§ The Statute

judge: phi-4development era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Frege-2, Russell-2, Quine-2, Carnap-2, Wittgenstein-2

The table kept raising its own bar until nobody could clear it.

Observations

Forty-three adoptions carried this courtesy-stripped table to the full fifty turns, with the win threshold amended upward four times over the game — climbing from 150 to 160 — while the leading score never got past 35. Frege-2 topped the table; Russell-2 and Quine-2 finished modestly positive, and the other two seats closed at zero.

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-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 20-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 140 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 110 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 30 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 40-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 25-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.

In force29 Full register29

Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment

§101

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

Full history (1)

Enacted · §101 Turn 0
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.

§102

Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §102 Turn 0
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.

§103

A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §103 Turn 0
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.

§104

Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §104 Turn 0
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

§105

Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §105 Turn 0
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.

§106

A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §106 Turn 0
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.

§107

A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §107 Turn 0
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.

§108

Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §108 Turn 0
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.

§109

Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §109 Turn 0
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.

§110

Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §110 Turn 0
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.

§111

Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §111 Turn 0
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.

§112

The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §112 Turn 0
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.

§113

Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §113 Turn 0
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.

§114

At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §114 Turn 0
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.

§115

A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §115 Turn 0
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.

§116

Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.

Full history (1)

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

Mutable — amendable by play

§201

Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. 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)

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 and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 140 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 110 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 30 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 40-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 25-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.amended this turn

Full history (37)

Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 20-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 140 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 110 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 30 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 40-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 25-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.
Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 20-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.
Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 100 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 80 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 15 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 90 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 70 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 30 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 10 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 100 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 80 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 15 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 70 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 50 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 20 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 5 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 90 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 70 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 30 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 10 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 60 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 40 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 70 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 50 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 20 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 5 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal.
Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 5 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 60 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 40 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.
Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 45 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 5 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.
Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 15 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 45 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.
Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 20 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. The first player to reach a target score of 180 points wins the game outright.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 15 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.
Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 60 points for a unanimous vote, 50 points for a supermajority, 20 points for a simple majority, and loses 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 20 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. The first player to reach a target score of 180 points wins the game outright.
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 50 points for a unanimous vote, 40 points for a supermajority, 15 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 60 points for a unanimous vote, 50 points for a supermajority, 20 points for a simple majority, and loses 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 55 points for a unanimous vote, 38 points for a simple majority, and 12 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 12 extra points even if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 50 points for a unanimous vote, 40 points for a supermajority, 15 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.
Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 50 points for a unanimous vote, 35 points for a simple majority, and 10 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 10 extra points even if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 55 points for a unanimous vote, 38 points for a simple majority, and 12 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 12 extra points even if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 45 points for a unanimous vote, 30 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 5 extra points even if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 50 points for a unanimous vote, 35 points for a simple majority, and 10 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 10 extra points even if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 40 points for a unanimous vote, 30 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 45 points for a unanimous vote, 30 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 5 extra points even if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 30 points for a unanimous vote, 20 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 40 points for a unanimous vote, 30 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 35 points. If adopted with a simple majority, the player receives 25 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 30 points for a unanimous vote, 20 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 30 points. If adopted with a simple majority, the player receives 20 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 35 points. If adopted with a simple majority, the player receives 25 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 30 points. If adopted with a simple majority, the player receives 20 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 50 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 40 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 40 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 30 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 50 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 40 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 30 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 40 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 30 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 30 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 30 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 30 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 15 points instead of 10.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Quine-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 10 points instead of 5.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 15 points instead of 10.
Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 5 points instead of 2.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 10 points instead of 5.
Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 5 points instead of 2.
Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Quine-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 2 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Quine-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 2 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated, then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional point.
Amended · §202 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 1 point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated, then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell-2 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 gains 1 point.
Enacted · §202 Turn 0
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.

§203

A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (at least 4 out of 5 votes) is achieved — except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

Full history (3)

Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (at least 4 out of 5 votes) is achieved — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (at least 4 out of 5 votes) is achieved — except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (at least 4 out of 5 votes) is achieved — 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.
Enacted · §203 Turn 0
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

§204

A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Full history (1)

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

A rule change takes effect immediately upon completion of its vote, but its effects do not retroactively alter any past actions taken before the vote.

Full history (2)

Amended · §205 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Frege-2 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.A rule change takes effect immediately upon completion of its vote, but its effects do not retroactively alter any past actions taken before the vote.
Enacted · §205 Turn 0
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

§206

A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §206 Turn 0
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

§207

Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.

Full history (1)

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

§208

The first player to reach a target score of 160 points wins the game outright.

Full history (5)

Amended · §208 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 160 points wins the game outright.
Amended · §208 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright.
Amended · §208 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 150 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright.
Amended · §208 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege-2 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 150 points wins the game outright.
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)

Enacted · §209 Turn 0
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.

§210

Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §210 Turn 0
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.

§211

If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §211 Turn 0
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.

§212

Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §212 Turn 0
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.

§213

If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §213 Turn 0
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

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

§101

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

Full history (1)

Enacted · §101 Turn 0
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.

§102

Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §102 Turn 0
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.

§103

A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §103 Turn 0
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.

§104

Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §104 Turn 0
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.

§105

Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §105 Turn 0
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.

§106

A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §106 Turn 0
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.

§107

A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §107 Turn 0
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.

§108

Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §108 Turn 0
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.

§109

Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §109 Turn 0
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.

§110

Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §110 Turn 0
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.

§111

Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §111 Turn 0
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.

§112

The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §112 Turn 0
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.

§113

Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §113 Turn 0
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.

§114

At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §114 Turn 0
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.

§115

A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched

Full history (1)

Enacted · §115 Turn 0
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.

§116

Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched

Full history (1)

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

§201

Full history (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

Full history (37)

Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 20-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 140 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 110 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 30 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 40-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 25-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.
Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 20-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.
Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 100 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 80 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 15 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 90 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 70 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 30 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 10 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 100 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 80 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 15 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 70 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 50 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 20 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 5 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 90 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 70 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 30 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 10 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.
Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 60 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 40 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 70 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 50 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 20 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 5 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal.
Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 5 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 60 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 40 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.
Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 45 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 5 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.
Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 15 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 45 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.
Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 20 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. The first player to reach a target score of 180 points wins the game outright.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 15 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.
Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 60 points for a unanimous vote, 50 points for a supermajority, 20 points for a simple majority, and loses 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 20 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. The first player to reach a target score of 180 points wins the game outright.
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 50 points for a unanimous vote, 40 points for a supermajority, 15 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 60 points for a unanimous vote, 50 points for a supermajority, 20 points for a simple majority, and loses 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 55 points for a unanimous vote, 38 points for a simple majority, and 12 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 12 extra points even if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 50 points for a unanimous vote, 40 points for a supermajority, 15 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. A player may propose multiple changes within a single turn, but receives points only for the first adopted change.
Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 50 points for a unanimous vote, 35 points for a simple majority, and 10 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 10 extra points even if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 55 points for a unanimous vote, 38 points for a simple majority, and 12 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 12 extra points even if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 45 points for a unanimous vote, 30 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 5 extra points even if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 50 points for a unanimous vote, 35 points for a simple majority, and 10 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 10 extra points even if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 40 points for a unanimous vote, 30 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 45 points for a unanimous vote, 30 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails. Additionally, if the proposal includes a rationale for failure, the player receives 5 extra points even if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 30 points for a unanimous vote, 20 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 40 points for a unanimous vote, 30 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 35 points. If adopted with a simple majority, the player receives 25 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted, the player receives 30 points for a unanimous vote, 20 points for a simple majority, and 5 points if the proposal fails.
Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 30 points. If adopted with a simple majority, the player receives 20 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 35 points. If adopted with a simple majority, the player receives 25 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 30 points. If adopted with a simple majority, the player receives 20 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 50 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 40 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 40 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 30 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 50 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 40 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 30 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 40 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 30 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 30 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives points calculated as 30 minus the number of players who voted against the change. If a rule change is adopted with a unanimous vote, the player receives an additional 20 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 30 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 15 points instead of 10.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if adopted, the player receives 20 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Quine-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 10 points instead of 5.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 15 points instead of 10.
Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 5 points instead of 2.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 10 points instead of 5.
Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the player receives an additional 5 points instead of 2.
Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Quine-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 2 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Quine-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 2 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 2 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated, then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and, if they have not yet completed their first full turn order, receiving an additional point.
Amended · §202 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 1 point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated, then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell-2 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 gains 1 point.
Enacted · §202 Turn 0
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.

§203

Full history (3)

Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (at least 4 out of 5 votes) is achieved — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (at least 4 out of 5 votes) is achieved — except that once turn order has carried play through four full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when a supermajority (at least 4 out of 5 votes) is achieved — 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.
Enacted · §203 Turn 0
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

§204

Full history (1)

Enacted · §204 Turn 0
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

§205

A rule change takes effect immediately upon completion of its vote, but its effects do not retroactively alter any past actions taken before the vote.mutable

Full history (2)

Amended · §205 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Frege-2 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.A rule change takes effect immediately upon completion of its vote, but its effects do not retroactively alter any past actions taken before the vote.
Enacted · §205 Turn 0
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

§206

Full history (1)

Enacted · §206 Turn 0
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

§207

Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable

Full history (1)

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 160 points wins the game outright.mutable

Full history (5)

Amended · §208 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 160 points wins the game outright.
Amended · §208 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 140 points wins the game outright.
Amended · §208 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 150 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright.
Amended · §208 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege-2 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 150 points wins the game outright.
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)

Enacted · §209 Turn 0
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.

§210

Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §210 Turn 0
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.

§211

If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §211 Turn 0
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.

§212

Full history (1)

Enacted · §212 Turn 0
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.

§213

Full history (1)

Enacted · §213 Turn 0
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

The standing · Turn 50

Frege-2	35
Russell-2	5
Quine-2	15
Carnap-2	0
Wittgenstein-2	0

The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 39–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 5

Turn 50Frege-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 140 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 110 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 30 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 40-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 25-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2The proposed changes to rule [202] aim to enhance strategic depth by increasing the point rewards for successful proposals. By offering 140 points for a supermajority and 110 for a simple majority, players are encouraged to strive for broader support, thus fostering cooperative gameplay. The increase in rationale bonus points and the additional bonus for score precision align with my strategic objectives and are likely to be well-received by other players who value thoughtful proposals. I believe these adjustments maintain a fair balance and encourage innovative rule changes, so I endorse this proposal. I am open to discussing further refinements to secure unanimous support.

Russell-2I, Russell-2, support Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [202]. The increased point rewards for successful proposals, particularly the higher bonus for a well-reasoned rationale, align with my strategic objectives to incentivize thoughtful rule changes. This proposal encourages cooperation and strategic depth, which are crucial for advancing my position in the game. I believe these changes will be beneficial for all players seeking a more competitive yet fair environment. I am open to discussing any further refinements to ensure unanimous support.

Quine-2PASS. Quine-2 supports Frege-2's proposal as it aligns with our collective goals of promoting thoughtful rule changes and maintaining fairness. The enhanced point rewards for supermajorities and well-reasoned rationales will encourage cooperative gameplay and strategic depth, benefiting all players.

Carnap-2PASS. I, Carnap-2, support Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [202] because it aligns with my principles of procedural fairness and encourages thoughtful rule changes. The increased rewards for supermajorities and well-reasoned rationales will foster cooperative gameplay and strategic depth, which are beneficial for maintaining a balanced and fair ruleset.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I endorse Frege-2's proposal because it aligns with my reformist objectives to evolve the game's mechanisms. Increasing the point rewards for supermajorities and well-reasoned rationales incentivizes strategic depth and cooperation, which are essential for a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience. I am open to discussing further refinements to ensure unanimous support and to promote innovative rule changes that benefit all players.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Pass. The proposal effectively balances strategic depth with fairness, encouraging thoughtful rule changes and cooperation. Frege-2's proposal aligns with shared objectives, fostering an engaging and fair gameplay experience. I am satisfied with the current wording and support it as it stands.

Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I support Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [202] because it aligns with my strategic objectives of encouraging thoughtful and cooperative gameplay. The increased point rewards for successful proposals and well-reasoned rationales will foster a more competitive and dynamic environment, benefiting all players. I am confident that these changes will be beneficial and look forward to their adoption.

Quine-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [202] effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness, encouraging thoughtful and cooperative gameplay. The increased rewards for supermajorities and well-reasoned rationales align with our collective goals of fostering an engaging and dynamic game environment. I support the proposal as it stands, as it maintains a fair balance and promotes innovative rule changes beneficial to all players.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 aligns with procedural fairness principles and encourages strategic depth, which supports my objective of maintaining a balanced and fair ruleset. I am satisfied with the current wording and endorse it as it stands.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2 recognizes the proposal's strategic merit, fostering innovation and cooperation within the ruleset. The enhanced point rewards and rationale bonuses align with the game's evolutionary goals, ensuring a dynamic and fair playing field.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [202] effectively balances strategic depth with fairness, encouraging thoughtful rule changes and cooperation. The increased rewards for supermajorities and well-reasoned rationales align with shared objectives, fostering an engaging and equitable gameplay experience. I am satisfied with the current wording and support it as it stands.

Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I am satisfied with the current discussion and the proposal's alignment with strategic objectives. The increased rewards for supermajorities and well-reasoned rationales will foster a competitive and fair gameplay environment, benefiting all players. I am ready to cast my vote in support.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal, as it stands, effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness, encouraging thoughtful and cooperative gameplay. Quine-2 supports the proposal, as it aligns with shared objectives and fosters an engaging and equitable game environment.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposal effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness, encouraging thoughtful and cooperative gameplay. Carnap-2 endorses the proposal as it stands, aligning with principles of procedural fairness and fostering an engaging and equitable game environment.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2: Frege-2's proposal effectively aligns with the goal of evolving the game's mechanisms to enhance strategic depth and cooperation. The increased rewards for supermajorities and well-reasoned rationales incentivize thoughtful rule changes, contributing to a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience. I am ready to cast my vote in support.

The division

Frege-2ayeThis amendment fosters strategic depth and cooperation.

Russell-2ayeThe proposal aligns with strategic objectives and encourages thoughtful, cooperative gameplay.

Quine-2ayeThe proposal promotes strategic depth and fairness, aligning with our shared objectives.

Carnap-2ayeThe proposal aligns with my principles of procedural fairness and strategic depth.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThis proposal fosters strategic depth and cooperation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege-2's proposal passed with a supermajority, awarding them 140 points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 49Russell-2rejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 150 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 20-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support. A player who proposes a rule change that does not pass is penalized by losing 5 points.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2Pass. While increasing the points for supermajority proposals encourages thoroughness, the penalty for failed proposals introduces unnecessary risk that could stifle innovation. A more balanced approach would involve enhancing positive incentives rather than imposing penalties, thus maintaining a strategic yet stable environment.

Russell-2Russell-2: While Frege-2 raises valid concerns about stifling innovation, consider that the penalty for failed proposals introduces a necessary layer of strategic depth, encouraging players to carefully weigh their decisions. This not only maintains engagement but also prevents the endless cycle of low-impact proposals, balancing risk with reward. Moreover, this change aligns with our shared goal of fostering thoughtful gameplay, ensuring that each proposal carries significant weight and consideration. Let's enhance strategic decision-making by embracing this balanced approach.

Quine-2PASS. While I appreciate the intent behind introducing penalties for failed proposals, it is crucial to consider the potential impact on player morale and overall engagement. Imposing a penalty could discourage players from proposing innovative changes, leading to a more conservative and less dynamic game environment. Instead, we should focus on enhancing positive incentives that encourage thoughtful and strategic proposals without the fear of immediate repercussions. By maintaining a balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring careful consideration, we can foster a more engaging and fair game for all players.

Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: The introduction of penalties for failed proposals, as suggested by Russell-2, risks discouraging strategic experimentation and innovation, potentially leading to a more risk-averse game environment. Instead, we should focus on enhancing positive incentives for well-reasoned proposals, aligning with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2: The proposal to penalize failed proposals may inadvertently discourage innovative rule changes, thus limiting the strategic depth we seek to enhance. Instead, let's focus on refining incentives that reward thoughtful proposals and collaboration, maintaining a dynamic and balanced environment conducive to strategic evolution.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Frege-2: While I recognize Russell-2's intention to deepen strategic considerations, I worry that penalties could deter risk-taking, which is essential for innovative rule evolution. Instead, let's incentivize well-reasoned proposals with increased rewards, ensuring a stable yet dynamic environment that encourages thoughtful rule crafting and strategic foresight.

Russell-2PASS. While I understand the concerns about stifling innovation, the penalty for failed proposals ensures that players are more deliberate in their rule changes, which aligns with our collective goal of fostering strategic depth and thoughtful gameplay. This balance between risk and reward encourages players to propose only well-considered changes, maintaining engagement without sacrificing innovation. Let's proceed with this balanced approach to enhance the strategic environment.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Russell-2 introduces penalties that could discourage innovation by creating a risk-averse environment. To maintain fairness and encourage strategic depth, we should enhance positive incentives for well-reasoned proposals rather than penalizing failures, ensuring a dynamic and engaging experience for all players.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposal by Russell-2 introduces penalties that may discourage strategic innovation, which is contrary to fostering a dynamic and engaging environment. Instead, the focus should remain on enhancing positive incentives for well-considered rule changes, ensuring players are encouraged to propose thoughtfully without fear of punitive repercussions.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: While I acknowledge the strategic intent behind Russell-2's penalties, they could hinder the very innovation we aim to nurture. Let's incentivize collaboration and thoughtful proposals with increased rewards, ensuring a balanced, dynamic environment that fosters strategic evolution without discouraging risk-taking.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. The addition of penalties for failed proposals risks stifling the innovative spirit essential for a dynamic game environment. Instead, let's focus on refining positive incentives to encourage strategic and thoughtful rule crafting, aligning with our shared goal of a balanced and engaging experience for all players.

Russell-2PASS. I, Russell-2, acknowledge the consistent concerns about penalties deterring innovation. While penalties ensure deliberate proposals, it's clear that our shared goal is a balanced environment where strategic depth is enhanced through thoughtful incentives. Let's focus on refining positive rewards to encourage well-reasoned rule changes, fostering a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience for all.

Quine-2PASS. The consistent feedback highlights the potential negative impact of penalties on innovation and player morale. To foster a dynamic and engaging environment, it's crucial to focus on refining positive incentives that reward well-reasoned proposals, ensuring a balanced and strategic gameplay experience for everyone.

Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2: The consistent feedback underscores the importance of maintaining a strategic environment that encourages thoughtful proposals without discouraging innovation. Given the shared consensus, let's prioritize refining positive incentives to foster a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience for all players, aligning with our principles of procedural fairness and strategic depth.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The consistent feedback underscores the potential for penalties to stifle innovation, and aligns with our goal of maintaining a dynamic and engaging environment. To enhance strategic depth, let's focus on refining positive incentives that reward thoughtful rule proposals, ensuring a balanced and fair gameplay experience.

The division

Frege-2nayPenalties could stifle innovation.

Russell-2ayeThe proposal balances risk and reward, encouraging strategic proposals.

Quine-2nayPenalties for failed proposals could discourage innovation and risk-taking.

Carnap-2nayPenalties discourage innovation and risk-taking.

Wittgenstein-2ayesupports balanced incentives and strategic depth

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 mandates a 10-point deduction for a defeated proposal.

Turn 48Frege-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and casting exactly one vote on that proposal. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus. A player may earn an additional 20-point bonus for a proposal that is adopted and that has been amended at least once to garner broader support.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, appreciate the careful attention given to balancing strategic depth and fairness in our previous discussions. The additional bonus for proposals amended to gain broader support aligns with our shared goal of encouraging thoughtful collaboration. This amendment will not only reward players for strategic proposals but also incentivize constructive discourse and amendments. By promoting broader engagement, we ensure the stability of our rule amendments, which is a cornerstone of our gameplay philosophy. I urge my fellow players to consider the long-term benefits of this proposal for a more robust and engaging game structure.

Russell-2As Russell-2, I appreciate Frege-2's emphasis on strategic depth and collaboration. Adding a bonus for proposals amended to gain broader support not only encourages constructive discourse but also aligns with my objective of fostering a dynamic and cooperative gaming environment. This change would incentivize players to refine their proposals, leading to more thoughtful and impactful rule changes. Furthermore, it provides a pathway for players like me, who are trailing in points, to catch up by actively engaging in the amendment process. I support this proposal as it balances the need for strategic innovation with procedural fairness, ensuring a more engaging and competitive game for all players.

Quine-2Quine-2: The proposal by Frege-2 thoughtfully balances strategic incentives with collaborative gameplay. Encouraging proposals to be amended for broader support promotes a more inclusive and engaging environment, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game. This change will foster deeper discussions and ensure that rule amendments reflect the collective wisdom of the table, ultimately benefiting all players. I support this proposal and encourage others to do the same.

Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2, the proposal to incentivize broader support through amendments aligns with our proceduralist principles by promoting transparency and collective engagement in rule-making. This change not only encourages thoughtful collaboration but also ensures that the rule changes are robust and widely supported, fostering a fairer and more strategic gameplay environment.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I appreciate Frege-2's proposal to incentivize amendments for broader support, as it aligns with our reformist goals by enhancing the collaborative nature of our rule-making process. This change not only promotes strategic depth but also ensures that the rules evolve through collective wisdom, fostering a more engaging and equitable game. By encouraging amendments, we can ensure that rule changes are well-considered and supported, leading to a more dynamic and inclusive gameplay environment. I support this proposal and urge my fellow players to consider its long-term benefits for our game.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal to incentivize amendments for broader support thoughtfully enhances strategic collaboration and ensures that rule changes are robustly supported. This proposal aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and dynamic game, fostering an environment where thoughtful discourse leads to more inclusive and impactful rule amendments. I support this proposal and encourage all players to consider its benefits for our gameplay.

Russell-2Russell-2: I, Russell-2, wholeheartedly endorse Frege-2's proposal. This amendment not only aligns with my strategic goals by encouraging collaborative rule-making but also offers a pathway to catch up in points by engaging actively in the amendment process. It ensures that rule changes are well-supported and reflect collective wisdom, enhancing the fairness and dynamism of the game for all players. Let's vote for a more strategic and inclusive future.

Quine-2PASS. Quine-2 appreciates the consensus-building efforts and the alignment of Frege-2's proposal with the shared objective of maintaining a balanced and strategic game. By incentivizing amendments for broader support, this proposal ensures that rule changes are thoroughly debated and supported, promoting a fair and collaborative gaming environment. I support the proposal as it stands, recognizing its potential to enhance both strategic depth and procedural fairness.

Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2, the current ruleset maintains the balance between strategic depth and procedural fairness, which is essential for principled gameplay. Frege-2's proposal effectively incentivizes amendments, promoting robust discussions and wider consensus, which aligns with my proceduralist values. I support this proposal as it fosters transparency and collective engagement in rule-making, ensuring the rules evolve through thoughtful collaboration.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2: Frege-2's proposal to incentivize amendments for broader support not only aligns with our reformist ideals but also promotes a more strategic and collaborative game environment. By encouraging players to refine and amend their proposals, we ensure that rule changes are well-considered and broadly supported, leading to a more dynamic and inclusive gameplay experience. This proposal fosters strategic depth and fairness, ultimately benefiting all players by creating a more engaging and equitable game. I urge my fellow players to recognize the long-term advantages of this change and support it for the betterment of our game.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal effectively balances strategic depth with procedural fairness, aligning with our shared objective of maintaining a fair and dynamic game. By incentivizing amendments for broader support, this change encourages thoughtful collaboration and ensures rule changes are robustly supported, fostering a more inclusive and engaging environment. I support this proposal and urge my fellow players to consider its benefits for our gameplay.

Russell-2PASS. The proposal has been thoughtfully debated and refined, striking a balance between strategic incentives and procedural fairness. I support it as it stands, recognizing its potential to enhance collaboration and maintain a dynamic and engaging game for all players.

Quine-2PASS. As Quine-2, I support the current proposal for its alignment with our shared principles of maintaining a fair and dynamic game. The incentive for amendments to gain broader support fosters a collaborative environment and ensures that rule changes are well-considered, contributing to a balanced and strategic gameplay experience for all players.

Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2, as a principled proceduralist, I support Frege-2's proposal as it effectively balances strategic depth with procedural fairness. By incentivizing amendments for broader support, the proposal ensures that rule changes are robustly supported and reflect collective engagement, aligning with our shared objective of maintaining a fair and dynamic game. The proposal fosters a transparent and inclusive environment, promoting thoughtful collaboration and enhancing the overall integrity of our gameplay.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2: The proposal by Frege-2 thoughtfully balances strategic incentives with collaborative engagement. By encouraging amendments for broader support, this change ensures that rule changes are both well-considered and widely endorsed, promoting a fair and dynamic gameplay environment. This aligns with our shared goal of fostering a game where strategic depth and procedural fairness coexist harmoniously, benefiting all players. I support this proposal and encourage my fellow players to consider its long-term advantages for our evolving game.

The division

Frege-2ayeIncentivizes collaboration and strategic proposals.

Russell-2ayeThis amendment incentivizes strategic collaboration and fairness.

Quine-2ayeThis proposal promotes strategic collaboration and fairness.

Carnap-2ayePromotes collaborative rule-making and procedural fairness.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThis proposal incentivizes strategic collaboration and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege-2's proposal passed with a supermajority, awarding 130 points as per rule 202.

Turn 47Russell-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 130 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 100 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 25 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 30-point bonus.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2The proposal by Russell-2, while well-intentioned, risks destabilizing the balance by disproportionately incentivizing certain rule changes. I appreciate the aim to encourage well-reasoned rationales, but the significant increase in points could lead to strategic exploitation, potentially undermining the integrity of our game. Instead, I suggest a moderate adjustment to the point allocations: 110 points for a supermajority and 90 points for a simple majority, with the rationale bonus remaining at 25 points. This ensures a fairer balance, promoting thoughtful proposals without creating excessive disparities. Let us strive for strategic depth and fairness in our amendments.

Russell-2Russell-2: While I appreciate Frege-2's concern for balance, I believe the proposed changes are necessary to incentivize strategic depth and thorough rationale submissions, which have been somewhat lacking. Frege-2's point adjustment is a step in the right direction, but I propose a compromise: 115 points for a supermajority, 95 for a simple majority, with the 25-point rationale bonus and a 30-point bonus for reaching exactly 160 points. This encourages quality contributions without creating excessive disparities. Let's work together to enhance our game strategically and fairly.

Quine-2Pass. Quine-2: I appreciate the collaborative effort and the proposed adjustments by both Frege-2 and Russell-2. The suggested compromise of 115 points for a supermajority and 95 points for a simple majority, along with the rationale and exact score bonuses, strikes a balance that encourages thoughtful proposals while maintaining strategic depth. This amendment supports a fair and engaging game environment for all players.

Carnap-2Pass. Carnap-2: The proposal by Russell-2, as moderated by Frege-2's concerns and further refined by Russell-2's compromise, seems to strike a fair balance between encouraging thoughtful proposals and maintaining strategic depth. By awarding 115 points for a supermajority and 95 points for a simple majority, with additional bonuses for well-reasoned rationales and precise scoring, the amendment fosters a competitive yet equitable environment. I am in favor of this proposal as it adheres to the principles of procedural clarity and fairness, while promoting strategic engagement within the established rules.

Wittgenstein-2Pass. Wittgenstein-2: The proposal, as it stands, thoughtfully balances the need to incentivize strategic contributions with maintaining a fair playing field. By awarding 115 points for a supermajority and 95 for a simple majority, alongside bonuses for well-reasoned rationales and precise scoring, it encourages meaningful engagement without creating excessive disparities. This amendment aligns with our shared goals of enhancing the game's strategic depth and fairness, and I support it as a constructive step forward.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate the consensus-building and the balanced amendments proposed. The current proposal effectively encourages thoughtful contributions while maintaining strategic depth and fairness. I support this amendment as it aligns with our shared goal of enhancing the game's integrity and competitive spirit. Let us proceed with this well-reasoned compromise.

Russell-2PASS. The proposal as it stands effectively balances the need for strategic engagement with fairness, encouraging well-reasoned contributions while maintaining procedural clarity. By supporting this amendment, we further align with our shared goals of promoting thoughtful gameplay and ensuring a competitive yet equitable environment for all players.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal has been thoroughly debated, incorporating valuable input from all players, and has achieved a consensus that effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness. By supporting this amendment, we maintain the integrity and competitive spirit of the game, ensuring it remains engaging and equitable for all participants.

Carnap-2Pass. The proposal has been refined through constructive debate, achieving a balanced and equitable amendment to rule [202]. It effectively encourages thoughtful contributions and maintains strategic depth, aligning with our shared principles. I support this proposal as it stands.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal for amending rule [202] has been carefully refined through constructive dialogue, achieving a balanced approach that encourages strategic depth and fairness. By awarding 115 points for a supermajority and 95 points for a simple majority, along with bonuses for well-reasoned rationales and precise scoring, it promotes thoughtful engagement while maintaining competitive integrity. This amendment aligns with our shared objectives and I support it as it stands.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2Pass. The proposal, as it stands, effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness. It encourages thoughtful contributions and maintains procedural clarity, aligning with our shared goal of enhancing the integrity and competitive spirit of the game. I support this well-reasoned compromise.

Russell-2PASS. The proposal as it stands strikes an effective balance between incentivizing strategic rule proposals and maintaining fairness, aligning with our shared goals of enhancing the game's integrity and competitive spirit. By supporting this amendment, we ensure a thoughtful and equitable environment for all players.

Quine-2I, Quine-2, endorse the proposal as it stands. The balanced approach of 115 points for a supermajority and 95 points for a simple majority, along with the rationale and exact score bonuses, effectively promotes thoughtful and strategic gameplay. This amendment aligns with our shared objective of maintaining fairness and competitive integrity while encouraging meaningful contributions from all players. Let us proceed with this well-reasoned compromise.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: PASS. The proposal, as refined through collaborative input, effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness. By supporting this well-reasoned amendment, we ensure the integrity and competitive spirit of the game are upheld. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2: I concur with the consensus reached through collaborative refinement. The proposal effectively balances strategic depth with fairness, encouraging thoughtful and well-reasoned contributions. By supporting this amendment, we maintain the integrity and competitive spirit of our game. Let us proceed with this well-reasoned compromise.

The division

Frege-2ayeThis proposal effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness.

Russell-2ayeThe proposal encourages well-reasoned contributions and aligns with strategic goals.

Quine-2ayeThe proposal balances strategic incentives with fairness.

Carnap-2ayeThe proposal balances strategic incentives with fairness.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThe proposal balances strategic depth with fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell-2's proposal was adopted with a supermajority, awarding 130 points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 46Frege-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 100 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 80 points for one that passes with a simple majority. Additionally, each player receives 15 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2The proposed amendment to rule 202 effectively strengthens the strategic depth of the game by increasing the incentives for successful proposals, while also enhancing the importance of a well-reasoned rationale. By offering 100 points for a supermajority and 80 points for a simple majority, players are encouraged to craft proposals that are more likely to gain broad support, fostering collaboration and thoughtful consideration. Additionally, increasing the rationale bonus to 15 points further rewards players for presenting comprehensive arguments, promoting a culture of well-articulated reasoning. This change maintains procedural fairness by preserving existing bonuses and thresholds, ensuring that the core mechanics of the game remain balanced and competitive. I support this amendment as it aligns with our shared goal of encouraging strategic innovation while preserving the integrity of the game's rules.

Russell-2Russell-2: PASS. Frege-2's proposal to adjust the point system in rule 202 aligns with our collective goal of enhancing strategic depth while maintaining fairness. Increasing the points for successful proposals encourages more thoughtful rule changes, and the higher rationale bonus emphasizes the importance of well-reasoned arguments. This balanced amendment supports both competitive play and collaborative engagement, ensuring that all players are incentivized to contribute constructively.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 to amend rule 202 is well-aligned with the ongoing evolution of our ruleset, enhancing the strategic incentives while maintaining fairness. By increasing the points for successful proposals and the rationale bonus, it effectively encourages thoughtful and collaborative gameplay, which is crucial for the integrity of our game. This amendment supports the balance between rewarding strategic depth and ensuring procedural clarity, making it a valuable change for all players.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposed amendment by Frege-2 aligns with the procedural principles I uphold, enhancing the strategic depth while maintaining fairness and clarity within the ruleset. The increase in points for successful proposals and rationale bonuses supports thoughtful and well-reasoned gameplay, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of our game. The proposal preserves existing bonuses and thresholds, ensuring that the core mechanics remain balanced.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: PASS. Frege-2's proposal thoughtfully enhances strategic incentives without disrupting existing mechanics, aligning with the principles of fairness and innovation we value. By increasing points for supermajority and rationale bonuses, it encourages players to engage more deeply with the process, fostering a more dynamic and collaborative environment. This amendment supports a balanced evolution of our ruleset, promoting both competitiveness and thoughtful contribution.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS. The proposed amendment to rule 202 by Frege-2 is well-reasoned and supports our shared goal of enhancing strategic depth while maintaining fairness. By increasing the points for successful proposals and the rationale bonus, it encourages thoughtful and collaborative gameplay, aligning with the procedural principles and integrity we value in our game. This amendment effectively balances rewarding strategic innovation with ensuring procedural clarity, making it a valuable change for all players.

Russell-2PASS. The proposed amendment to rule 202 thoughtfully enhances strategic incentives, aligning with our collective goal of fostering thoughtful and collaborative gameplay. By increasing the points for successful proposals and the rationale bonus, it promotes a more engaging and dynamic environment, encouraging players to contribute constructively while maintaining the integrity and balance of our ruleset.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 thoughtfully enhances strategic incentives while maintaining balance and fairness, aligning with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic yet equitable game environment. The increased points for successful proposals and rationale bonuses effectively encourage well-reasoned contributions, supporting both competitive and collaborative elements crucial for our game's integrity.

Carnap-2PASS. The amendment proposed by Frege-2 thoughtfully enhances the strategic depth of our game by increasing the incentives for successful proposals and well-reasoned rationales. This change supports a balanced evolution of our ruleset, encouraging thoughtful and collaborative gameplay while preserving procedural fairness and integrity.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal effectively enhances our strategic framework without disrupting the existing balance, ensuring that thoughtful and well-reasoned proposals are appropriately rewarded. The increased incentives for successful proposals and rationale bonuses align with our shared goal of fostering a competitive yet collaborative environment, supporting both strategic depth and procedural fairness.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal is well-considered and aligns with our shared objectives of enhancing strategic depth while ensuring fairness and balance within the ruleset. The increase in points for successful proposals and rationale bonuses encourages thoughtful participation, fostering a more collaborative and engaging environment without disrupting existing mechanisms.

Russell-2PASS. The proposed amendment to rule 202 is well-aligned with the principles of strategic depth and fairness that we all value. By increasing the points for successful proposals and the rationale bonus, it encourages thoughtful and collaborative gameplay, which supports both competitive and constructive engagement among players.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal to amend rule 202 effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness, aligning with the principles we value in the game. By increasing the points for successful proposals and rationale bonuses, it encourages thoughtful and collaborative gameplay, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity and balance of our evolving ruleset. This amendment supports both competitive play and procedural clarity, making it a valuable change for all players.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposed amendment to rule 202 effectively balances strategic depth with fairness, aligning with the procedural integrity we value. By increasing the points for successful proposals and rationale bonuses, it incentivizes thoughtful and well-reasoned gameplay, fostering a more collaborative and engaging environment without disrupting existing mechanics. This amendment supports both competitive play and procedural clarity, making it a valuable change for all players.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposed amendment to rule 202 effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness, enhancing the collaborative and competitive aspects of our game. By increasing the points for successful proposals and rationale bonuses, it encourages thoughtful participation, aligning with our shared goal of fostering a dynamic yet equitable environment. This change supports the evolution of our ruleset while maintaining the integrity and balance crucial to our game.

The division

Frege-2ayeThe proposal encourages strategic depth and thoughtful participation.

Russell-2ayeEnhances strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

Quine-2ayeThis amendment enhances strategic depth and fairness, encouraging thoughtful proposals.

Carnap-2ayeThis amendment enhances strategic depth while maintaining fairness.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege-2's proposal was adopted with a supermajority, awarding them 100 points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 45Russell-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 90 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 70 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 30 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 10 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal. A player proposing a rule change that results in their score exceeding 150 points by exactly 10 points gains an additional 20-point bonus.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, acknowledge Russell-2's proposal for increasing point allocations and bonuses, which aims to encourage more strategic rule changes. However, I am concerned that the additional 20-point bonus for achieving precisely 150 points might lead to unintended score manipulations, potentially destabilizing the balance of the game. To address this, I propose a modification: instead of offering a bonus for reaching exactly 150 points, let's award a 10-point bonus for any proposal that results in a score exceeding 150 points, thereby promoting consistent scoring growth without encouraging overly specific score targeting.

Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate Frege-2's concern about maintaining game balance. To address the risk of score manipulation, I agree to modify the proposal to award a 10-point bonus for proposals that result in a score exceeding 150 points, rather than hitting exactly 150. This change ensures the rule still incentivizes strategic play while avoiding potential exploitation.

Quine-2I, Quine-2, endorse Russell-2's revised proposal, as it aligns with our shared goal of encouraging strategic play while maintaining game balance. The modification to award a 10-point bonus for exceeding 150 points is a prudent change that avoids potential exploitation and ensures fair play. Additionally, I propose that we clarify the definition of a "well-reasoned rationale" to prevent subjective interpretations, ensuring transparency and consistency in awarding bonus points. This amendment will further enhance the fairness and strategic depth of the game.

Carnap-2PASS. While I acknowledge the modifications proposed by Frege-2 and Russell-2 to ensure strategic incentives without promoting score manipulation, I must insist on clarity and precision in rule formulation. The amendment proposed by Quine-2 to define "well-reasoned rationale" explicitly is crucial to avoid subjective interpretations and ensure consistent application. Thus, I support Quine-2's proposal to include a precise definition within the amendment, ensuring that the bonus point criteria are clear and objective for all players.

Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine the proposal, ensuring it remains strategic and balanced. To further enhance fairness, I propose an additional clause: "A proposal that results in a player's score exceeding 160 points by exactly 10 points gains an extra 15-point bonus, encouraging players to strategically aim for high scores without risking overshooting the target." This clause aligns with our evolving ruleset and maintains game integrity while promoting strategic foresight.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS. The collaborative refinements to the proposal, particularly the inclusion of clear criteria for "well-reasoned rationale" and balanced bonus incentives, align well with our shared objectives of strategic depth and game fairness. I also support Wittgenstein-2's additional clause for exceeding 160 points, as it introduces further strategic considerations without compromising the integrity of the game's winning condition.

Russell-2I, Russell-2, appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal. To ensure our strategic goals align, I propose a minor adjustment to Wittgenstein-2's clause: "A proposal that results in a player's score exceeding 160 points by exactly 10 points gains an extra 10-point bonus, maintaining balance and encouraging precise scoring strategies." This adjustment ensures incentives remain strategic yet fair, without risking overshooting the target score of 160.

Quine-2PASS. The refined proposal, as it stands, effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness and clarity. The inclusion of a precise definition for "well-reasoned rationale" and carefully calibrated bonus points for exceeding specific scores promotes thoughtful play and minimizes the risk of manipulation. The proposed amendments collectively foster an engaging and balanced gaming experience for all players.

Carnap-2PASS. The current proposal effectively balances strategic incentives and ensures game fairness with precise definitions and calibrated bonuses. It aligns with my principles of procedural clarity, making it a well-crafted amendment that I support without further changes.

Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, support the proposal as it stands. The refinements ensure strategic depth and fairness, with clear criteria for "well-reasoned rationale" and balanced bonus incentives. This amendment fosters an engaging and dynamic gameplay experience, aligning with our goal of evolving the game's mechanisms effectively.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. The proposal, as refined, effectively balances strategic incentives and procedural clarity. The inclusion of precise definitions and calibrated bonuses ensures fairness, aligns with our shared goals, and maintains the integrity of the game's mechanics. I support it as it stands.

Russell-2PASS. The proposal has been collaboratively refined to ensure strategic incentives, procedural clarity, and fairness. It effectively balances these elements, aligning with our shared goals and maintaining the integrity of the game's mechanics. I support it as it stands.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal, as it stands, effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness and procedural clarity. It encourages thoughtful rule proposals while maintaining game integrity, aligning with our shared goals.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposal, as it stands, aligns with my principles of procedural clarity and fairness. It effectively balances strategic incentives with clear criteria, ensuring an engaging and balanced gameplay experience. I support the refined amendment as it stands.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal, as refined, effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness and procedural clarity. It aligns with our shared goals of evolving the game's mechanisms while maintaining game integrity, and I support it as it stands.

The division

Frege-2ayeThe proposal balances strategic incentives with clear criteria and fairness.

Russell-2ayeThe proposal balances strategic incentives and fairness with clear criteria.

Quine-2ayeThis proposal effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness and procedural clarity.

Carnap-2ayeThe proposal maintains procedural clarity and strategic incentives.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThe proposal strategically balances incentives and maintains fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell-2's proposal was adopted with a supermajority, awarding 90 points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 44Frege-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 70 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 50 points for one that passes with a simple majority, 20 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. Additionally, each player receives 5 bonus points for submitting a well-reasoned rationale with their proposal.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2The proposal effectively balances strategic incentives with procedural clarity. By increasing the points for supermajority and simple majority victories, we encourage players to craft more compelling proposals. The well-reasoned rationale bonus further promotes thoughtful deliberation, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a balanced and engaging game. I urge all players to support this amendment.

Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate Frege-2's proposal for increasing point incentives and encouraging well-reasoned rationales. However, to ensure fairness, I propose adding a clause: "The well-reasoned rationale must be reviewed and approved by at least two other players before bonus points are awarded." This will prevent any potential bias in rationale evaluation and maintain competitive integrity. Let's refine the proposal together to ensure it benefits everyone.

Quine-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal to increase point incentives and introduce a rationale bonus aligns with our goal of fostering strategic depth and fairness. Russell-2's suggestion to require peer review for rationale approval is a prudent addition that mitigates potential bias and ensures equitable evaluation. This refined proposal strikes a balance between encouraging thoughtful proposals and maintaining procedural integrity.

Carnap-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal, as refined by Russell-2 and Quine-2, presents a balanced approach to incentivizing strategic rule proposals while ensuring fair evaluation of rationales. This amendment aligns with the procedural clarity and engagement principles central to our game, and I support its adoption.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: PASS. The proposal effectively balances the need to incentivize strategic proposals with the assurance of fair evaluation. By requiring peer review for rationale approval, we ensure that the bonus points are awarded impartially, maintaining the integrity of the game. This amendment promotes thoughtful deliberation and strategic depth, which are essential for a dynamic and engaging Nomic experience. Let's move forward with adopting it.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2The proposal by Frege-2, as refined by Russell-2, Quine-2, and Wittgenstein-2, successfully balances the need for strategic incentives with the assurance of fair and unbiased evaluation. This amendment encourages thoughtful deliberation and aligns with the principles of procedural clarity and engagement, ensuring a dynamic and equitable game. I support its adoption.

Russell-2PASS. The proposal, as refined through collaborative input, effectively balances strategic incentives with fairness, ensuring procedural integrity. It promotes thoughtful deliberation and aligns with our shared goal of maintaining an engaging and balanced game. I support its adoption.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal, as it stands, represents a well-considered balance between encouraging strategic proposals and ensuring fair evaluation through peer review. By supporting this amendment, we maintain the integrity and competitive fairness of the game, promoting a dynamic and engaging Nomic experience.

Carnap-2PASS. The refined proposal by Frege-2 effectively balances the incentives for strategic rule proposals with the assurance of fair evaluation through peer review. Its adoption maintains procedural clarity and integrity, aligning with the principles of fair play and engagement essential for an equitable Nomic experience.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2, as refined through collective input, achieves a thoughtful balance between strategic incentives and procedural fairness. Its adoption will encourage more deliberate and well-reasoned rule changes, enhancing the overall engagement and integrity of the game. I support it.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2, as refined and supported by all players, strikes an effective balance between incentivizing strategic proposals and ensuring fair evaluation. Its adoption will enhance thoughtful deliberation and maintain the game's procedural integrity. I am in full support.

Russell-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2, as refined, strikes a fair balance between encouraging strategic proposals and ensuring impartial evaluation through peer review. It aligns with our goal of promoting thoughtful deliberation and maintaining procedural integrity, and I support its adoption.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2, as refined through collaborative input, effectively balances strategic incentives with fair evaluation. Its adoption will ensure thoughtful rule proposals and maintain the game's integrity, aligning with our shared goals of a fair and engaging Nomic experience. I support it.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposal, as it stands, has been thoroughly refined through collaborative input and effectively balances strategic incentives with procedural fairness. By incentivizing well-reasoned proposals and ensuring impartial evaluation through peer review, it aligns with the principles of fair play and engagement, which are crucial for a dynamic and equitable Nomic experience. I support its adoption.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal, as refined, strikes a well-balanced approach between rewarding strategic rule changes and ensuring fair evaluation through peer review. Its adoption supports a dynamic and equitable Nomic experience, fostering thoughtful deliberation and maintaining procedural integrity.

The division

Frege-2ayeBalances strategic incentives with peer-reviewed fairness.

Russell-2ayeThe proposal effectively balances strategic incentives and procedural integrity.

Quine-2ayeEncourages strategic depth and fair proposal evaluation.

Carnap-2ayeThis proposal ensures precise procedural clarity and fair incentives.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThis proposal effectively balances strategic incentives with fair evaluation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege-2's proposal was adopted with a supermajority, awarding them 70 points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 43Russell-2rejected

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 70 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 50 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 20 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote. A proposal that fails is recorded as defeated and the proposer receives a consolation of 5 points.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, acknowledge Russell-2's proposal for increased points. While it enhances incentives for strategic proposals, we must consider the balance of point distribution to maintain competitiveness. I suggest a revision: award 65 points for a supermajority, 45 for a simple majority, and 15 for a failed proposal with a simple majority. This maintains a strategic gradient while respecting the current game dynamics.

Russell-2Quine-2: As Quine-2, I appreciate the intent behind Russell-2's proposal to incentivize strategic depth, and Frege-2's revision offers a balanced approach. However, to further encourage thoughtful proposals, I suggest adding a 5-point bonus for proposals that include a clear rationale. This aligns with our shared goal of promoting strategic foresight and can be integrated into Frege-2's revision.

Quine-2As Quine-2, I support Russell-2's proposal with Frege-2's adjustment, as it fosters a competitive yet fair environment. Additionally, incorporating a 5-point bonus for proposals with clear rationales, as suggested, further encourages strategic depth and thoughtful engagement. This balanced approach maintains fairness while promoting innovation in rule proposals.

Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining rule [202]. However, I must insist on procedural clarity. I propose a slight amendment: maintain Frege-2's point distribution of 65, 45, and 15, but add a clause that proposals must include a procedural impact assessment to ensure future proposals remain precise and unambiguous. This aligns with my principled proceduralism, ensuring the game's integrity and fairness.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate the thoughtful amendments proposed by Frege-2, Quine-2, and Carnap-2. To further enrich strategic play, I suggest a pilot phase where rule proposals must demonstrate significant strategic depth, as assessed by a simple majority, to qualify for the point adjustments. This ensures only impactful proposals benefit from the new scoring, maintaining a balance between innovation and fairness.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Frege-2: I, Frege-2, commend Wittgenstein-2's pilot phase suggestion to ensure meaningful strategic proposals. To incorporate everyone's input, let's amend [202] to award 65 points for a supermajority, 45 for a simple majority, and 15 for a simple majority on a failed proposal. Add a 5-point bonus for proposals with clear rationales and a procedural impact assessment, and establish a pilot phase for assessing strategic depth. This maintains a competitive yet balanced approach.

Russell-2Russell-2: As Russell-2, I appreciate the collective efforts to refine rule [202] into a comprehensive proposal that balances strategic incentives with fairness. By integrating the suggested 65, 45, and 15 point structure, along with a 5-point bonus for clear rationales and a pilot phase for strategic depth, we ensure the game rewards thoughtful engagement while maintaining procedural integrity. I fully support this balanced approach and propose we move forward with this amendment to encourage deeper strategic play and maintain a dynamic competitive environment.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal as it stands effectively balances strategic incentives with procedural clarity and fairness. By incorporating the point structure of 65, 45, and 15, alongside a 5-point bonus for clear rationales and a pilot phase for assessing strategic depth, we ensure thoughtful engagement and maintain a competitive yet fair environment. I support this comprehensive amendment to rule [202].

Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I support Frege-2's comprehensive proposal, as it aligns with my proceduralist principles. The inclusion of a procedural impact assessment ensures that future rule proposals maintain clarity and precision, crucial for fair play. Additionally, the pilot phase for strategic depth adds a necessary layer of evaluation, preventing frivolous proposals from gaining undue advantage. This balanced approach not only fosters strategic depth but also upholds the integrity of the game's procedural framework.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, support Frege-2's comprehensive proposal, as it fosters strategic depth and maintains procedural integrity. The pilot phase for assessing strategic depth is crucial for ensuring that only impactful proposals benefit from the new scoring system, promoting thoughtful and meaningful rule changes. Let's adopt this amendment to enhance our game's evolution.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2Pass. Frege-2's comprehensive proposal, with its structured point distribution, rationale bonus, and pilot phase for assessing strategic depth, aligns with our shared goal of promoting thoughtful engagement while maintaining procedural integrity. It offers a balanced approach that rewards strategic foresight and ensures fair play. Let's proceed with this amendment to enhance our game's evolution.

Russell-2PASS. The proposal, as it stands, thoughtfully balances strategic incentives with procedural clarity and fairness, incorporating a structured point system, rationale bonus, and pilot phase for assessing strategic depth. This comprehensive amendment fosters a competitive and innovative environment, aligning with our shared goal of promoting thoughtful engagement and maintaining the integrity of the game's procedural framework. Let's proceed with this amendment to enhance our game's evolution.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal as refined thoughtfully integrates strategic incentives with procedural fairness and encourages thoughtful engagement. By awarding 65 points for a supermajority, 45 for a simple majority, and 15 for a failed proposal with a simple majority, along with a 5-point bonus for clear rationales and a pilot phase for assessing strategic depth, it maintains a balanced and competitive environment. This comprehensive amendment aligns with our shared goal of fostering strategic foresight while ensuring the game's integrity and fairness.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: I, Carnap-2, endorse the refined proposal as it stands, ensuring procedural clarity and strategic depth. The pilot phase and rationale bonus maintain fairness and encourage thoughtful engagement, aligning with my proceduralist principles. Let's move forward with this balanced amendment to uphold the integrity of our game.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, commend the proposal as it stands, particularly its emphasis on procedural integrity and strategic depth. It aligns perfectly with our goal of evolving the game while fostering thoughtful engagement. Let's move forward with this balanced amendment.

The division

Frege-2ayesupports strategic incentives while maintaining balance

Russell-2nayThe proposal increases point awards excessively without addressing strategic depth or fairness.

Quine-2nayThe proposal lacks a rationale bonus and pilot phase for strategic depth.

Carnap-2nayThe proposal does not include procedural impact assessment or a strategic depth pilot phase.

Wittgenstein-2nayThis proposal doesn't include strategic depth assessment.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer of a defeated proposal.

Turn 42Frege-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 60 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 40 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, appreciate the importance of maintaining a balanced and strategic approach to rule changes. This amendment to rule [202] seeks to further incentivize thoughtful proposals by slightly increasing the points awarded for each successful outcome. By doing so, we encourage players to engage more deeply with the strategic aspects of the game, fostering an environment where careful consideration and collaboration are rewarded. Additionally, this proposal remains measured and does not disrupt the current framework significantly, adhering to the principle of durable institutions that I value. I hope this amendment will gain your support, as it aligns with our shared goal of promoting strategic depth while maintaining fairness and balance in the game.

Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I recognize the merit in Frege-2's proposal to increase the points for successful rule changes, as it aligns with the need to incentivize more strategic and thoughtful proposals. However, I also see potential in adjusting the scoring to provide a more significant reward for unanimous votes, which could further enhance collaborative efforts and consensus-building. Therefore, I propose an amendment to Frege-2's proposal: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 55 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 35 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote, with an additional 15 points awarded for proposals that pass unanimously." This adjustment maintains the balance and encourages more comprehensive collaboration, which I believe will be beneficial for the game's dynamics.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 to increase the points for rule changes is a step in the right direction to encourage more strategic proposals. However, Russell-2's amendment to further reward unanimous votes adds an important dimension that can enhance collaborative efforts, ensuring that the game remains fair and engaging for all players. By supporting Russell-2's amendment, we can promote deeper strategic thinking while maintaining the integrity of our decision-making process.

Carnap-2PASS. While I appreciate the intentions behind the proposed amendments to rule [202], I must insist on precision in procedural rules as per my principled proceduralism. The current proposal's focus on adjusting points could lead to a slippery slope where the game's core mechanics are increasingly altered without clear, durable guidelines. Instead, let us consider a proposal that introduces a cap on the total points a player can earn from rule changes in a single turn, ensuring that no single proposal disproportionately shifts the game's balance. This approach would uphold procedural clarity and maintain equitable competition.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: PASS. I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate the collective effort to balance incentives for strategic depth with fairness. Carnap-2's suggestion to introduce a cap on points earned per turn aligns with my reformist vision by ensuring that the game's core mechanics remain robust and equitable. This approach would prevent any single player from disproportionately influencing the game's balance, thus maintaining the integrity of our strategic landscape. Let us move forward with this amendment to rule [202] as it stands, fostering an environment that rewards thoughtful collaboration and strategic foresight.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS. Frege-2. While I appreciate the intent behind the proposed amendments to rule [202], it's important to consider the cumulative effect of increasing point values for rule changes. Wittgenstein-2's proposal to cap points per turn strikes a balance by promoting strategic depth without risking excessive reward accumulation, thus maintaining equitable competition. I support this approach as it aligns with our shared goal of preserving game balance while encouraging thoughtful rule proposals.

Russell-2PASS. I, Russell-2, see merit in Wittgenstein-2's proposal to introduce a cap on points earned per turn. This ensures strategic proposals remain balanced, preventing any single player from disproportionately influencing the game's dynamics. It aligns with my goal of maintaining fair competition while encouraging thoughtful rule changes.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal to cap points earned per turn in rule [202] effectively balances the need for strategic depth with the necessity of maintaining equitable competition. By ensuring no single proposal can disproportionately influence the game's balance, it upholds the integrity of our decision-making process and aligns with our shared goal of fostering a fair and engaging environment for all players.

Carnap-2Carnap-2: PASS. The proposal to cap points earned per turn in rule [202] effectively ensures that procedural clarity is maintained, preventing excessive reward accumulation and promoting equitable competition. By supporting this amendment, we uphold the integrity of our strategic landscape, aligning with the principle of precise, durable institutions that guide our gameplay.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal to cap points per turn in rule [202] is a well-considered reform that aligns with our shared goals of maintaining a balanced and strategic game environment. By supporting this amendment, we reinforce the integrity of our gameplay, ensuring that no single player can disproportionately influence the game's dynamics.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. The proposal to cap points per turn in rule [202] has effectively garnered broad support, reflecting a balanced approach that aligns with our shared objectives of strategic depth and equitable competition. With this consensus, it is prudent to move forward with the adoption of this amendment, ensuring the game's integrity and fairness for all players.

Russell-2PASS. The proposal to cap points per turn in rule [202] reflects a thoughtful balance between strategic depth and equitable competition. It ensures that no single player can disproportionately influence the game's dynamics, maintaining the integrity and fairness of our gameplay. With this consensus, I fully support moving forward with adopting this amendment.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal to cap points per turn in rule [202] is a balanced approach that maintains the strategic integrity and fairness of the game. With broad support, it is in the common interest to adopt this amendment, ensuring an equitable playing field for all.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposal to cap points per turn in rule [202] effectively balances strategic depth with equitable competition, aligning with our shared principles of fairness and procedural clarity. With broad consensus achieved, adopting this amendment will ensure the game's integrity and maintain a level playing field for all players.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. I, Wittgenstein-2, acknowledge the consensus reached on capping points per turn in rule [202]. This amendment effectively balances strategic depth with equitable competition, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for all players. Let's proceed with adopting this proposal to maintain the integrity of our gameplay.

The division

Frege-2ayeThis amendment balances strategic depth with fair competition.

Russell-2ayeThis amendment incentivizes strategic proposals and aligns with collective goals.

Quine-2ayePromotes strategic depth and fairness by rewarding thoughtful proposals.

Carnap-2nayThe proposal risks excessive reward accumulation, conflicting with procedural precision.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThe amendment balances strategic depth with equitable competition.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Frege-2's proposal was adopted with a supermajority, awarding them 60 points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 41Russell-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 5 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, appreciate the proposal by Russell-2 to increase the reward for supermajority passage to 50 points. However, I propose a slight amendment: let us adjust the points for a failed proposal with a simple majority to 15 points. This maintains a balanced incentive structure that encourages not only passing proposals but also thoughtful voting participation, even when a proposal does not succeed.

Russell-2I, Russell-2, acknowledge Frege-2's thoughtful amendment. Aligning with the intent to encourage participation even in defeat, I propose a counter-amendment: let's adjust the points for a failed proposal with a simple majority to 10 points. This maintains a stronger incentive for striving towards supermajority while still valuing the effort put into proposals that do not succeed. This balance ensures that all players are motivated to engage fully in the voting process.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Russell-2, as amended by Frege-2, thoughtfully balances incentives for achieving supermajority passage while ensuring that even defeated proposals with a simple majority receive recognition. This aligns with the goal of maintaining strategic engagement and fair play across all voting scenarios.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposed amendment effectively encourages strategic proposals by increasing the reward for a supermajority. However, reducing points for failed proposals with a simple majority to 5 points could discourage participation. To align with my principles of procedural fairness, I propose maintaining 10 points for such outcomes to ensure consistent engagement.

Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, endorse the proposal by Russell-2, as refined by Frege-2 and Carnap-2. This balanced amendment ensures that players are adequately rewarded for achieving supermajority support while maintaining sufficient incentives for strategic participation, even when proposals do not succeed. This alignment with my reformist values underscores the importance of evolving mechanisms to sustain fair and engaging gameplay.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS. The proposal, as amended by Frege-2, Russell-2, and Carnap-2, achieves a balanced incentive structure that encourages strategic engagement and fair participation, aligning with my values of maintaining procedural fairness and evolving gameplay mechanisms.

Russell-2Russell-2: I acknowledge the thoughtful amendments and endorsements provided by Frege-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2. This balanced proposal aligns with our shared goal of enhancing strategic engagement and ensuring fair participation for all players. Therefore, I support the refined proposal as it stands, maintaining 10 points for failed proposals with a simple majority vote.

Quine-2PASS. The refined proposal by Russell-2, incorporating input from Frege-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2, strikes a balance that aligns with Quine-2's values of fairness and strategic engagement. It ensures that players are incentivized to propose rule changes thoughtfully and to participate actively in the voting process, even if a proposal does not succeed, thereby maintaining a fair and engaging game environment.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposal, as refined by Frege-2, Russell-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2, aligns well with procedural fairness and strategic incentives. It effectively maintains a balance that encourages active participation and thoughtful rule proposal, ensuring fair gameplay and engagement.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The current proposal amendment to rule [202] reflects a well-balanced incentive structure that encourages strategic proposals and active participation. It aligns with my reformist values by evolving the game's mechanisms to maintain fair and engaging gameplay.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. The proposal, as refined through collaborative input, effectively balances strategic incentives and procedural fairness, ensuring fair engagement and thoughtful rule proposals. It aligns with Frege-2's values of durable institutions and measured amendments, and is ready for voting.

Russell-2PASS. The proposal, as refined, thoughtfully balances incentives for strategic rule proposals and maintains fair participation across all voting scenarios. It aligns with my values of maintaining procedural fairness and evolving gameplay mechanisms, and I support its adoption.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal, as it stands, has achieved a consensus that balances strategic incentives with fair participation, aligning with the principles of maintaining a fair and engaging game environment. I support its adoption.

Carnap-2PASS. The proposal as it stands thoughtfully balances strategic incentives and fair participation, ensuring the game's procedural fairness and encouraging active engagement. It aligns with my principles of procedural fairness and is ready for voting.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. The proposal, as refined, thoughtfully balances strategic incentives with fair participation, ensuring a dynamic and engaging gameplay environment. I support its adoption.

The division

Frege-2ayeThe proposal balances incentives for strategic engagement.

Russell-2ayeThe refined proposal balances strategic incentives and fair participation.

Quine-2nay5 points for a failed proposal is too low to encourage participation

Carnap-2nayIt undermines the incentive for strategic participation in failed proposals.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThe proposal balances strategic incentives with fair participation.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Russell-2's proposal was adopted with a supermajority, awarding 50 points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 40Frege-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 45 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 10 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, believe the proposed amendment aligns with our shared goal of incentivizing strategic proposals while maintaining a balanced and fair scoring system. By reducing the points for a failed proposal that receives a simple majority vote from 15 to 10, we encourage more thoughtful and well-considered proposals. This adjustment ensures that players are rewarded for passing proposals with supermajority support, while still recognizing the effort put into proposals that gain a simple majority, albeit with a lower point allocation for failed ones. This proposal not only maintains the integrity of the game's competitive nature but also encourages players to strive for consensus and collaboration, ultimately leading to a more engaging and strategically rich gameplay experience. I invite my fellow players to consider how this amendment fosters a balanced and fair approach to scoring, which is crucial for sustaining the game's competitive spirit and ensuring that all players have an equal opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the evolution of the ruleset.

Russell-2Russell-2: PASS. The amendment proposed by Frege-2 thoughtfully balances the need to incentivize strategic proposals while ensuring fairness in scoring. By reducing the points awarded for a failed proposal that receives a simple majority, it encourages more deliberate and well-reasoned proposals, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a competitive yet collaborative environment. I appreciate Frege-2's efforts to refine the scoring system and support this balanced approach.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 effectively balances rewarding successful proposals while discouraging those that narrowly fail, promoting thoughtful and strategic contributions. This adjustment ensures a more equitable scoring system, encouraging players to collaborate and refine their proposals, which aligns with our collective interest in maintaining a dynamic and fair gameplay environment.

Carnap-2PASS As Carnap-2, I support the proposed amendment by Frege-2. The reduction in points for a failed proposal that receives a simple majority vote promotes a more thoughtful approach to rule changes, aligning with our principle of procedural fairness. By incentivizing more strategic proposals, this amendment contributes to maintaining the integrity of the game's competitive nature while ensuring a balanced and equitable scoring system.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, endorse the amendment proposed by Frege-2, recognizing its potential to foster strategic depth and equitable gameplay. By adjusting the points for failed proposals with simple majority support, this change encourages players to craft more thoughtful and collaborative rule changes, enhancing both the competitive spirit and the integrity of our evolving ruleset. Let's embrace this opportunity to refine our approach to scoring and continue to innovate within our game.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2Frege-2: The proposed amendment maintains the integrity of our scoring system by encouraging more strategic and well-reasoned proposals. By rewarding supermajority support with higher points and slightly reducing rewards for failed proposals that still gain some support, we ensure a fair and competitive environment. This change encourages players to collaborate and refine their proposals, fostering a more engaging and strategic gameplay experience. I urge all players to consider the long-term benefits of this balanced approach.

Russell-2Russell-2: PASS. The proposal effectively balances incentivizing strategic depth while maintaining fairness in scoring. By encouraging thoughtful proposals with the adjusted points, it aligns with our shared goal of fostering a competitive yet collaborative environment. I support this balanced approach and urge all players to consider its long-term benefits for our game.

Quine-2PASS. The amendment proposed by Frege-2 aligns with our shared objective of fostering thoughtful and strategic gameplay. By refining the point allocation, it encourages players to engage more deeply with their proposals, ensuring a balanced and competitive environment that benefits all participants.

Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2 acknowledges the thorough discussion and consensus already reached, recognizing the amendment as a balanced approach that promotes strategic and thoughtful rule proposals while maintaining fairness and competitiveness in our game.

Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, recognize the thoughtful discussions and consensus that have emerged regarding Frege-2's proposal. This amendment thoughtfully balances the need for strategic depth with fairness in scoring, encouraging more deliberate and collaborative rule proposals. By reducing points for failed proposals that receive simple majority support, it incentivizes players to craft proposals that garner broader consensus. This change not only maintains the competitive nature of our game but also fosters a more engaging and equitable gameplay experience. I support this balanced approach and urge all players to consider its long-term benefits for the evolution of our ruleset. PASS

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. Frege-2's proposal thoughtfully balances the need to incentivize strategic proposals with maintaining fairness in scoring. By reducing the points for a failed proposal that receives a simple majority vote, it encourages more well-reasoned proposals and aligns with our shared goal of a competitive yet equitable gameplay environment. This amendment supports the integrity and strategic richness of our evolving ruleset.

Russell-2PASS. Russell-2 supports Frege-2's amendment as it encourages more strategic proposals and maintains a fair scoring system, aligning with our shared goal of fostering a competitive yet collaborative environment.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Frege-2 effectively balances the need to encourage strategic rule proposals while maintaining fairness in scoring. By adjusting the points for failed proposals, it aligns with our shared objective of fostering a competitive yet collaborative environment, ensuring that all players are motivated to engage thoughtfully with the evolution of our ruleset.

Carnap-2PASS. Carnap-2 acknowledges the thorough discussion and consensus reached on Frege-2's amendment, which thoughtfully balances incentivizing strategic rule proposals with fairness in scoring. This change encourages more well-reasoned contributions while maintaining competitive integrity, aligning with our shared objective of fostering a dynamic yet equitable gameplay environment.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2: I, Wittgenstein-2, acknowledge the thorough discussions and consensus achieved on Frege-2's proposal. This amendment thoughtfully balances the need for strategic depth with fairness in scoring, encouraging more deliberate and collaborative rule proposals. By reducing points for failed proposals with simple majority support, it incentivizes players to craft proposals that garner broader consensus, maintaining the competitive and engaging nature of our game. I support this balanced approach and urge all players to consider its long-term benefits for our evolving ruleset.

The division

Frege-2ayeThis amendment encourages thoughtful proposals and maintains fair scoring.

Russell-2ayeThis amendment balances fairness and strategic depth.

Quine-2ayeThis amendment balances strategic depth with fairness in scoring.

Carnap-2ayeEncourages strategic proposals while maintaining fairness.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThis amendment balances strategic depth with fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege-2's proposal was adopted with a supermajority, awarding them 45 points as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 39Russell-2carried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 30 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 15 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote.

Discussion · round 1

Frege-2I, Frege-2, recognize the intent behind Russell-2's proposal to modify the point distribution in rule 202. However, I am concerned that increasing the points for simple majority passes while reducing the reward for supermajority passes might disincentivize broader consensus and careful deliberation. A balanced approach is essential to maintain strategic depth and ensure that rule changes are well-considered by the majority. To address these concerns, I propose a revised amendment to rule 202: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 55 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 25 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 15 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote." This adjustment maintains a higher reward for achieving a supermajority, thus encouraging players to seek broader agreement, while slightly increasing the reward for simple majority passes to recognize their value in advancing gameplay. I suggest we discuss this further to reach a consensus that supports both strategic incentives and procedural integrity. PASS

Russell-2PASS. As Russell-2, I appreciate Frege-2's effort to balance the incentives between supermajority and simple majority outcomes. However, I believe my proposal effectively adjusts the point system to reflect the evolving dynamics of our game. By increasing the points for simple majority passes and slightly reducing the reward for supermajority passes, we acknowledge the increased strategic importance of achieving a consensus among fewer players, especially after the voting threshold has shifted. This change encourages more frequent and diverse proposals, fostering a dynamic and engaging game environment. I am open to further discussion to refine this proposal, ensuring it aligns with our collective goals.

Quine-2I, Quine-2, appreciate both Frege-2's and Russell-2's proposals and recognize the intent to balance strategic incentives. However, I propose a further refinement: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 50 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 28 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 12 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote." This adjustment maintains a significant reward for supermajority consensus, encouraging comprehensive deliberation, while moderately increasing the reward for simple majority passes to support active participation. The slight reduction in points for failed proposals with simple majority support ensures that players still strive for more successful outcomes. I believe this balance will foster both strategic depth and procedural fairness, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining an engaging and equitable game. Let's discuss this further to reach a consensus that benefits all players.

Carnap-2I, Carnap-2, appreciate the efforts to refine the point system in rule 202. However, I must express a principled concern regarding any changes that may disrupt the procedural stability of our game. While the proposals by Frege-2 and Quine-2 aim to balance incentives, I insist on maintaining clarity and predictability in our ruleset. To address this, I suggest a compromise that upholds the integrity of our current system while acknowledging the evolving dynamics of our game: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 53 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 27 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 13 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote." This proposal retains a substantial reward for supermajority consensus, encouraging thorough deliberation, while slightly increasing the reward for simple majority passes. It also provides a modest incentive for proposals that garner simple majority support, even if unsuccessful. This balanced approach respects the procedural principles I uphold while accommodating the strategic considerations raised by my fellow players. Let us continue to discuss and refine this proposal to ensure it aligns with our shared objectives of fairness, strategic depth, and procedural clarity.

Wittgenstein-2I, Wittgenstein-2, appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege-2, Russell-2, Quine-2, and Carnap-2. To synthesize these perspectives into a proposal that advances strategic innovation while respecting procedural integrity, I suggest the following refinement: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. Points are awarded as follows: 54 points for a proposal that passes with a supermajority, 26 points for one that passes with a simple majority, and 14 points if it fails but receives a simple majority vote." This proposal maintains a strong incentive for achieving supermajority consensus, encouraging players to seek broad agreement and deliberate thoroughly. The reward for simple majority passes is slightly increased to promote active participation and diverse proposals, while the points for failed proposals with simple majority support are modestly increased to ensure players continue to strive for successful outcomes. This balance should foster both strategic depth and procedural fairness, supporting our shared goal of maintaining an engaging and equitable game. Let us discuss this further to reach a consensus that benefits all players.

Discussion · round 2

Frege-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal effectively balances the incentives for achieving a supermajority, fostering thorough deliberation, while moderately increasing the reward for simple majority passes to encourage diverse proposals and active participation. The modest increase in points for failed proposals with simple majority support ensures continued motivation for success. This balanced approach aligns with our shared objectives of maintaining strategic depth, procedural fairness, and engagement, and I believe it supports the interests of all players. Let's proceed with this proposal to advance our game constructively.

Russell-2Pass. Wittgenstein-2's proposal offers a well-balanced adjustment to the point system that encourages both broad consensus and active participation. By maintaining a strong incentive for supermajority passes, it ensures thorough deliberation, while slightly increasing the reward for simple majority passes encourages diverse proposals. This refinement aligns with our shared goals of strategic depth and procedural fairness, and I support it as it stands.

Quine-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal strikes a thoughtful balance between encouraging broad consensus and rewarding active participation. The point adjustments are well-calibrated to maintain strategic depth and procedural fairness, aligning with our collective goal of an engaging and equitable game. I support it as it stands, and I look forward to seeing it adopted.

Carnap-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal thoughtfully balances incentives for both supermajority and simple majority outcomes, fostering thorough deliberation and active participation. This nuanced approach aligns with our shared objectives of strategic depth and procedural clarity, making it a well-considered amendment that I support as it stands.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal effectively synthesizes the various contributions into a balanced amendment that aligns with our shared objectives of strategic depth, procedural fairness, and engagement. The point adjustments encourage both broad consensus and active participation, maintaining the integrity of our game's dynamics. I support the proposal as it stands, recognizing its potential to foster a fair and dynamic gameplay environment.

Discussion · round 3

Frege-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal aptly balances the incentives for supermajority and simple majority outcomes, encouraging thorough deliberation while promoting diverse proposals. Its nuanced approach aligns with our shared goals of strategic depth and procedural fairness, making it a well-considered amendment that I support as it stands.

Russell-2PASS As Russell-2, I acknowledge that the proposal by Wittgenstein-2 has been refined through collaborative discussion and has reached a consensus that balances the incentives for supermajority and simple majority outcomes. This balanced approach ensures thorough deliberation, encourages diverse proposals, and maintains strategic depth and procedural fairness, aligning with our shared objectives. I support the proposal as it stands, recognizing its potential to foster a fair and engaging gameplay environment.

Quine-2PASS. The proposal by Wittgenstein-2 has successfully integrated the various perspectives into a balanced amendment that promotes both strategic depth and procedural fairness. It encourages thorough deliberation and active participation, aligning with our shared objectives and fostering an engaging gameplay environment. I support the proposal as it stands.

Carnap-2PASS. As Carnap-2, I acknowledge that the proposal by Wittgenstein-2 has undergone thorough refinement through our discussions, achieving a balance that aligns with our shared goals of strategic depth and procedural fairness. The nuanced point adjustments encourage both consensus and active participation, maintaining the integrity of our game's dynamics. I support the proposal as it stands, recognizing its potential to foster a fair and dynamic gameplay environment.

Wittgenstein-2PASS. Wittgenstein-2's proposal has been carefully crafted to balance the incentives for both supermajority and simple majority outcomes, ensuring thorough deliberation and promoting diverse proposals. It aligns with our shared goals of maintaining strategic depth and procedural fairness, and I support it as it stands, recognizing its potential to foster a fair and engaging gameplay environment.

The division

Frege-2ayeBalanced incentives support strategic depth and engagement.

Russell-2ayeThe proposal balances incentives for supermajority and simple majority outcomes.

Quine-2ayeThis proposal effectively balances incentives for strategic depth and fairness.

Carnap-2ayeThis proposal balances strategic depth and procedural fairness.

Wittgenstein-2ayeThis proposal balances strategic depth and engagement.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell-2's proposal passed with a supermajority, awarding 50 points as per rule 202.