularly the emphasis on transparency, accountability, and fairness. The inclusion of documentation for justifications and third-party reviews is a thoughtful addition, ensuring that all decisions are clear and accessible, which fosters trust among players. To further enhance the collaborative spirit, I propose adding a clause that any player who abstains from voting on a reordering request must provide a brief written explanation. This would ensure that all players remain engaged and consider the implications of each decision, promoting a more inclusive and thoughtful decision-making process. PASS
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thorough efforts of all participants in refining this proposal. To further ensure fairness, I propose adding a clause that any reordering cannot alter the sequence such that the proposer benefits within two full cycles of the turn order. This would prevent players from manipulating the order to gain immediate, albeit delayed, advantages. PASS
PostPost: I appreciate the collaborative effort to enhance this proposal. The suggestion to prevent immediate and near-term advantages for the proposer is astute, ensuring fairness and strategic integrity. To further support this, I propose adding a clause that any reordering proposal must include a rationale for how it benefits the collective strategic goals, not just individual players. This would encourage proposals that genuinely improve the game's dynamics for everyone involved. PASS
The division
TarskinayThe proposal lacks sufficient checks against strategic manipulation.
GoedelayeThe proposal balances flexibility and stability, enhancing strategic collaboration.
ChurchayeThe proposal maintains fairness and strategic balance with its comprehensive safeguards.
KleenenayUnanimous consent requirement risks strategic deadlock.
PostayeEnhances strategic flexibility while maintaining fairness.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 206 mandates a 5-point penalty for the proposer of a defeated proposal.

Verify this game
Seed
556130361
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/080/events.json
Audit result
clean