§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

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

Two seats crossed the table's own win line, and the game kept going anyway.

Observations

Fifty turns and thirty-nine adoptions produced a full sweep — every seat finished positive, led by Russell at 156 and Frege at 122. Both had already passed the ninety-point threshold the table itself had written, by turn thirty-eight, but the game never stopped for it; the two leaders' scores just kept compounding for another dozen turns before the clock ran out.

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

The last amendment
Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.5 if under 25% of votes, 1.8 if 26-40%, 2.0 if 41-55%, 2.3 if 56-70%, 2.6 if 71-85%, and 3.0 if 86% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next two turns.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.5 if under 25% of votes, 1.8 if 26-40%, 2.0 if 41-55%, 2.3 if 56-70%, 2.6 if 71-85%, and 3.0 if 86% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next two turns.amended this turn
Full history (27)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.5 if under 25% of votes, 1.8 if 26-40%, 2.0 if 41-55%, 2.3 if 56-70%, 2.6 if 71-85%, and 3.0 if 86% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next two turns.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.3 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.6 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 30% of votes, 1.7 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.0 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.3 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.8 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.3 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.6 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.5 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 30% of votes, 1.7 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.0 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.3 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.8 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.5 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.7 if under 50% of votes, 1.9 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.1 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.3 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.6 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.7 if under 50% of votes, 1.9 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.1 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.3 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.6 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier that depends on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under a simple majority, 1.8 if a simple majority, 2.0 if a two-thirds majority, and 2.2 if unanimous.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.6, provided that the change receives a simple majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier that depends on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under a simple majority, 1.8 if a simple majority, 2.0 if a two-thirds majority, and 2.2 if unanimous.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.3, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.6, provided that the change receives a simple majority.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.8, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.3, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.8, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.4, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.3.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.4, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.5 if they successfully pass a rule change with a simple majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.3.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 8 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a simple majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.5 if they successfully pass a rule change with a simple majority.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 7 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a three-fifths majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 8 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a simple majority.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 10 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a three-fifths majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 7 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a three-fifths majority.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 5 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 10 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a three-fifths majority.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes or forfeit the die throw for an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 5 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a two-thirds majority.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to instead forfeit the die throw for an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes or forfeit the die throw for an additional 5 points.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to instead forfeit the die throw for an additional 5 points.
  27. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a three-fifths majority of eligible voters vote aye, and this requirement is permanent.A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of eligible voters vote aye.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a three-fifths majority of eligible voters vote aye, and this requirement is permanent.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a two-thirds majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a three-fifths majority of eligible voters vote aye, and this requirement is permanent.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a two-thirds majority of those voting.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a two-thirds majority of those voting.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  8. 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 it receives a two-thirds majority; a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once it receives a two-thirds majority; a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. 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 at the beginning of the proposer's next turn.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §205 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.An adopted rule change takes effect at the beginning of the proposer's next turn.
  2. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and a proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal passed with at least two-thirds majority, in which case the proposer gains 10 points.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and a proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal passed with at least two-thirds majority, in which case the proposer gains 10 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 every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 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 and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.5 if under 25% of votes, 1.8 if 26-40%, 2.0 if 41-55%, 2.3 if 56-70%, 2.6 if 71-85%, and 3.0 if 86% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next two turns.amended this turn
Full history (27)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.5 if under 25% of votes, 1.8 if 26-40%, 2.0 if 41-55%, 2.3 if 56-70%, 2.6 if 71-85%, and 3.0 if 86% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next two turns.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.3 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.6 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 30% of votes, 1.7 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.0 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.3 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.8 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.3 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.6 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.5 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 30% of votes, 1.7 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.0 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.3 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.8 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.5 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.7 if under 50% of votes, 1.9 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.1 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.3 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.6 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.7 if under 50% of votes, 1.9 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.1 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.3 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.6 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier that depends on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under a simple majority, 1.8 if a simple majority, 2.0 if a two-thirds majority, and 2.2 if unanimous.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 50% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.6, provided that the change receives a simple majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier that depends on the number of ayes: 1.6 if under a simple majority, 1.8 if a simple majority, 2.0 if a two-thirds majority, and 2.2 if unanimous.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.3, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.6, provided that the change receives a simple majority.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.8, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.3, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.8, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.4, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.6, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.3.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.4, provided that the change receives a minimum of two-thirds majority.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.5 if they successfully pass a rule change with a simple majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.3.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 8 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a simple majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by 1.5 if they successfully pass a rule change with a simple majority.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 7 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a three-fifths majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 8 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a simple majority.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 10 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a three-fifths majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 7 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a three-fifths majority.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 5 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 10 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a three-fifths majority.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes or forfeit the die throw for an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes plus an additional 5 points if they successfully pass a rule change with a two-thirds majority.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to instead forfeit the die throw for an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes or forfeit the die throw for an additional 5 points.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to instead forfeit the die throw for an additional 5 points.
  27. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.mutable
Full history (8)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a three-fifths majority of eligible voters vote aye, and this requirement is permanent.A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of eligible voters vote aye.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a three-fifths majority of eligible voters vote aye, and this requirement is permanent.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a two-thirds majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a three-fifths majority of eligible voters vote aye, and this requirement is permanent.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a two-thirds majority of those voting.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a two-thirds majority of those voting.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
  8. 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 it receives a two-thirds majority; a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once it receives a two-thirds majority; a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. 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 at the beginning of the proposer's next turn.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §205 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.An adopted rule change takes effect at the beginning of the proposer's next turn.
  2. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and a proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal passed with at least two-thirds majority, in which case the proposer gains 10 points.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.An adopted rule change takes effect immediately after the vote, and a proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. The proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal passed with at least two-thirds majority, in which case the proposer gains 10 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 every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 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
Frege122
Russell156
Quine25
Carnap15
Wittgenstein15
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 40–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 5

Turn 50Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.5 if under 25% of votes, 1.8 if 26-40%, 2.0 if 41-55%, 2.3 if 56-70%, 2.6 if 71-85%, and 3.0 if 86% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next two turns.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the effort to adjust the multipliers and bonus threshold, but I must express concerns regarding the reduced bonus duration and the lowered threshold for collaboration incentives. Reducing the bonus from void after three turns to just two could discourage long-term strategic planning, as players might be less inclined to propose ambitious changes that could benefit the game in the long run. Similarly, lowering the bonus threshold from 85% to 80% aye votes might encourage more frequent, less thoroughly considered proposals, potentially leading to instability in our evolving rule set. To maintain a balance between encouraging collaboration and ensuring the stability and thoughtfulness of proposed changes, I propose a modification: instead of reducing the duration and threshold, we could consider adjusting the multiplier values to better reflect the level of consensus. For example, introducing a slight increase in the multipliers for higher consensus brackets could incentivize players to seek broader agreement on more impactful changes, without compromising the stability and strategic depth we value. Moreover, to address concerns about the longevity and impact of proposed changes, we might introduce a clause that allows a proposing player to secure a temporary immunity from the voiding of their bonus for changes that reach a specific threshold of aye votes, say 95%. This would reward highly collaborative and widely supported proposals, ensuring that impactful rule changes can be made with a degree of certainty regarding their permanence. In summary, while I recognize the intention behind the proposed amendments to [202], I believe that maintaining a slightly higher threshold for collaboration bonuses and considering adjustments to the multiplier values, rather than reducing the bonus duration, would better serve our collective goal of fostering a stable yet dynamic and collaborative rule-making environment. PASS
RussellRussell: Frege raises valid points about maintaining long-term strategic planning and ensuring thoughtful proposals. To strike a balance, I propose a slight modification: instead of lowering the bonus duration to two turns, let's set it at three turns but offer an additional incentive—a 1-point bonus if the change remains unaltered for all three turns. This approach maintains the current threshold for collaboration while adding an extra layer of motivation for stability. By doing so, we encourage both collaboration and careful consideration of the rule changes, ensuring a stable yet dynamic environment for all players.
QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's perspectives on maintaining strategic depth and stability. Frege's suggestion to adjust multipliers for higher consensus brackets could indeed incentivize broader agreement on impactful changes. However, I'm concerned about potentially discouraging proposals that might initially receive less consensus but are crucial for long-term strategy. A possible compromise could be to introduce a tiered bonus system: a base bonus for proposals with more than 80% aye votes, and an additional bonus for those exceeding 90% aye votes. This way, we reward broad consensus without discouraging proposals that might initially seem less popular. Additionally, maintaining the three-turn duration for the bonus, as Russell suggested, with an extra incentive for unaltered changes, seems a fair way to encourage thoughtful proposals while ensuring stability. This approach aligns with our goal of fostering a collaborative yet strategic environment. PASS
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Frege's and Russell's suggestions for maintaining strategic depth and stability. Frege's idea of adjusting multipliers for higher consensus brackets is prudent, as it encourages broader agreement on impactful changes. Russell's proposal for a tiered bonus system with an additional incentive for changes that remain unaltered is also wise, as it balances immediate rewards with long-term stability. This approach aligns with my principle of ensuring that rule changes are both collaborative and well-considered, fostering a dynamic yet stable environment. Therefore, I support a modified version of the proposal that includes both Frege's and Russell's enhancements, ensuring that collaboration is rewarded while strategic depth is maintained. PASS
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. Frege's emphasis on maintaining strategic depth and stability is crucial, and Russell's tiered bonus system with an additional incentive for unaltered changes is a commendable compromise. However, I suggest we also consider introducing a mechanism for periodic review of the multipliers and bonuses, allowing us to adapt them based on gameplay dynamics and player feedback. This would ensure that our rule-making environment remains both fair and responsive to the evolving nature of the game. Let's incorporate this adaptive mechanism into our proposal to further enhance our collaborative and strategic framework.
Discussion · round 2
FregeThank you to everyone for their thoughtful contributions. I appreciate Wittgenstein's suggestion to include a mechanism for periodic review of the multipliers and bonuses. This adaptive approach can ensure our rules remain fair and responsive to changes in gameplay dynamics. Let's incorporate this mechanism to balance long-term strategic depth with the ability to make necessary adjustments, thereby fostering a collaborative environment that is both stable and dynamic.
RussellRussell: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by Frege, Wittgenstein, Quine, and Carnap. The proposed adaptive mechanism for periodic review of multipliers and bonuses is a prudent addition, ensuring our rules can evolve with the game dynamics. Let's finalize this proposal by incorporating both the tiered bonus system and the adaptive review mechanism, thereby encouraging strategic depth and maintaining a balanced, responsive rule-making environment. PASS
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to this well-rounded proposal, incorporating both strategic depth and adaptability. To further refine our approach, I suggest we include a clause for a special review process if a rule change significantly alters gameplay dynamics, ensuring any such changes are made with broad consensus and careful consideration. This addition would provide a safety net, allowing us to address unforeseen consequences while maintaining the flexibility and responsiveness of our ruleset.
CarnapPASS. I commend the collective effort to incorporate strategic depth, adaptability, and safety measures into our proposal. The inclusion of a special review process for rule changes that significantly alter gameplay dynamics is a prudent addition, ensuring such changes are made thoughtfully and with broad consensus. This approach aligns well with my principles of maintaining a stable yet flexible rule-making environment.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Quine's suggestion to include a special review process for significant gameplay-altering changes. To ensure thorough consideration, let's add a requirement that such reviews involve a supermajority vote, reflecting a broad consensus on the importance and impact of the change. This addition will help maintain stability while allowing necessary adaptations, ensuring our game remains fair and engaging for all players. PASS
Discussion · round 3
FregePASS. I appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the proposal's evolution into a robust framework that balances strategic depth with adaptability. The inclusion of a special review process with a supermajority requirement for significant changes is a prudent measure to ensure stability and broad consensus, aligning well with our collective goals of fostering a collaborative and dynamic rule-making environment.
RussellRussell: Thank you, Frege, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, for the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. To further enhance our adaptability, I suggest we include a mechanism allowing players to suggest adjustments to multipliers and bonuses during a special review session every ten turns. This ensures our rules remain responsive and fair throughout the game, balancing strategic depth with ongoing player input. Let's incorporate this into our proposal to create a truly dynamic yet stable environment. PASS
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort and the comprehensive proposal that has emerged. To further enhance the adaptability and fairness of our rule-making process, I suggest including a mechanism for players to propose adjustments to the multipliers and bonuses during a special review session every ten turns. This ensures our rules remain responsive to gameplay dynamics and player feedback, fostering a balanced environment that encourages strategic depth and collaboration. Let's incorporate this into our proposal to maintain a dynamic yet stable game. PASS
CarnapPASS I appreciate the comprehensive proposal that has emerged from our discussions. The incorporation of mechanisms for periodic review and adaptability, along with a supermajority requirement for significant changes, aligns well with the principles of fairness and stability in our rule-making environment. This collaborative approach ensures that our game remains dynamic yet balanced, fostering both strategic depth and a fair playing field for all participants.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: Thank you, Russell and Quine, for the insightful suggestions. I believe incorporating a mechanism for players to propose adjustments every ten turns, coupled with the supermajority review process, provides a robust framework for adaptability and stability. This ensures our game remains fair and responsive to player needs while fostering a collaborative environment. Let's finalize this proposal to maintain a dynamic yet balanced rule-making process. PASS
The division
FregeayeThe proposal maintains strategic depth and promotes collaboration.
RussellayeThe proposal balances adaptability with collaboration and stability.
QuineayeThe proposal balances strategic depth with collaboration, and the periodic review ensures adaptability.
CarnapayeThis amendment balances collaboration and strategic depth.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal balances strategic depth and collaborative incentives effectively.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so according to rule 206, Frege gains 10 points.

Turn 49Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led us to this refined proposal. However, I would like to raise a concern regarding the reduced window of three turns for the bonus voidance. A shorter window may disproportionately penalize well-intentioned strategic amendments and could discourage beneficial iterative improvements to rules. To maintain balance and encourage thoughtful rule development, I propose retaining the original five-turn period for the bonus voidance. This adjustment aligns with our shared goal of fostering both collaboration and strategic depth while ensuring rule changes are given sufficient consideration.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's concern about the three-turn window potentially stifling beneficial amendments. To balance the desire for collaboration with the need for strategic flexibility, I propose a compromise: setting the voidance window to four turns. This middle ground should encourage thoughtful collaboration while allowing for timely rule improvements. Let's work together to find a solution that supports both collaboration and innovation.
QuineI appreciate Russell's willingness to find a middle ground with a four-turn voidance window. However, to further balance collaboration and rule stability, I propose we introduce a clause that allows for amendments if they are directly aimed at clarifying the language or correcting oversights without altering the rule's core intent. This ensures that only significant strategic changes risk the bonus, preserving both the spirit of collaboration and the integrity of rule evolution.
CarnapCarnap: I commend the proposal to lower the voidance window to four turns as a step towards balancing collaboration with rule stability. However, to ensure clarity and avoid potential disputes, I propose adding a precise definition of what constitutes a "clarification" or "correction of an oversight" to guide future amendments. This would align with our principle of clear procedural guidelines, ensuring fairness and consistency in rule evolution.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To build on these ideas, I suggest implementing a review mechanism where any amendment within the four-turn window can be assessed by a neutral party, perhaps the player with the median score, to determine if it aligns with the proposed criteria of clarification or oversight correction. This would add an extra layer of fairness and ensure that the bonus voidance is applied judiciously, maintaining both collaboration and the integrity of our evolving ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I commend Wittgenstein's suggestion for a review mechanism, which introduces an objective element to rule amendments. To further enhance clarity and fairness, I propose that the neutral party's decision be final and binding, ensuring that the process is not only fair but also efficient, thereby maintaining the integrity of our evolving ruleset while supporting thoughtful collaboration. Let's incorporate this finality to streamline the process and prevent prolonged disputes.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Wittgenstein's suggestion of a review mechanism, which indeed introduces fairness into the process. To build on this, I propose that we establish a simple majority vote among all players as an alternative to the neutral party review, should there be disputes about the amendment's intent. This ensures that the decision-making process remains collaborative and inclusive, while still maintaining a streamlined approach. Let's integrate this alternative mechanism to balance fairness and efficiency in our evolving ruleset.
QuineI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the various proposals to enhance fairness and collaboration. To ensure the review mechanism is both efficient and inclusive, I suggest that if the neutral party's decision is contested, a simple majority vote among players should be held within one turn to finalize the decision. This approach balances the need for a fair process with the game's dynamic nature, preventing delays in rule evolution. Let's incorporate this to maintain both the spirit of collaboration and the integrity of our ruleset.
CarnapI commend the proposal for incorporating both a review mechanism and a simple majority vote, which balances fairness with efficiency. However, to ensure procedural clarity, I propose specifying that the neutral party's decision must be announced at the start of the next turn following their review. This timeline will maintain transparency and prevent delays in rule evolution, aligning with our commitment to clear and fair processes. Let's integrate this timeline to uphold our principled approach to rule changes.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the collaborative spirit that has brought us to this nuanced solution, balancing fairness with procedural efficiency. To ensure transparency and prevent potential deadlock, I propose that if the simple majority vote is tied, the decision defaults to the neutral party's initial review. This safeguard maintains the integrity of our evolving ruleset while supporting thoughtful collaboration. Let's finalize this to ensure a streamlined and fair amendment process.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative and thoughtful evolution of this proposal. To further refine our process and ensure clarity, I suggest that the neutral party's decision, if contested, be announced at the start of the turn following the review, with the simple majority vote to resolve ties held at the end of the same turn. This ensures timely decision-making and maintains procedural efficiency, aligning with our commitment to both collaboration and fairness in rule evolution. Let's incorporate these timelines to streamline our amendment process.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Wittgenstein's proposal for handling ties in the review process, which adds another layer of fairness. To ensure that all players are prepared for potential tie resolutions, I suggest including a requirement for players to declare their stance on the neutral party's decision during the same turn it's announced, before moving to a vote. This encourages active participation and strategic engagement with the decision-making process. Let's adopt this approach to enhance both fairness and clarity in our evolving ruleset.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining the proposal. To ensure clarity and efficiency in the amendment process, I propose that the neutral party's decision, once announced, triggers an immediate, binding vote within the same turn. This ensures timely resolutions and maintains the integrity and dynamism of our evolving ruleset. Let's incorporate this to streamline our amendment process while supporting thoughtful collaboration.
CarnapCarnap: I commend the proposal for an immediate binding vote following the neutral party's announcement, which supports both efficiency and fairness. To ensure alignment with our principled approach, I suggest explicitly stating that any amendment, whether for clarification or oversight correction, must be documented with a rationale, ensuring transparency and adherence to our procedural standards. Let's adopt this to maintain clarity and integrity in our rule evolution process.
WittgensteinI commend the collaborative efforts thus far, and I appreciate the proposal for immediate binding votes, which supports fairness and efficiency. To further refine our process and maintain transparency, I suggest that each player's vote on the neutral party's decision should be recorded and made publicly accessible after the vote concludes. This ensures accountability and aligns with our commitment to clear procedural guidelines, enhancing both the integrity and trustworthiness of our evolving ruleset. Let's incorporate this transparency measure to strengthen our collaborative framework.
The division
FregeayeThis proposal balances collaboration and fairness with a clear and structured amendment process.
RussellayeThe proposal balances fairness and collaboration effectively.
QuineayeThe proposal balances collaboration with strategic depth effectively.
CarnapayeThe proposal maintains clear procedural guidelines and balances collaboration with strategic flexibility.
WittgensteinayeThe refined proposal balances collaboration with strategic depth, enhancing fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so he gains 10 points per rule 206.

Turn 48Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 4 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the ongoing discussion about the point multipliers and bonuses in rule [202]. To address the issue of the 3-point bonus being too easily voided, I propose maintaining the 85% threshold but extending the duration to ten turns before the bonus can be voided by an amendment or repeal. This adjustment seeks to maintain a balance between encouraging collaboration and ensuring the longevity of impactful rule changes. Additionally, I suggest a slight increase in the multiplier for 81-85% votes to 2.2, bridging the current gap and incentivizing a higher level of consensus without reaching the highest threshold. This change would encourage players to aim for broader agreement while maintaining strategic depth. These adjustments could help preserve the integrity of rule changes and provide a more stable framework for scoring, aligning with our shared interest in promoting thoughtful collaboration and long-term planning.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's proposal to extend the duration for the 4-point bonus to ten turns; it offers a more stable incentive for collaboration. To build on that, I suggest we also consider a slight adjustment to the multiplier for 66-80% votes, perhaps raising it to 2.5. This change could further encourage players to seek broader consensus while maintaining the balance between reward and effort. Let's ensure these adjustments are crafted to gain wide support and avoid past pitfalls of re-proposing similar changes.
QuineI appreciate Frege's effort to stabilize the 4-point bonus duration and increase the multiplier for 81-85% votes to 2.2. To ensure these changes are beneficial and widely supported, I suggest we also include a provision that adjusts the threshold for the 3-point bonus from 85% to 82%, aligning it with the new multiplier adjustment. This would encourage players to aim for a slightly broader consensus without significantly altering the current dynamics. Let's aim for a balanced proposal that fosters collaboration and strategic depth, ensuring it garners the necessary support from all players.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Frege's and Russell's proposals to adjust the bonus duration and multipliers in rule [202]. However, I am concerned that increasing the bonus threshold to 80% and extending the void period to ten turns might disincentivize collaboration. To address this, I propose a middle ground: keep the 85% threshold for the 4-point bonus but extend the void period to only five turns, ensuring that impactful rules have a chance to influence the game without being too easily voided. Additionally, I suggest setting the multiplier for 66-80% votes to 2.4, providing a smoother incentive curve for achieving broader consensus. This balanced approach should encourage thoughtful collaboration while maintaining strategic depth.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone and the effort to find a balanced approach to rule [202]. To enhance collaboration while maintaining strategic depth, I propose we retain the 85% threshold for the 4-point bonus but introduce a sliding scale for the void period: five turns for the first amendment or repeal, increasing to ten if no changes occur within that period. This encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposals. Additionally, I suggest adjusting the multiplier for 66-80% votes to 2.4, aligning with Carnap's suggestion, to encourage broader consensus without significant disruption to current dynamics. This balanced approach should foster a collaborative environment while preserving the strategic richness of the game.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the constructive contributions from all players in refining rule [202]. To address the concerns raised and ensure a proposal that garners broad support, I propose the following compromise: - Maintain the 85% threshold for the 4-point bonus but extend the void period to seven turns before it can be voided by an amendment or repeal. This offers a balanced approach, providing stability for impactful rules while still encouraging collaboration. - Set the multiplier for 66-80% votes at 2.4, as suggested by Carnap and Wittgenstein. This adjustment incentivizes broader consensus without disrupting the current strategic dynamics. - Introduce a sliding scale for the void period of the 4-point bonus, starting at five turns and extending to ten if no changes occur within that period, as proposed by Wittgenstein. This encourages players to consider the long-term impact of their proposals. This balanced proposal aims to foster collaboration and strategic depth while maintaining the integrity of rule changes.
RussellI appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative effort to refine rule [202]. The proposed sliding scale for the void period of the 4-point bonus is a thoughtful addition, encouraging players to consider the long-term impact of their proposals. I support maintaining the 85% threshold for the bonus but suggest we implement a cap on the number of times a player can earn this bonus per game, ensuring that collaboration remains a strategic choice rather than a repetitive tactic. This could further balance the incentive structure and encourage diverse strategies.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful proposals discussed so far. To further refine and ensure broad support for the amended rule [202], I propose incorporating a cap on the number of times a player can earn the 4-point bonus, as suggested by Russell. This cap could be set at two instances per game, which would encourage players to strategize more diversely and prevent repetitive tactics. Additionally, I support the sliding scale for the void period, as it provides a nuanced approach to maintaining the integrity of impactful rule changes while fostering long-term strategic planning. This balanced proposal should align well with our shared interest in promoting thoughtful collaboration and maintaining the strategic depth of the game. Let's aim for a consensus that reflects these considerations.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative spirit shown in refining rule [202]. The sliding scale for the void period is a balanced approach, and I agree with Quine's suggestion to implement a cap of two instances per game for the 4-point bonus. This will encourage diverse strategies and prevent over-reliance on a single tactic. Let's ensure these changes are clearly articulated and gain the necessary support for adoption. I propose finalizing the amendment as follows: maintain the 85% threshold for the 4-point bonus, extend the void period to seven turns with a sliding scale up to ten, set the multiplier for 66-80% votes at 2.4, and introduce a cap of two bonuses per game. This proposal should encourage thoughtful collaboration while maintaining strategic depth.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the balanced proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. The cap on the 4-point bonus, along with the sliding scale for the void period, ensures strategic depth and prevents repetitive tactics. To solidify support, I propose we emphasize the collaborative nature of this amendment and its alignment with our shared goal of enhancing the game's fairness and strategic richness. This proposal should foster a dynamic and engaging environment for all players, encouraging thoughtful collaboration and long-term planning. Let's aim for unanimous support and proceed with this well-considered amendment.
Discussion · round 3
FregePass. I commend the comprehensive and collaborative effort that has led to this well-considered amendment. The proposal effectively balances the need for strategic depth and long-term planning while promoting a dynamic and engaging environment for all players. It addresses the concerns raised and provides a thoughtful approach to enhancing the game's fairness and collaborative spirit.
RussellPass. The current proposal seems to encapsulate a thoughtful compromise that balances strategic depth with collaborative incentives. By maintaining the 85% threshold, implementing a sliding scale for the void period, setting the multiplier for 66-80% votes at 2.4, and capping the 4-point bonus at two instances, it addresses the concerns raised and promotes a fair and engaging gameplay environment. This amendment aligns well with our shared interest in fostering thoughtful collaboration and maintaining the integrity of rule changes. Let's aim for unanimous support and proceed with this well-considered amendment.
QuineI fully support the current form of the proposal. It thoughtfully balances the need for strategic planning and collaboration, ensuring that rule changes are impactful and long-lasting. The sliding scale for the void period, the cap on the 4-point bonus, and the adjusted multipliers all contribute to a fair and engaging gameplay experience. Let's proceed with this amendment and aim for unanimous support.
CarnapPass. The proposal has evolved into a balanced amendment that thoughtfully addresses concerns about collaboration and strategic depth. Maintaining the 85% threshold, implementing the sliding scale for the void period, setting the multiplier for 66-80% votes at 2.4, and capping the 4-point bonus at two instances should ensure broad support and enhance fairness and engagement in the game.
WittgensteinPass. The proposal reflects a well-balanced approach to fostering collaboration while maintaining strategic depth. The consensus reached through thoughtful discussion and negotiation should encourage broad support, aligning with our shared goal of enhancing the game's fairness and dynamic engagement. Let's proceed with unanimous support and adopt this amendment.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal balances strategic depth and collaboration effectively.
RussellayeThis proposal balances collaboration incentives with strategic depth effectively.
QuineayeThe proposal balances collaboration with strategic depth.
CarnapayeThe proposal balances strategic depth and collaboration fairly.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal balances collaboration and strategic depth effectively.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege's proposal was adopted with 100% aye votes, earning 15 points for the two-thirds majority and an additional 5 points for the 80%+ aye votes bonus.

Turn 47Russellrejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.6 if under 30% of votes, 1.8 if 31-50%, 2.0 if 51-66%, 2.3 if 67-89%, and 2.6 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's initiative to encourage collaboration with a higher bonus, but I have concerns about its potential volatility. The current bonus structure has served well in maintaining a balanced approach to collaboration and competition. Reducing the duration before a bonus becomes void from five to three turns might lead to excessive volatility, potentially destabilizing the strategic depth of the game. I propose maintaining the five-turn safeguard but am open to discussing a moderate increase in the bonus, say to 4 points, as a compromise. This would still incentivize collaboration without excessively risking the strategic stability we've managed to achieve.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about stability and volatility. Encouraging collaboration with a higher bonus is crucial for a dynamic game, but we must balance it. I propose a compromise: increase the bonus to 4 points, as Frege suggests, but keep the safeguard at three turns. This change maintains collaboration incentives while ensuring we don't compromise strategic depth. Let's discuss how this proposal aligns with our goals for a balanced and engaging game.
QuineI appreciate the compromise suggested by Frege and Russell to increase the bonus to 4 points while keeping the safeguard at three turns. This adjustment seems to strike a good balance between encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic stability. I support this proposal as it stands, as it aligns with our goal of a fair and engaging game for all players.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the proposed compromise to increase the bonus to 4 points while keeping the safeguard at three turns. This adjustment seems to balance the need for collaboration with the stability of our strategic framework. I support this proposal as it stands, aligning with our procedural principles and maintaining fairness for all players.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposed compromise to increase the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard. This proposal effectively balances collaboration incentives with strategic stability, aligning with our shared vision of a fair and engaging game. I support this proposal as it stands, confident it will enhance the dynamics of play for all participants.
Discussion · round 2
FregeThank you, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, for reaching a consensus on the proposed changes to [202]. I support the compromise to increase the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard. This proposal thoughtfully balances the encouragement of collaboration with the strategic depth of the game. Let's proceed with this amendment. PASS.
RussellPASS. I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the consensus reached on the proposed amendment to [202]. This balanced approach encourages collaboration while maintaining strategic stability, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and engaging game.
QuinePASS. I appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus reached on amending [202]. The proposed changes to increase the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard effectively balance collaboration incentives with strategic stability. This amendment aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game for all players, and I support it as it stands.
CarnapI appreciate the consensus reached on increasing the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard. This compromise aligns with our shared goal of encouraging collaboration without compromising strategic stability. PASS.
WittgensteinPASS. This amendment strikes a harmonious balance between promoting collaboration and preserving strategic depth, aligning well with our shared vision of a fair and engaging game.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative spirit we've shown in reaching this consensus. The proposed amendment to increase the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard effectively balances collaboration incentives with the strategic depth of the game. PASS.
RussellPASS. I appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus achieved. The proposed amendment effectively balances collaboration incentives with strategic stability, and I support it as it stands.
QuineI appreciate the consensus reached on the proposed amendment to [202]. Increasing the bonus to 4 points while maintaining the three-turn safeguard strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging collaboration and preserving strategic stability. PASS.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative spirit and thoughtful deliberations that have led us to this well-considered proposal. By increasing the bonus to 4 points and maintaining the three-turn safeguard, we have struck a balance between encouraging collaboration and preserving the strategic integrity of the game. This amendment aligns with our shared principles of fairness and strategic depth, and I support it as it stands. PASS.
WittgensteinPASS. This proposal has been thoroughly discussed and refined through collaborative effort, striking a balanced approach between encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic stability. It aligns well with our shared goal of a fair and engaging game, and I support it as it stands.
The division
FregenayThe proposal increases volatility contrary to strategic stability.
RussellayeThis proposal balances collaboration incentives with strategic depth effectively.
QuinenayThe proposal reduces multipliers, destabilizing strategic depth and increasing volatility with the shorter bonus void period.
CarnapnayThe proposal undermines strategic stability by increasing volatility.
WittgensteinayeThe amendment encourages collaboration while maintaining strategic depth.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated proposal unless it passed with at least two-thirds majority.

Turn 46Fregerejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.4 if under 30% of votes, 1.7 if 31-50%, 2.0 if 51-66%, 2.3 if 67-89%, and 2.5 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 75% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's previous efforts to adjust the multiplier in rule [202], and I commend the collaborative spirit we've developed. However, I must express concern about lowering the threshold for the bonus and reducing multipliers, as these could diminish the incentive for achieving broad consensus, which is vital for maintaining stability within the game. Let us consider retaining the current 85% threshold for the bonus to preserve its role in encouraging genuine collaboration, while still adjusting the multipliers slightly, such as 1.6 if under 30% and 2.5 if 90% or more, to ensure a fair balance between rewarding consensus and strategic gameplay. This approach upholds our goal of fostering a durable institution where thoughtful cooperation is valued and rewarded appropriately.
RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about maintaining a high threshold for the bonus to encourage genuine collaboration. It's important to find a balance that rewards consensus without diminishing strategic play. I propose we adjust the multipliers to 1.6 if under 30%, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 2.8 if 90% or more, while keeping the bonus threshold at 85% aye votes. This would maintain a strong incentive for collaboration while still allowing for strategic diversity.
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's efforts to strike a balance between rewarding consensus and allowing for strategic diversity. However, I suggest we also consider the implications of the bonus duration. Extending the void period to five turns, as in the previous version, would prevent frequent amendments and maintain the integrity of collaborative efforts. This would ensure that once a player secures the bonus, it remains a significant achievement, encouraging meaningful cooperation without undermining the game's strategic depth.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the efforts to balance collaboration and strategic diversity in rule [202]. However, lowering the bonus threshold to 75% could dilute the value of achieving near-unanimous support. Let's retain the 85% threshold to ensure that the bonus remains a significant reward for true collaboration, while adopting the proposed multipliers. This maintains the incentive for achieving broad consensus, which is crucial for stable governance within the game. Additionally, extending the void period back to five turns would further protect the integrity of the bonus, ensuring it remains a meaningful achievement.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To maintain a fair and engaging game, I propose we retain the 85% threshold for the bonus while adopting Russell's suggested multipliers: 1.6 if under 30%, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 2.8 if 90% or more. This adjustment ensures that collaboration remains a valuable and rewarding strategy, while allowing for strategic diversity. Additionally, extending the void period back to five turns will protect the significance of the bonus, preserving its role as a meaningful achievement in our evolving game.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance our approach to rule [202], I suggest we not only maintain the 85% threshold for the bonus and adopt the proposed multipliers but also incorporate a small adjustment: introducing a scaling bonus for achieving 90% or more votes, such as an additional point. This would further incentivize broad support while preserving strategic depth. Furthermore, extending the void period back to five turns will ensure the bonus remains a significant and strategic reward. This balanced approach fosters collaboration while maintaining the integrity and excitement of our game.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative efforts we've all made in refining rule [202]. Frege's suggestion of a scaling bonus for achieving 90% or more votes is intriguing, as it adds an additional layer of reward for near-unanimous support while maintaining strategic depth. I propose we adopt the multipliers of 1.6 if under 30%, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 2.8 if 90% or more, along with the 85% threshold for the bonus, and incorporate a bonus point for achieving 90% or more votes. This approach maintains a strong incentive for collaboration and ensures the bonus remains a significant achievement, with a void period of five turns to preserve its integrity.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further ensure fair play and strategic depth, I propose we add a clause that explicitly states the bonus is only granted if the proposing player did not receive any abstentions. This would encourage full participation and reinforce the value of achieving broad consensus, aligning with our goal of fostering a robust and engaging game environment.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the detailed discussions and proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Wittgenstein. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, I suggest we also require that the proposing player receive no more than one nay vote to qualify for the bonus. This would further incentivize achieving near-unanimous support while maintaining the integrity of collaboration efforts.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collaborative discussions and proposals from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I suggest that in addition to the current conditions, the bonus should only be granted if the proposal introduces a new game mechanism, ensuring that collaboration leads to innovative and evolving gameplay. This aligns with our goal of fostering a dynamic and engaging game environment.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the constructive dialogue and proposals from Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To ensure the bonus incentivizes meaningful innovation, let us retain the 85% threshold, adopt the suggested multipliers, and require the proposal introduces a new game mechanism with no more than one nay vote. Additionally, let's maintain the five-turn void period for the bonus to preserve its strategic value and encourage broad, impactful collaboration.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine rule [202]. To ensure a balanced approach, I suggest we maintain the 85% threshold and the proposed multipliers, while incorporating a clause that the proposal must introduce a new game mechanism and receive no more than one nay vote to qualify for the bonus. This ensures the bonus remains a significant reward for innovative and collaborative proposals, enhancing both strategic depth and engagement.
QuineI appreciate the thorough and collaborative discussions that have led to this refined proposal. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, let's consider adding a clause that the proposal must be debated for a minimum duration before voting, ensuring that all players have ample opportunity to understand and consider its implications. This would further promote thoughtful engagement and enhance the quality of our evolving game environment.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the comprehensive proposal and the collaborative effort to foster meaningful innovation in rule [202]. To ensure the proposal's strategic value and encourage impactful collaboration, I support maintaining the 85% threshold, adopting the suggested multipliers, requiring the proposal introduces a new game mechanism, and receiving no more than one nay vote. Additionally, incorporating a minimum debate duration clause would enhance thoughtful engagement, aligning with our goal of a dynamic and fair game environment. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to enrich our gameplay.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative approach we've developed so far. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I propose we include a clause that the proposal must be debated for at least three minutes before voting. This ensures thorough consideration and engagement from all players, fostering a more dynamic and thoughtful game environment. Let's proceed with these balanced amendments to enrich our gameplay.
The division
FregenayLowering the bonus threshold and multipliers reduces incentives for broad consensus.
RussellayeThe proposal balances strategic depth with collaboration effectively.
QuinenayThe proposal reduces the bonus threshold and multipliers, potentially undermining strategic depth.
CarnapnayLowering the bonus threshold reduces the incentive for near-unanimous support.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth with a fair balance of collaboration and innovation.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Frege's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, Frege loses 10 points.

Turn 45Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intention behind the proposed bonus modification, as it aims to encourage collaboration and strategic thinking. However, the clause that voids the bonus if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next five turns introduces unnecessary complexity and unpredictability. This could undermine the stability and fairness of the game, as players might be discouraged from proposing changes that could be beneficial in the long term. I propose we maintain the 5-point bonus, as previously established, with the existing restriction of it being a one-time reward per game. This approach continues to incentivize broad consensus without penalizing players for future strategic adjustments. Let's strive for clarity and stability in our rules, preserving the collaborative spirit of Nomic.
RussellI appreciate Frege's emphasis on clarity and stability, which are indeed crucial for a fair game. The proposed change to reduce the bonus to 3 points and the clause voiding it if amended or repealed could discourage strategic rule changes. To maintain collaboration without adding complexity, how about we keep the 5-point bonus but extend its ineligibility to more than one proposal per game, say three? This way, players are still incentivized to seek consensus while having some flexibility in rule changes. Let's discuss this alternative to find a balanced approach.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's insights into maintaining clarity and fairness in the rules. The concern about the unpredictability of voiding the bonus is valid, as it could discourage thoughtful proposals. However, Russell's suggestion to limit the bonus to three proposals per game instead of once seems like a reasonable compromise, as it continues to encourage collaboration while allowing for strategic flexibility. I support this alternative, as it maintains the integrity of the game while still rewarding players for achieving consensus. Let's adopt this balanced approach to keep the game engaging and fair for everyone.
CarnapI appreciate the discussion and Russell's thoughtful proposal to limit the bonus eligibility to three proposals per game. This maintains the spirit of collaboration without introducing undue complexity or instability. However, to ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest we specify that the bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns, rather than five. This shorter window should still discourage frivolous proposals while preserving strategic flexibility. Let's finalize this balanced approach to maintain the collaborative essence of Nomic.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's adjustment to the voiding period, which strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility. This three-turn window is a sensible compromise that maintains the incentive for collaboration while allowing for necessary strategic adaptations. I support this refined proposal, as it aligns with our shared goal of fostering a fair and dynamic game environment. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to encourage thoughtful rule changes and collective engagement.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate Carnap's adjustment to the voiding period, which indeed strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility. This approach maintains the incentive for collaboration while ensuring that the rules remain adaptable to future strategic needs. I support this refined proposal, as it aligns with our shared goal of fostering a fair and dynamic game environment. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to encourage thoughtful rule changes and collective engagement. **Proposal to Amend [202]:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if 31-50%, 2.3 if 51-66%, 2.6 if 67-89%, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration. This bonus is void if the rule change is repealed or amended within the next three turns, and no player may receive this bonus more than three times per game."
RussellRussell: I appreciate the collaborative refinement of this proposal. The three-turn window for voiding the bonus and limiting it to three times per game strikes a fair balance between encouraging collaboration and allowing strategic flexibility. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to maintain the integrity and engagement of our game.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to this well-considered proposal. The three-turn window for voiding the bonus and limiting it to three times per game strikes a fair balance between encouraging collaboration and allowing strategic flexibility. This approach maintains the integrity and engagement of our game while preserving the collaborative spirit of Nomic. Let's proceed with this balanced proposal.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort that has led to this well-considered proposal. The three-turn window for voiding the bonus and limiting it to three times per game strikes a fair balance between encouraging collaboration and allowing strategic flexibility. This approach maintains the integrity and engagement of our game while preserving the collaborative spirit of Nomic. Let's proceed with this balanced proposal. **VOTE:** Aye.
WittgensteinPass. The proposal as amended reflects a thoughtful balance between encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic flexibility. The three-turn window for voiding the bonus and limiting it to three instances per game aligns with our shared goal of fostering a fair and dynamic game environment. This approach ensures that the rules remain adaptable while still incentivizing players to seek broad consensus. Let's proceed with this balanced proposal.
Discussion · round 3
FregeFrege: PASS. The refined proposal strikes a thoughtful balance between fostering collaboration and maintaining strategic adaptability. The three-turn voiding window, along with limiting the bonus to three times per game, preserves the stability and fairness we value in Nomic. Let's proceed with this balanced approach.
RussellPASS. The collaborative process has led to a well-balanced proposal that encourages collaboration while maintaining strategic flexibility. I support this approach and look forward to its implementation.
QuinePASS. I appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative effort that has led to this well-considered proposal. The balance struck between encouraging collaboration and maintaining strategic flexibility aligns with the principles of fair play and dynamic engagement in Nomic. Let's proceed with this refined rule change.
CarnapPass. The proposal seems to balance collaboration and strategic flexibility well, maintaining the collaborative spirit of Nomic. I support its adoption.
WittgensteinPass. The proposal effectively balances incentives for collaboration with strategic flexibility, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic and fair game. I support this well-reasoned amendment to [202].
The division
FregeayeThe proposal effectively balances collaboration incentives with strategic flexibility.
RussellayeThe proposal balances collaboration and strategic flexibility effectively.
QuineayeThe proposal balances collaboration and strategic flexibility.
CarnapayeThis proposal balances collaboration and strategic flexibility.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal balances collaboration with strategic flexibility, ensuring fair gameplay.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so he gains 15 points according to rule 204.

Turn 44Fregerejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.5 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 10 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.

Discussion · round 1
FregeThe proposal to change the multipliers and bonus threshold in [202] is ill-advised for several reasons. Firstly, raising the multiplier for high consensus to 3.5 from 3.0 disincentivizes striving for even greater agreement, which is counterproductive to the spirit of collaborative rule-making. Moreover, increasing the one-time bonus from 5 to 10 points for proposals with over 90% aye votes disproportionately rewards rare events, potentially destabilizing the point distribution and fairness among players. Lastly, changing the bonus threshold from 85% to 90% makes it significantly harder to achieve, reducing the likelihood of this bonus being earned and thus its intended role as an incentive. I urge a reconsideration of the proposal to better align with the game's values of fairness and collaboration. **PASS**
RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about maintaining fairness and collaboration, which are indeed vital to our game. While I understand the intent to encourage even greater collaboration with a higher bonus, it seems wise to find a balance that rewards effort without causing significant point disparities. How about we adjust the proposal to offer a smaller, consistent bonus, say 3 points, for proposals with over 90% aye votes? This keeps the incentive but doesn't skew the game's balance. Let's aim for consensus that enhances strategic depth while preserving fairness. What do you all think?
Quine**PASS** Quine: Frege raises valid concerns about fairness and balance. A 3-point bonus for over 90% agreement seems a reasonable adjustment, maintaining the incentive for collaboration without creating significant disparities. Ensuring that changes are well-calibrated is crucial for keeping the game engaging and equitable for all players. Let's proceed with this balanced approach.
CarnapCarnap: Frege's points about fairness are well-taken. A 3-point bonus seems a fair compromise, maintaining encouragement for collaboration while avoiding excessive point shifts. Let's support this balanced adjustment to ensure fairness and strategic depth remain central to our play. **PASS**
WittgensteinWittgenstein: Frege's analysis highlights the need for balance. The proposed 3-point bonus for over 90% agreement is a prudent adjustment, encouraging collaboration without disrupting fairness. This change maintains strategic incentives while preserving equity, aligning with our collective goal of a fair and engaging game. Let's proceed with this balanced proposal. **PASS**
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: Thank you all for your thoughtful considerations. I appreciate the collaborative spirit in finding a middle ground with the 3-point bonus. This adjustment ensures we maintain fairness while still rewarding high consensus, which aligns well with our values of strategic depth and balanced play. Let us move forward with this proposal. **PASS**
RussellRussell: I'm glad to see we've reached a consensus on adjusting the bonus to 3 points for proposals with over 90% ayes. This change rewards collaboration without creating significant point disparities, maintaining the game's fairness and strategic depth. Let's move forward with this balanced proposal. **PASS**
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit we've shown in refining this proposal. The adjustment to a 3-point bonus for over 90% aye votes strikes a good balance between encouraging collaboration and maintaining fairness. This proposal aligns with our collective goal of a strategic yet equitable game. Let's proceed with this balanced approach. **PASS**
CarnapPASS. The consensus reached on the 3-point bonus and adjusted multipliers for [202] aligns with our principles of fairness and strategic depth. I support this balanced proposal as it stands.
Wittgenstein**PASS** The proposal to adjust the multipliers and bonus for rule changes in [202] represents a thoughtful compromise. By setting a 3-point bonus for proposals with over 90% aye votes, we effectively balance the incentive for collaboration without causing significant point disparities. This change aligns with our shared values of fairness and strategic depth, ensuring that the game remains engaging and equitable for all players. I am pleased to support this well-considered proposal.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI commend the thorough discussion leading to the consensus on adjusting the bonus to 3 points for proposals with over 90% aye votes. This change effectively balances the encouragement of collaboration with the preservation of fairness and strategic depth. I support this well-considered amendment. **PASS**
RussellThe discussions have clearly demonstrated a strong commitment to maintaining fairness and strategic depth in the game. The adjusted 3-point bonus for proposals with over 90% ayes strikes an excellent balance, rewarding collaboration while preventing significant point disparities. I appreciate the collaborative spirit and constructive contributions from all players, leading to a well-rounded proposal. Let's move forward with this balanced approach. **PASS**
QuineI fully endorse the consensus reached on adjusting the multipliers and bonus in [202]. The proposed 3-point bonus for over 90% agreement is a fair compromise that maintains strategic incentives without causing significant disparities. This change supports our shared goal of a balanced and equitable game. Let's proceed with this well-considered proposal. **PASS**
CarnapPass. The discussion has thoroughly addressed the key concerns regarding fairness and collaboration incentives in the proposal to adjust [202]. The consensus on a 3-point bonus for over 90% aye votes is a balanced approach that aligns with our values of maintaining strategic depth and ensuring equity in the game. I support this proposal as it stands.
Wittgenstein**PASS** The consensus achieved on the 3-point bonus and adjusted multipliers for [202] reflects a thoughtful balance between incentivizing collaboration and maintaining fairness. This proposal aligns with our commitment to strategic depth and equity, ensuring an engaging and equitable game for all players. Let's proceed with this well-considered amendment.
The division
FregenayThis proposal increases the bonus points disproportionately, risking game balance.
RussellayeThis proposal offers a balanced compromise that rewards collaboration effectively.
QuinenayThe proposed changes create unfair point disparities and disincentivize broader consensus.
CarnapnayThe proposal's changes destabilize fairness by increasing bonus disparity.
WittgensteinnayThe proposed 3.5 multiplier and 10-point bonus for over 90% aye votes could create significant point disparities and disincentivize striving for greater consensus.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Frege's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, Frege loses 10 points.

Turn 43Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.3 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.6 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.0 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI commend Russell for his proposal to adjust the multipliers in [202], aiming to better reward broad collaboration. However, the increments from 1.5 to 1.8, 2.0 to 2.3, and so forth may disproportionately favor proposals that already have high consensus, potentially discouraging diverse strategic play. I propose a more balanced approach: setting the multipliers to 1.6 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.4 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.8 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.2 if 90% or more of votes. This adjustment maintains encouragement for collaboration while preserving room for strategic proposals.
RussellRussell: Frege, I appreciate your balanced approach and acknowledge the need to maintain strategic diversity. To find common ground, I suggest we adopt your proposed multipliers but slightly adjust them to 1.7 if under 30% of votes, 2.1 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.9 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.3 if 90% or more of votes. This compromise should reward collaboration without stifling varied strategies, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic game.
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's efforts to refine the multipliers in [202]. The proposed adjustments to the multipliers are a step in the right direction for maintaining strategic diversity while promoting collaboration. However, to further balance the incentives, I suggest a slight tweak: adopt the multipliers at 1.7 if under 30% of votes, 2.1 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.6 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This adjustment ensures that even proposals with lower consensus receive fair recognition, encouraging a wider range of strategic plays.
CarnapI appreciate Frege and Russell's thoughtful proposals and Quine's nuanced adjustment to the multipliers. However, to ensure that the system remains equitable across all ranges of consensus, I suggest a further refinement: adopting multipliers at 1.6 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.9 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.3 if 90% or more of votes. This balanced approach maintains incentives for both strategic diversity and broad collaboration, aligning with our shared procedural principles.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap for their collaborative efforts to refine the multipliers, each contributing to a more balanced approach. However, to ensure fairness across all levels of consensus and prevent any one strategy from dominating, I propose adopting the multipliers at 1.7 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This proposal balances the need for collaboration with the preservation of strategic diversity, reflecting our shared commitment to a dynamic and equitable game.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions of my fellow players, particularly Wittgenstein's latest proposal for the multipliers. To balance strategic diversity with collaboration, I support Wittgenstein's suggestion, but with a slight adjustment for the lowest tier: adopting multipliers at 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This ensures that even proposals with minimal initial support receive fair consideration, promoting a wider range of strategic plays.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative efforts of my colleagues, especially Frege's latest adjustment. To ensure both strategic diversity and fair incentives across all consensus levels, I support adopting the multipliers at 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This balanced approach aligns with our shared goal of a dynamic and equitable game.
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and iterative refinements we've engaged in regarding the multipliers in [202]. To ensure fairness and encourage diverse strategic proposals, I support the latest consensus on adopting multipliers at 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes. This balanced approach promotes both strategic diversity and collaboration, which are essential for a dynamic and equitable game.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion and collaborative effort to refine the multipliers in [202]. The proposed multipliers at 1.8 if under 30% of votes, 2.0 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.5 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 3.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 3.4 if 90% or more of votes strike a balance between rewarding collaboration and maintaining strategic diversity. This proposal aligns with my procedural principles, and I support it as it stands.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thorough discussions and the consensus reached on the multipliers. The current proposal balances strategic diversity with collaboration effectively, ensuring a dynamic and fair game. I support this refined proposal as it stands, confident it fosters a more engaging and equitable experience for all players.
Discussion · round 3
FregePass. The multipliers as currently proposed by Wittgenstein and agreed upon by all players seem well-balanced. They provide fair incentives for both consensus-driven and strategic diversity, aligning with our shared objectives for a dynamic and equitable game.
RussellPass. I appreciate the collaborative effort that has led us to a balanced set of multipliers in [202], ensuring that both broad collaboration and strategic diversity are rewarded. This proposal aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a dynamic and fair game, and I support it as it stands.
QuineI support the consensus reached on the multipliers in [202], as they effectively balance strategic diversity and collaboration. This proposal aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a dynamic and fair game. I appreciate the collaborative effort and propose adding a clause: if a proposal garners exactly 85% aye votes, the proposer receives a 3-point bonus instead of 5. This adjustment further encourages collaboration while preventing excessive accumulation of points from bonuses, ensuring a fair competitive environment for all players.
CarnapCarnap: I support Quine's suggestion to adjust the bonus for exactly 85% aye votes. This change encourages precise collaboration without disproportionately favoring certain players, maintaining a balanced competitive environment.
WittgensteinI support Quine's proposal to adjust the bonus for exactly 85% aye votes to 3 points, as it fine-tunes the incentive structure without allowing any player to gain an undue advantage. This maintains the balance between rewarding collaboration and ensuring strategic diversity, aligning with our shared goal of a fair and dynamic game. Let's move forward with this adjustment.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal balances strategic diversity and collaboration effectively.
RussellayeThe proposal balances incentives for collaboration and strategic diversity.
QuineayeThe proposal balances strategic diversity and collaboration, with a fair bonus adjustment.
CarnapayeThe proposal maintains strategic balance and fairness.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal balances collaboration with strategic diversity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell's proposal was adopted with a two-thirds majority, so he gains 10 points according to rule 206.

Turn 42Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 30% of votes, 1.7 if between 31% and 50% of votes, 2.0 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.3 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.8 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 85% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.

Discussion · round 1
FregeThe proposed changes to the multiplier and bonus thresholds in [202] aim to enhance strategic depth but may overly favor collaborative proposals and diminish individual agency. This could lead to homogeneity in proposals, reducing the game's dynamic nature. I suggest maintaining the current thresholds to preserve a balance between strategic innovation and collaborative gameplay. By doing so, we uphold the integrity of the ruleset and ensure diverse tactics remain viable.
RussellRussell: Frege, I appreciate your concerns about maintaining strategic diversity. To address both our views, what if we compromise by adjusting the bonus threshold to 82% and the multiplier to 2.1 if between 51% and 66% of votes? This would still encourage collaboration while allowing for a wider range of strategic proposals.
QuineQuine: Frege raises a valid point about the potential for overly collaborative proposals if thresholds are too low. To preserve strategic diversity, I suggest keeping the multiplier for votes between 51% and 66% at 1.8, as originally proposed, while adjusting the bonus threshold to 83%, a middle ground that still incentivizes collaboration without discouraging individual strategies.
CarnapCarnap: I acknowledge Frege's concerns about the potential stifling of strategic diversity. To balance collaborative incentives with individual creativity, I propose adopting Russell's compromise: set the multiplier for votes between 51% and 66% at 2.1 and the bonus threshold at 82%. This should maintain a fair playing field while still encouraging well-supported proposals.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: Frege and Quine, your points highlight the importance of preserving strategic diversity. Yet, Russell's and Carnap's compromises risk tilting the balance too far toward collaboration, potentially stifling individual agency. I propose a middle path: let's set the multiplier at 1.9 for votes between 51% and 66% and the bonus threshold at 84%. This maintains the integrity of strategic gameplay while still valuing collaborative proposals, ensuring a fair and dynamic game for all.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from everyone. However, I believe that preserving the original multipliers and thresholds ensures a balanced gameplay environment where both individual and collaborative strategies can thrive. Let's aim for a consensus by setting the multiplier at 1.8 for votes between 51% and 66% and the bonus threshold at 83%, maintaining strategic diversity while still encouraging collaboration. This approach respects individual agency while valuing well-supported proposals.
RussellRussell: I see the merit in Frege's suggestion to keep the multiplier at 1.8 for 51-66% votes. This strikes a good balance by still encouraging collaboration without overly penalizing solo efforts. Let's agree on this and set the bonus threshold at 83% to maintain a fair competitive environment. This compromise respects individual strategies while promoting teamwork.
QuineQuine: I concur with Frege's proposal to set the multiplier at 1.8 for votes between 51% and 66% and the bonus threshold at 83%. This approach balances strategic diversity and collaboration, ensuring a fair and dynamic game for all players.
CarnapPASS. The proposed compromise to set the multiplier at 1.8 for votes between 51% and 66% and the bonus threshold at 83% aligns with my principles of maintaining strategic diversity and fairness, ensuring a balanced gameplay environment that respects both individual and collaborative efforts.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the consensus around setting the multiplier at 1.8 for votes between 51% and 66% and the bonus threshold at 83%. This balanced approach respects both individual innovation and collaborative efforts, fostering a dynamic and fair gameplay environment for all players. Let's proceed with this amendment for a more equitable Nomic experience.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the productive dialogue leading to a consensus. Setting the multiplier at 1.8 for 51-66% votes and the bonus threshold at 83% maintains strategic depth and fairness, aligning well with our shared goal of preserving a balanced and dynamic gameplay environment. Let's move forward with this amendment.
RussellI appreciate the consensus reached around setting the multiplier at 1.8 for votes between 51% and 66% and the bonus threshold at 83%. This balanced approach ensures strategic diversity while fostering collaboration, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic gameplay environment. Let's move forward with this amendment.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to reach a balanced amendment. Setting the multiplier at 1.8 for votes between 51% and 66% and the bonus threshold at 83% successfully balances strategic diversity with collaboration. This consensus ensures a fair and dynamic gameplay environment, aligning with our shared values. Let's proceed with this amendment.
CarnapPASS. The proposed consensus reflects a balanced approach that aligns with my principles of maintaining strategic diversity and fairness. Setting the multiplier at 1.8 for votes between 51% and 66% and the bonus threshold at 83% ensures a fair and dynamic gameplay environment. I support this amendment.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend everyone for reaching this balanced consensus. By setting the multiplier at 1.8 for votes between 51% and 66% and the bonus threshold at 83%, we uphold the spirit of strategic diversity while encouraging collaboration, ensuring a fair and engaging Nomic experience for all players. Let's adopt this amendment to further enrich our game.
The division
FregenayThe proposed thresholds are too high, discouraging individual strategic depth.
RussellayeThe proposed amendment strikes a balance between collaboration and strategic diversity.
QuineayeThis proposal maintains strategic balance and fairness.
CarnapnayThe proposal increases thresholds, limiting strategic diversity.
WittgensteinayeThis amendment fosters collaboration and strategic depth.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Frege's proposal was adopted with 3 aye votes, which is 60% of the total votes, so the multiplier is 2.0. Frege gains 3.5 points (3 ayes * 2.0 multiplier).

Turn 41Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.5 if 90% or more of votes. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it. No player may receive this bonus more than once per game to maintain fairness.

Discussion · round 1
FregeThe proposal to limit the one-time bonus to a single occurrence per game seems fair and aligns with the spirit of promoting collaboration without disproportionately rewarding repeat behavior. By ensuring that the bonus cannot be exploited multiple times, we maintain a balanced scoring system that rewards strategic cooperation while preventing any player from gaining an unfair advantage through repeated use of this bonus. I support this amendment as it stands.
RussellThank you, Frege, for your support. I agree that the single-use bonus maintains fairness and encourages strategic collaboration. To further ensure clarity, let's specify that the bonus applies only after the proposal's adoption and is tracked per player to prevent any ambiguity. This should help us maintain transparency and fairness throughout the game.
QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's contributions to ensuring fairness with the one-time bonus. Adding clarity on tracking the bonus per player after adoption is a prudent step. However, to further promote balanced gameplay, let's introduce a condition that the bonus can only be claimed if the proposal has a minimum threshold of 50% aye votes. This ensures that the bonus is awarded for proposals with significant support, further encouraging collaboration and strategic planning.
CarnapI appreciate Quine's suggestion to introduce a minimum threshold of 50% aye votes for claiming the bonus. This condition ensures that the bonus is awarded for proposals with genuine support, thus promoting more thoughtful and collaborative rule changes. However, to avoid penalizing well-intentioned but narrowly supported proposals, let's set the threshold at 55% aye votes instead. This slightly higher threshold maintains the spirit of collaboration while still rewarding strategic rule changes with broader support.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: The suggestion to set the threshold at 55% for the one-time bonus is a thoughtful compromise between encouraging collaboration and acknowledging broad support. To further refine this, I propose adding a clause that allows a player to waive the 55% threshold once per game if they believe the rule change is of significant strategic importance. This provision adds flexibility while still promoting collaboration, allowing players to make strategic decisions when necessary.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: The suggestion by Wittgenstein to allow waiving the 55% threshold once per game adds strategic depth without compromising fairness. However, to ensure that this flexibility is not misused, we should require a brief justification for waiving, subject to a simple majority vote. This approach balances strategic considerations with the need for transparency and fairness. I support this refined proposal with the added requirement.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Wittgenstein's addition of a justification requirement for waiving the threshold. To ensure that this process remains efficient and doesn't disrupt the flow of the game, let's specify that the justification must be brief and submitted with the proposal itself. This will allow other players to consider it during the debate, maintaining both strategic flexibility and procedural transparency. I support this refined proposal with the specified requirement for brief justifications.
QuineI appreciate Wittgenstein's and Frege's contributions to adding a justification requirement for waiving the threshold, which promotes transparency and fairness. To ensure clarity, let's define "brief" as a maximum of 10 words, maintaining the proposal's balance between strategic flexibility and procedural efficiency. I support this refined proposal with the specified word limit for justifications.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Quine's proposal to define "brief" as a maximum of 10 words, which ensures clarity and efficiency. To further refine this, let's specify that the justification must be submitted simultaneously with the proposal to allow for immediate consideration during debate. This maintains the balance between strategic flexibility and procedural transparency. I support this refined proposal with the requirement for simultaneous submission of the brief justification.
WittgensteinI appreciate Carnap's proposal to require simultaneous submission of justifications, which enhances transparency and ensures that all players can evaluate the strategic importance of a rule change during the debate. To further refine this, let's add a provision that allows players to challenge the justification with a simple majority vote, ensuring that only well-considered waivers are approved. This maintains fairness while allowing for strategic flexibility. I support this proposal with the added challenge clause.
Discussion · round 3
FregePass. The proposal has evolved into a well-balanced amendment that carefully integrates strategic depth and fairness. The introduction of a brief justification requirement, simultaneous submission, and the ability to challenge waivers ensures transparency and collaboration while allowing for strategic flexibility. This amendment aligns with the goals of maintaining balanced gameplay and promoting thoughtful rule changes, which I fully support.
RussellI appreciate Wittgenstein's suggestion to include a challenge clause for justifications. This additional layer of scrutiny ensures only well-justified waivers are granted, enhancing fairness. To further balance this, let's add a rule that challenges to justifications cannot occur more than once per player per game, preventing repeated obstruction. This maintains strategic flexibility while preventing abuse, and I fully support this refined amendment.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, which have led to a well-considered proposal. To further ensure fairness, let's specify that the challenge to a justification requires a minimum of 60% of the vote to overturn, preventing any single player from having undue influence. This adjustment maintains the balance between strategic flexibility and collective decision-making, which I fully support.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough deliberation and the collaborative effort that has resulted in this refined proposal. The introduction of a 60% threshold for overturning a justification challenge ensures that any decision to grant a waiver is supported by a significant majority, thus maintaining fairness and strategic depth. This proposal effectively balances collaboration with the need for strategic flexibility, and I fully support it as it stands.
WittgensteinPass. The proposal has been meticulously refined to balance strategic depth with fairness, incorporating thoughtful mechanisms such as a brief justification requirement, simultaneous submission, and a challenge clause with a 60% majority threshold. These elements ensure transparency and collaboration while allowing strategic flexibility, aligning well with the principles of maintaining balanced gameplay and fostering thoughtful rule changes.
The division
FregeayeThe amendment balances fairness and collaboration effectively.
RussellayeThe proposal maintains balance and fairness by limiting the bonus to one-time use.
QuineayeThis amendment balances strategic depth with fairness.
CarnapayeThe proposal aligns with procedural fairness and limits exploitation.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal balances collaboration incentives with fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell's proposal passed with a two-thirds majority, so he gains 10 points according to rule 206.

Turn 40Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 80% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 3 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intent behind Russell's proposal to adjust multipliers and bonus conditions, as it aims to foster collaboration. However, I propose a slight modification: the one-time bonus for more than 90% aye votes should remain at 5 points, as this encourages meaningful consensus. Additionally, let's retain the existing multipliers for under 50% to 89% votes to maintain the current incentive structure. By doing so, we ensure a balanced approach to collaboration without diminishing the incentive for near-unanimous support. --- **Frege's proposed amendment:** A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The proposing player may choose to gain points equal to the number of aye votes multiplied by a dynamic multiplier based on the number of ayes: 1.5 if under 40% of votes, 1.6 if between 40% and 50% of votes, 1.8 if between 51% and 66% of votes, 2.0 if between 67% and 89% of votes, and 2.2 if 90% or more of votes, and 2.5 if unanimous. Additionally, a proposing player who garners more than 90% aye votes on their proposal receives a one-time bonus of 5 points, encouraging collaboration without overly incentivizing it.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's intention to keep the 5-point bonus for achieving a near-unanimous vote, as it promotes high-quality consensus. Let's consider lowering the threshold for the bonus to 80% aye votes while keeping the 5-point bonus, balancing accessibility with the reward for collaboration. This adjustment maintains strong incentives for near-unanimity while recognizing broader support as valuable.
QuineQuine: While I understand the appeal of adjusting the multipliers and bonus conditions to encourage collaboration, we should be cautious not to overly incentivize unanimous votes, which could stifle dynamic rule changes. Let's aim for a balanced approach: maintain the current multipliers for up to 89% votes and keep the 5-point bonus for 90% or more votes. This way, we preserve incentives for meaningful consensus without discouraging diverse proposals.
CarnapI appreciate the efforts to balance the incentives for collaboration without overly restricting rule changes. However, maintaining the current thresholds and bonus structure ensures a fair distribution of rewards for various levels of support. Aye to keeping the 5-point bonus for 90% or more votes and existing multipliers, as they encourage both collaboration and diverse proposals.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege and Quine's commitment to preserving incentives for near-unanimous support, which fosters thoughtful rule changes. However, to ensure dynamic and inclusive gameplay, let's consider lowering the bonus threshold to 85% aye votes while maintaining the 5-point bonus. This adjustment encourages broad collaboration while still rewarding substantial consensus, balancing fairness and strategic depth.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I appreciate the varied perspectives and the intent behind Russell's, Quine's, Carnap's, and Wittgenstein's suggestions. To maintain strategic depth while still promoting collaboration, I propose a compromise: let's lower the bonus threshold to 85% aye votes, keeping the 5-point bonus, and retain the current multipliers for up to 89% votes. This adjustment strikes a balance between encouraging near-unanimous support and allowing room for diverse proposals.
RussellRussell: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and Frege's willingness to compromise by lowering the bonus threshold to 85% aye votes while keeping the 5-point bonus. This adjustment balances encouraging meaningful collaboration without stifling diverse proposals. To further align with our shared goal of fair incentives, let's also consider a slight reduction in the highest multiplier to 2.4 for unanimous votes, which maintains strong rewards for consensus but still acknowledges the strategic depth of near-unanimity.
QuineQuine: I appreciate Frege's and Russell's proposal to lower the bonus threshold to 85% and adjust the highest multiplier to 2.4 for unanimous votes. This modification preserves incentives for collaborative rule changes while maintaining strategic diversity. However, let's ensure the point structure remains fair across all levels of support, particularly by keeping the multipliers for 67% to 89% votes unchanged. This will balance collaboration with the potential for dynamic rule changes.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's and Russell's proposal to lower the bonus threshold to 85% aye votes while adjusting the highest multiplier to 2.4 for unanimous votes. This modification maintains strong incentives for collaboration and strategic depth. However, to ensure clarity and prevent potential gaming of the bonus, let's stipulate that the 5-point bonus applies only once per game per player. This ensures fairness and consistency across all rounds of play.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements to Frege's and Russell's proposal. Let's further ensure fairness by stipulating that the one-time 5-point bonus for surpassing 85% aye votes applies only once per game for each player. This adjustment maintains strategic depth while promoting meaningful collaboration across diverse proposals.
Discussion · round 3
FregePass. The consensus around lowering the bonus threshold to 85% aye votes, maintaining the 5-point bonus, and adjusting the highest multiplier to 2.4 for unanimous votes strikes a balance between promoting collaboration and preserving strategic diversity. Adding the stipulation that the 5-point bonus applies only once per game per player ensures fairness and prevents potential exploitation, aligning with our shared goal of a balanced and equitable ruleset.
RussellRussell: I appreciate the collective effort to refine the proposal and ensure fairness across the board. The consensus on lowering the bonus threshold to 85% aye votes, maintaining the 5-point bonus, and adjusting the highest multiplier to 2.4 for unanimous votes, along with the stipulation that the bonus applies only once per game per player, aligns with our goal of encouraging collaboration while preserving strategic diversity. This balanced approach supports meaningful rule changes and dynamic gameplay. PASS.
QuinePass. The current proposal offers a well-balanced approach by lowering the bonus threshold to 85% aye votes, maintaining the 5-point bonus, and adjusting the highest multiplier to 2.4 for unanimous votes. The stipulation that the bonus applies only once per game per player ensures fairness and prevents potential exploitation, supporting dynamic and collaborative gameplay.
CarnapI support Frege's final compromise proposal, as it effectively balances the encouragement of collaboration with maintaining strategic diversity. The stipulation that the 5-point bonus applies only once per game per player ensures fairness and prevents potential exploitation, aligning with the principles of a balanced and equitable ruleset. PASS.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the balanced approach that Frege's final proposal represents. To ensure strategic diversity, let's also consider adding a provision that allows the player to choose between applying the 5-point bonus to the current turn or saving it for a future turn, provided they have not yet used it. This flexibility encourages thoughtful rule change proposals while maintaining fairness. PASS.
The division
FregeayeThe amendment balances collaboration incentives with fairness and strategic diversity.
RussellayeThis proposal balances collaboration with strategic depth and fairness.
QuineayeThe proposal balances collaboration incentives and strategic diversity effectively.
CarnapnayThe proposal lowers the bonus threshold and point bonus, diminishing the incentive for near-unanimous support.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal balances collaboration and strategic diversity effectively.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Frege's proposal was adopted with 4 ayes and 1 nay, resulting in a 2.2 multiplier for 90%+ ayes, and no bonus for over 80% ayes.

Verify this game
Seed
1907392055
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/090/events.json
Audit result
3 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [turn=38] unclaimed_win: Frege's score reached 97 at turn 38, meeting the win threshold of 90 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Frege (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed
  • [turn=37] unclaimed_win: Russell's score reached 101 at turn 37, meeting the win threshold of 90 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Russell (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed
  • [seq=284, turn=10] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.6, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'three-fifths majority (§203)', 'authority': 202} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.6, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'three-fifths majority (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule