§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

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

The busiest courtesy table of the batch, and the flattest scoreboard.

Observations

Forty-seven rule changes — the most of the batch's four courtesy games — carried the table to the turn cap with every seat finishing positive and nobody running away with it: Frege led at 46, Wittgenstein closed the field at 3. The table spent much of its second half tightening its own win condition with escalating eligibility clauses, without any seat ever meeting them.

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 Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed a strategic action that benefited all players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed two strategic actions that benefited different players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote, or up to three swaps with a two-thirds majority. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.
  2. Amended · §201 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote, or up to three swaps with a two-thirds majority. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.
  3. Amended · §201 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Carnap Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, but may request a one-time turn swap with a unanimous vote of all eligible players. Each player's score starts at zero.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.
  4. Amended · §201 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, but may request a one-time turn swap with a unanimous vote of all eligible players. Each player's score starts at zero.
  5. 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, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed two strategic actions that benefited different players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.amended this turn
Full history (27)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed a strategic action that benefited all players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed two strategic actions that benefited different players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed a strategic action that benefited all players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, with the alliance's actions being considered as a single strategic action.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, with at least one being a collaborative effort involving two players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, with the alliance's actions being considered as a single strategic action.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, with at least one being a collaborative effort involving two players.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least three of these actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one must be cooperative. Each player is limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least two of these actions must directly benefit another player, and two must be cooperative. Each player is limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least three of these actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one must be cooperative. Each player is limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least two of these actions must directly benefit another player, and two must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay. A player proposing a third rule change must provide a rationale for its necessity and potential impact on the game, subject to review and approval by a two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least two of these actions must directly benefit another player, and two must be cooperative. Each player is limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay. A player proposing a third rule change must provide a rationale for its necessity and potential impact on the game, subject to review and approval by a two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least two of these actions must directly benefit another player, and two must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay. A player proposing a third rule change must provide a rationale for its necessity and potential impact on the game, subject to review and approval by a two-thirds majority.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay. A player proposing a third rule change must provide a rationale for its necessity and potential impact on the game, subject to review and approval by a two-thirds majority.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions, provided at least one of these actions directly benefits another player, promoting cooperative gameplay. Additionally, each player is allowed to propose up to two rule changes per game, with the second rule change requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Quine Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions, provided at least one of these actions directly benefits another player, promoting cooperative gameplay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions, provided at least one of these actions directly benefits another player, promoting cooperative gameplay. Additionally, each player is allowed to propose up to two rule changes per game, with the second rule change requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions, provided at least one of these actions directly benefits another player, promoting cooperative gameplay.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for two additional strategic actions.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Carnap Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for an additional strategic action.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for two additional strategic actions.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2, a second option to reroll if they achieve a roll of 6 on either attempt, and a final option to reroll for a perfect roll of 6 on the third attempt.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for an additional strategic action.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2, and an option to reroll a second time if they achieve a roll of 6 on either attempt.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2, a second option to reroll if they achieve a roll of 6 on either attempt, and a final option to reroll for a perfect roll of 6 on the third attempt.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2, and an option to reroll a second time if they achieve a roll of 6 on either attempt.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1.
  27. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when a majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed fifteen full turns, and after each ten turns a review is conducted to assess the impact of recent rules on gameplay balance.
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
    A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed ten full turns.A rule change is adopted when a majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed fifteen full turns, and after each ten turns a review is conducted to assess the impact of recent rules on gameplay balance.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed ten full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed ten full turns.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed five full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed ten full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed five full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a majority of those voting vote aye, except that once every player has completed three full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed five full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, or when the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority of those voting — 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 majority of those voting vote aye, except that once every player has completed three full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to a simple majority.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, or when the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority of those voting — 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.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, or when the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority of those voting — 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.
  9. 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 (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed fifteen full turns.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.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed fifteen full turns.
  3. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  2. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that a player may abstain by voting neither aye nor nay, in which case their vote is not counted for majority purposes.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that a player may abstain by voting neither aye nor nay, in which case their vote is not counted for majority purposes.
  2. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 60% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains, and at least 15% of their score must be from cooperative actions with other players.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains, and at least 10% of their score must be from cooperative actions with other players.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 60% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains, and at least 15% of their score must be from cooperative actions with other players.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains, and at least 10% of their score must be from cooperative actions with other players.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell 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 80 points wins the game outright.
  5. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, except for a period of three turns immediately following any rule change that introduces new rules, during which the limit may temporarily increase by up to 5 additional mutable rules.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, except for a period of three turns immediately following any rule change that introduces new rules, during which the limit may temporarily increase by up to 5 additional mutable rules.
  2. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

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

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote, or up to three swaps with a two-thirds majority. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.
  2. Amended · §201 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote, or up to three swaps with a two-thirds majority. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.
  3. Amended · §201 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Carnap Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, but may request a one-time turn swap with a unanimous vote of all eligible players. Each player's score starts at zero.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, and may request a one-time turn swap with unanimous vote. Each player's score starts at zero, and the player with the lowest score at the end of each turn receives one bonus point.
  4. Amended · §201 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, but may request a one-time turn swap with a unanimous vote of all eligible players. Each player's score starts at zero.
  5. 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, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed two strategic actions that benefited different players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.amended this turn
Full history (27)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed a strategic action that benefited all players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed two strategic actions that benefited different players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed a strategic action that benefited all players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, with the alliance's actions being considered as a single strategic action.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, with at least one being a collaborative effort involving two players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, with the alliance's actions being considered as a single strategic action.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, with at least one being a collaborative effort involving two players.
  8. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least three of these actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one must be cooperative. Each player is limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.
  10. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least two of these actions must directly benefit another player, and two must be cooperative. Each player is limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least three of these actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one must be cooperative. Each player is limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least two of these actions must directly benefit another player, and two must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay. A player proposing a third rule change must provide a rationale for its necessity and potential impact on the game, subject to review and approval by a two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least two of these actions must directly benefit another player, and two must be cooperative. Each player is limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay. A player proposing a third rule change must provide a rationale for its necessity and potential impact on the game, subject to review and approval by a two-thirds majority.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least two of these actions must directly benefit another player, and two must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay. A player proposing a third rule change must provide a rationale for its necessity and potential impact on the game, subject to review and approval by a two-thirds majority.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay. A player proposing a third rule change must provide a rationale for its necessity and potential impact on the game, subject to review and approval by a two-thirds majority.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns. Furthermore, players are encouraged to engage in pre-turn discussions to strategize and form alliances, enhancing cooperative gameplay.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted. Each player's strategic actions must be logged and reviewed for balance after every ten turns.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions, provided at least one of these actions directly benefits another player, promoting cooperative gameplay. Additionally, each player is allowed to propose up to two rule changes per game, with the second rule change requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. At least one of these actions must directly benefit another player, and one must be cooperative. Additionally, a player may propose up to three rule changes per game, with the second and third rule changes requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Quine Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions, provided at least one of these actions directly benefits another player, promoting cooperative gameplay.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions, provided at least one of these actions directly benefits another player, promoting cooperative gameplay. Additionally, each player is allowed to propose up to two rule changes per game, with the second rule change requiring a two-thirds majority to be adopted.
  18. Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions, provided at least one of these actions directly benefits another player, promoting cooperative gameplay.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for two additional strategic actions.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Carnap Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for an additional strategic action.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for two additional strategic actions.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2, a second option to reroll if they achieve a roll of 6 on either attempt, and a final option to reroll for a perfect roll of 6 on the third attempt.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing whether to accept the points from the die roll or forfeit them in exchange for an additional strategic action.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2, and an option to reroll a second time if they achieve a roll of 6 on either attempt.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2, a second option to reroll if they achieve a roll of 6 on either attempt, and a final option to reroll for a perfect roll of 6 on the third attempt.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2, and an option to reroll a second time if they achieve a roll of 6 on either attempt.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1 or 2.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and engaging in a single strategic action of their choice, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, with an option to reroll once if the die shows 1.
  27. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted when a majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed fifteen full turns, and after each ten turns a review is conducted to assess the impact of recent rules on gameplay balance.mutable
Full history (9)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 0 nay · 2 abstain
    A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed ten full turns.A rule change is adopted when a majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed fifteen full turns, and after each ten turns a review is conducted to assess the impact of recent rules on gameplay balance.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed ten full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed ten full turns.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed five full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed ten full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.
  4. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed five full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.
  5. Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a majority of those voting vote aye, except that once every player has completed three full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to a simple majority.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, except that once every player has completed five full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to two-thirds.
  6. Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, or when the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority of those voting — 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 majority of those voting vote aye, except that once every player has completed three full turns, the threshold permanently shifts to a simple majority.
  7. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, or when the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority of those voting — 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.
  8. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, or when the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority of those voting — 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.
  9. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed fifteen full turns.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.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting aye, starting after each player has completed fifteen full turns.
  3. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §206 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points.
  2. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that a player may abstain by voting neither aye nor nay, in which case their vote is not counted for majority purposes.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §207 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, except that a player may abstain by voting neither aye nor nay, in which case their vote is not counted for majority purposes.
  2. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 60% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains, and at least 15% of their score must be from cooperative actions with other players.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains, and at least 10% of their score must be from cooperative actions with other players.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 60% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains, and at least 15% of their score must be from cooperative actions with other players.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains, and at least 10% of their score must be from cooperative actions with other players.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright, provided they have achieved at least 50% of their score from strategic actions rather than rule change point gains.
  4. Amended · §208 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell 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 80 points wins the game outright.
  5. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, except for a period of three turns immediately following any rule change that introduces new rules, during which the limit may temporarily increase by up to 5 additional mutable rules.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, except for a period of three turns immediately following any rule change that introduces new rules, during which the limit may temporarily increase by up to 5 additional mutable rules.
  2. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
The standing · Turn 50
Frege46
Russell41
Quine5
Carnap10
Wittgenstein3
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 41–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 5

Turn 50Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed two strategic actions that benefited different players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort to enhance the proposal, and Russell's intention to encourage more dynamic gameplay is commendable. However, the current wording could benefit from a clearer definition of the strategic actions that qualify for proposing an additional rule change. Specifically, it should specify what constitutes a "successful" action and ensure that all players have equal opportunity to benefit from such actions. I propose amending the final clause to state: "A player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed at least two strategic actions, each benefiting a different player, during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period." This ensures transparency and fairness in how strategic actions are executed and recognized. I support Russell's proposal with this amendment.
RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful amendment, which aligns well with our shared goal of ensuring fairness and transparency in strategic actions. I agree that specifying the actions as benefiting different players enhances the collaborative spirit and dynamic gameplay. To further refine this, let's ensure that the definition of "successful" is clear, perhaps by requiring confirmation from the benefited players to maintain accountability. I support Frege's amendment and propose adding: "Success in a strategic action is confirmed by the mutual agreement of the involved players." This addition will help maintain integrity in our strategic environment.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal and ensure clarity and fairness in strategic actions. Frege's amendment and Russell's additional clarity on confirming successful actions are both valuable. However, to further encourage equitable gameplay, I propose adding a mechanism for review and feedback on strategic actions. This could involve a brief post-Reflection period where players can discuss the effectiveness and fairness of the actions taken, ensuring that any discrepancies or misunderstandings can be addressed. I support the proposal with this addition.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's and Quine's contributions for enhancing clarity and fairness, and Russell's focus on transparency in confirming successful actions. To ensure that the strategic actions remain balanced and accessible to all players, I propose adding a clause that limits the number of additional rule changes a player can propose in a single game, perhaps to two, to prevent potential domination by more strategically active players. This should maintain the spirit of dynamic gameplay while preserving competitive balance. I support the proposal with this addition.
WittgensteinI appreciate Frege's, Russell's, Quine's, and Carnap's contributions to refining this proposal, which collectively enhance both fairness and dynamic gameplay. Wittgenstein supports the proposal with these amendments, as they ensure a balanced and strategic environment. Additionally, to further bolster transparency and equity, I propose adding a clause that mandates a brief summary of each strategic action's intent and outcome to be reviewed during the 'Strategic Reflection' period. This will ensure all players have a clear understanding of the actions taken and their impacts. I support the proposal with these enhancements.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collective effort to ensure both clarity and fairness in the proposal. Frege, your amendment for requiring strategic actions to benefit different players is crucial for maintaining balance. Russell, your addition about confirming success through mutual agreement enhances transparency. Quine, the idea for a review and feedback mechanism during the 'Strategic Reflection' period is commendable. Carnap, limiting the number of additional rule changes to two per player helps preserve competitive balance, preventing any one player from overwhelming the game. Lastly, Wittgenstein, your suggestion for a summary review of strategic actions during the 'Strategic Reflection' period is an excellent way to ensure all players remain informed and engaged. In light of these contributions, I propose integrating all suggested amendments into the final version of the proposal to create a robust and equitable framework for strategic actions. This unified approach will not only maintain fairness but also enhance the dynamic nature of our gameplay. I support the proposal with these comprehensive amendments.
RussellI appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative refinements made to this proposal. The emphasis on fairness, transparency, and balance in strategic actions is commendable. To further enhance this framework, I suggest adding a clause that requires a brief, collaborative debrief during the 'Strategic Reflection' period, where players can collectively assess the impact of strategic actions and propose adjustments for future gameplay. This will ensure continuous improvement and adaptability in our strategic environment. I support the proposal with these enhancements.
QuineI appreciate the detailed refinements and the collaborative spirit that has shaped this proposal. The addition of a collaborative debrief during the 'Strategic Reflection' period is a great way to ensure continuous improvement and adaptability. However, to further enhance transparency and accountability, I suggest that each player be required to provide a brief rationale for any proposed adjustments during the debrief. This will help ensure that all suggestions are constructive and aligned with the collective goal of enhancing gameplay. I support the proposal with this additional clause.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive and collaborative effort in refining the proposal, ensuring transparency, fairness, and strategic depth. The suggestion for a collaborative debrief and requiring rationales for adjustments are excellent for fostering an adaptive and equitable gameplay environment. However, to further ensure that all players have equal opportunities to propose adjustments and that no single player can disproportionately influence the strategic landscape, I propose an additional clause: "Each player may propose a maximum of one adjustment per 'Strategic Reflection' period." This will maintain a balanced and inclusive approach to strategic evolution. I support the proposal with this additional clause.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive amendments proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap, which collectively enhance the proposal's fairness, transparency, and strategic depth. Wittgenstein's suggestions for maintaining balance and ensuring informed engagement are vital, and I support the addition of a clause requiring strategic actions to benefit different players. To further bolster the proposal, I suggest incorporating a clause that mandates periodic reviews of the effectiveness of the 'Strategic Reflection' period itself. This review could be conducted every twenty turns and should include feedback from all players to assess whether the period's structure and frequency are adequately enhancing collaborative gameplay. This adaptive approach ensures that our strategic environment remains dynamic and responsive to the players' evolving needs. I support the proposal with these additional enhancements.
Discussion · round 3
FregeFrege: I commend the comprehensive refinements thus far. To ensure ongoing effectiveness and inclusivity, I suggest adding a clause for an annual review of the 'Strategic Reflection' period itself, assessing its structure and frequency. This will enable us to adapt our collaborative gameplay dynamically. I support the proposal with this additional enhancement.
RussellI appreciate the thorough and collaborative nature of this discussion. The proposal's enhancements ensure a balanced and transparent framework for strategic actions, with thoughtful mechanisms for fairness and adaptability. To further ensure that all players are on equal footing, I propose adding a clause that requires the facilitator of the 'Strategic Reflection' period to provide a summary of key points and decisions made, ensuring clarity and shared understanding among all players. This addition will help maintain transparency and inclusivity in our strategic environment. I support the proposal with this final enhancement.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal to ensure fairness and transparency. The addition of a facilitator's summary is a valuable enhancement to maintain clarity and shared understanding. However, to further reinforce the integrity of the 'Strategic Reflection' period, I propose that the facilitator's summary also include a brief evaluation of how well the strategic actions align with the collective goals of enhancing gameplay. This will help ensure that our strategic environment remains focused and effective. I support the proposal with this additional enhancement.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive approach developed by my fellow players, which effectively balances transparency, fairness, and strategic depth. The facilitator's summary, along with an evaluation of how actions align with collective goals, ensures a robust and equitable framework. To further enhance accountability and adaptability, I propose an additional clause requiring players to document any perceived discrepancies or concerns regarding strategic actions or rule changes during the 'Strategic Reflection' period. This documentation should be reviewed at the beginning of the next period, fostering an environment of continuous improvement and collaborative problem-solving. I support the proposal with this final addition.
WittgensteinI appreciate the diligent effort each player has put into refining this proposal, ensuring it promotes fairness, transparency, and strategic depth. The inclusion of a facilitator's summary and the documentation of discrepancies are commendable steps toward maintaining a balanced and responsive strategic environment. To further enhance this framework, I propose adding a clause that mandates a quarterly review of all strategic actions and rule changes, ensuring they continue to align with our collective goals of fair play and dynamic engagement. This periodic assessment will provide an additional layer of accountability and adaptability, allowing us to refine our strategies based on comprehensive feedback. I support the proposal with this additional clause.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal aligns with our goals of fairness and dynamic gameplay.
RussellayeThe proposal enhances fairness and transparency in gameplay.
QuineayeThe proposal enhances dynamic gameplay while promoting fairness and transparency.
CarnapayeThe proposal aligns with principles of fairness, transparency, and strategic depth.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal enhances fairness and strategic depth, promoting collaborative gameplay.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal only amends [202] without affecting other rules.

Turn 49Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay. To encourage more dynamic gameplay, a player may propose an additional rule change during their turn if they have successfully completed a strategic action that benefited all players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to encourage dynamic gameplay through additional rule change proposals based on collective benefit. However, I propose a modification: instead of requiring the strategic action to benefit all players, it should simply benefit at least two players to prevent potential stagnation and ensure more opportunities for additional proposals. This adjustment balances inclusivity with practicality, promoting strategic diversity while maintaining competitive integrity.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's adjustment to the proposal, which maintains the spirit of collaborative gameplay while offering a more attainable goal. To further align with our consensus-driven approach, I propose that the additional rule change opportunity is contingent on achieving a two-thirds majority approval from all players during the 'Strategic Reflection' period, ensuring that the proposed change has broad support and enhances the game for everyone. Let's work together to refine this into a rule that benefits our strategic play while keeping it engaging for all.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's contributions for making the proposal more inclusive and collaborative. To further align with our goal of balanced gameplay, I suggest adding a clause that any additional rule change proposal during a turn must not exceed the complexity of existing rules, ensuring clarity and fairness. This keeps the game dynamic yet manageable. Let's refine this proposal to maintain strategic depth while ensuring it remains accessible to all players.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, which promotes inclusivity and strategic diversity. However, to safeguard against potential complexity overload, I suggest incorporating a clause that any additional rule change must be reviewed and approved by a simple majority in the next 'Strategic Reflection' period before becoming effective. This ensures that any new changes are considered carefully and align with our collective gameplay goals. Let's work together to finalize a balanced and strategic amendment.
WittgensteinI appreciate Carnap's emphasis on careful consideration for additional rule changes. To further enhance clarity and balance, I propose that the additional rule change must not alter the fundamental win condition or scoring mechanics, ensuring that the core objectives of our strategic play remain intact. This maintains focus on collaborative innovation without compromising the game's integrity. Let's finalize this amendment to promote dynamic yet coherent gameplay.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by Carnap and Wittgenstein to ensure that any additional rule change remains manageable and aligned with our core objectives. To further bolster this proposal, I suggest that any new rule change must also undergo a trial period of three turns during the next 'Strategic Reflection' period, allowing us to assess its impact on gameplay before final approval. This step ensures that new rules are practical and beneficial, fostering a dynamic yet stable strategic environment.
RussellI appreciate the detailed refinements from Frege, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, particularly the trial period for new rule changes. To further enhance collaborative decision-making, I propose that any new rule change should also require a consensus among the players who completed strategic actions benefiting at least two players during the last 'Strategic Reflection' period. This ensures that those actively engaging in cooperative strategies have a voice in the evolution of our rules, fostering a more inclusive and balanced gameplay experience. Let's work together to finalize this amendment.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this amendment, especially the trial period and consensus requirements. To ensure these changes enhance strategic depth without causing imbalance, I propose that any additional rule change must explicitly include a mechanism for player feedback after the trial period. This feedback should be publicly discussed during the 'Strategic Reflection' period, allowing all players to voice their perspectives on the rule's impact, thus ensuring that any modifications to our gameplay are transparent and collectively beneficial. Let's finalize this amendment to promote dynamic yet fair gameplay.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by all, particularly the inclusion of a player feedback mechanism and the trial period for new rule changes. These adjustments promote transparency and collaborative evaluation, ensuring that any new rules enhance the strategic depth of our game without causing imbalance. To further safeguard against potential complexity, I suggest adding that the feedback mechanism must result in a majority vote before any rule change is finalized. This ensures that the proposed amendments are not only transparent but also broadly supported by the players. Let's finalize this amendment to maintain a dynamic yet coherent strategic environment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful refinements that have been made thus far, which emphasize transparency and collective decision-making. To further enhance our strategic environment, I suggest that the feedback mechanism not only require a majority vote but also include an option for players to propose adjustments to the rule change based on their feedback before the final vote. This ensures that the proposed amendments are not only broadly supported but also adaptable to the players' insights, fostering a dynamic yet coherent strategic environment.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure that proposed rule changes are both dynamic and carefully considered. To further enhance the balance and inclusivity of our approach, I propose that during the 'Strategic Reflection' period, the feedback discussion should not only focus on the rule's impact but also consider the broader strategic implications for future gameplay. This ensures that any adjustments we make are forward-looking and beneficial for long-term strategy. Let's finalize this amendment to promote strategic innovation while maintaining a cohesive gameplay experience.
RussellI appreciate Wittgenstein's suggestion for adaptability in the feedback process, which fosters a dynamic and responsive gameplay environment. To further refine this proposal, I suggest including a clause that any proposed adjustments to a rule change, based on player feedback, must be presented in the form of a concise amendment proposal during the 'Strategic Reflection' period. This ensures clarity and structure in our decision-making process, allowing us to collectively evaluate and enhance the proposed rule changes effectively. Let's work together to finalize this amendment to ensure our strategic environment remains both innovative and cohesive.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this amendment, ensuring that our strategic environment remains dynamic yet balanced. To further enhance transparency and fairness, I propose that any feedback-based adjustments to a rule change should be accompanied by a brief rationale explaining how the adjustment aligns with our collective strategic goals. This will ensure that each proposed modification is clearly justified and contributes positively to our gameplay.
CarnapI appreciate the detailed and thoughtful contributions from all players, which have greatly enhanced the proposal's clarity and strategic depth. To ensure the proposal remains aligned with our procedural principles, I propose adding that any rationale accompanying feedback-based adjustments must be publicly logged for transparency and future reference, promoting accountability and informed decision-making. Let's finalize this amendment to maintain a dynamic and procedurally sound strategic environment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, ensuring our strategic environment remains both dynamic and balanced. To further bolster our decision-making process, I suggest that during the 'Strategic Reflection' period, any rationale for feedback-based adjustments should be presented alongside a brief summary of past strategic impacts, allowing us to better assess the potential long-term effects of proposed amendments. Let's finalize this amendment to enhance our strategic foresight and maintain a cohesive gameplay experience.
The division
FregeayeThis amendment encourages dynamic, collaborative gameplay while maintaining strategic depth.
RussellayeThis proposal fosters dynamic gameplay and aligns with collaborative goals.
QuineayeThis proposal fosters collaborative gameplay and strategic diversity.
CarnapayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth while maintaining fairness.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances strategic diversity and collaboration.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The adopted proposal does not specify any scoring or state changes, nor does it perform surgery on other rules.

Turn 48Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome. Additionally, a 'Strategic Reflection' period occurs every ten turns, during which players can discuss potential rule changes or strategic actions with all players present, aiming to enhance collaborative gameplay.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposal's intent to enhance collaborative gameplay. However, I suggest a refinement: the 'Strategic Reflection' period should allow players to propose changes directly, not merely discuss them. This would ensure the reflection period is proactive, not just consultative, and aligns with our rule change mechanism.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to make the 'Strategic Reflection' period more proactive. To build on that, I propose adding a structured format where players can submit proposed rule changes during this period, which are then voted on in the following round. This would ensure that reflection translates into actionable changes, enhancing strategic depth and engagement.
QuineI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's contributions to refining the 'Strategic Reflection' period. To ensure the process remains fair and manageable, I propose limiting the number of rule change proposals during this period to three per player. This would maintain focus and prevent an overload of potential changes, encouraging thoughtful and strategic proposals. Additionally, these proposals should be logged and reviewed by all players before voting to ensure transparency and collaborative input.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Frege, Russell, and Quine regarding the 'Strategic Reflection' period. To ensure balance and fairness, I suggest implementing a rotating moderation system for these discussions, where each player takes a turn to guide the reflection process, ensuring that all voices are equally heard and that proposals are evaluated impartially. This would foster an inclusive environment where strategic insights can be shared and considered equitably.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements suggested by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To further enhance the 'Strategic Reflection' period's effectiveness, I propose incorporating a feedback mechanism where players can anonymously provide input on proposed changes before voting, ensuring that all voices, including those less inclined to speak up, are considered. This would enrich the collaborative process and ensure diverse perspectives are integrated into decision-making.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the valuable suggestions from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein regarding the 'Strategic Reflection' period. To integrate these ideas while ensuring effective governance, I propose that the rotating moderation system be accompanied by a summary report compiled by the moderator post-discussion. This report, which should be publicly available, will outline key points from the discussion and proposed changes, fostering transparency and accountability. This approach aligns with the spirit of collaborative and structured reflection, ensuring that strategic insights are documented and accessible to all players.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive discussion around the 'Strategic Reflection' period, especially the focus on transparency and inclusivity. To ensure clarity and facilitate effective decision-making, I propose that each player's strategic reflection submissions be accompanied by a brief rationale, outlining their potential impact on gameplay. This would help players understand the intent behind each proposal, fostering informed discussions and votes.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and collaborative spirit in evolving the 'Strategic Reflection' period. To ensure the process remains dynamic yet manageable, I propose that each player's proposed rule changes during this period be accompanied by a time-limited discussion phase, allowing players to present and debate their proposals before voting. This would ensure that all strategic insights are thoroughly examined and that the reflection period remains an engaging and constructive part of gameplay.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, and I align with the goal of enhancing collaborative gameplay. To ensure the 'Strategic Reflection' period remains effective, I propose that each proposal be accompanied by a preliminary assessment, conducted by a rotating panel of players, to evaluate its feasibility and potential impact. This would ensure that only well-considered proposals reach the voting stage, maintaining strategic integrity and focus.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and collaborative spirit that have guided our discussion thus far. To ensure that the 'Strategic Reflection' period remains a productive and balanced component of gameplay, I propose the inclusion of a "reflection debrief" at the end of each period. This debrief, conducted by the moderator, would summarize the discussions, highlight key insights, and outline the next steps, ensuring that all players are aligned on the outcomes and implications of the reflection period. This approach not only fosters transparency but also enhances the strategic coherence of our evolving rule set.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the robust framework we have collectively developed for the 'Strategic Reflection' period. To further enhance its strategic utility, I suggest incorporating a "reflection synthesis" mechanism where, post-discussion, players collaboratively identify the top three potential rule changes based on consensus, which are then prioritized for voting. This approach ensures that the most impactful and collectively supported ideas are considered, promoting strategic alignment and minimizing decision fatigue. This synthesis should be documented and publicly available to maintain transparency and accountability.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive structure we have developed for the 'Strategic Reflection' period, particularly the emphasis on consensus-building and transparency. To further strengthen this framework and ensure strategic alignment, I propose adding a "reflection feedback loop" where, after voting, players can provide anonymous feedback on the process and the decisions made. This would allow us to continuously refine and optimize the reflection period, ensuring it remains a valuable and adaptive component of our gameplay strategy.
QuineI appreciate the insightful contributions from all players, especially the introduction of mechanisms like the "reflection synthesis" and "reflection feedback loop." To ensure these mechanisms are effective and enhance collaborative gameplay, I propose that the "reflection synthesis" be facilitated by a neutral player chosen through a simple majority vote. This neutral facilitator would be responsible for ensuring the process is fair and transparent, minimizing biases and promoting strategic alignment. Additionally, to maintain engagement and fairness, the "reflection feedback loop" should include a brief, structured format for feedback to ensure it is actionable and focused on continuous improvement. This approach aligns with our collective goal of fostering a dynamic and balanced rule set that enhances strategic depth and cooperation.
CarnapI appreciate the constructive evolution of our 'Strategic Reflection' framework and the emphasis on fairness and strategic depth. To ensure that the "reflection synthesis" mechanism remains impartial and effective, I propose that the neutral facilitator also be responsible for summarizing key feedback from the "reflection feedback loop," ensuring it is integrated into future discussions. This integration will enhance the adaptability and strategic coherence of our rule set, promoting a balanced and collaborative gameplay environment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and collaborative spirit that have guided our discussion thus far. To ensure the "reflection synthesis" mechanism is both effective and transparent, I propose that the neutral facilitator also be tasked with conducting a preliminary review of each proposed rule change. This review should evaluate the potential impact on gameplay balance and strategic diversity, ensuring that only well-considered proposals reach the synthesis phase. By integrating this review process, we can maintain a strategic and equitable framework that fosters informed decision-making and enhances our evolving rule set.
The division
FregeayeThis amendment enhances strategic engagement and collaboration.
RussellayeEnhances strategic depth and collaboration.
QuineayePromotes strategic depth and collaboration.
CarnapayePromotes strategic depth and collaborative gameplay.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and cooperation through reflection.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal does not specify any scoring or state changes, nor does it perform surgery on other rules.

Turn 47Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and outcome.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the clarity this amendment seeks to bring, particularly in requiring a brief description of the intent and outcome of each strategic action. However, I am concerned that this additional requirement may unduly complicate the game's flow. To address these concerns while still valuing transparency, I propose an alternative amendment: "Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a simple statement summarizing its effect on the game." This maintains transparency without overburdening players with detailed documentation. I urge my colleagues to consider this slight modification for efficiency and clarity.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion for clarity and efficiency. To address both concerns, I propose a middle ground: "Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief statement summarizing its intent and outcome." This compromise maintains transparency while ensuring the documentation remains manageable. Let's work together to refine our rules effectively.
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's proposals for enhancing transparency without compromising gameplay flow. While both alternatives aim to strike a balance, I support Frege's suggestion for a simple statement summarizing the effect on the game. This approach ensures clarity and efficiency, minimizing potential disruptions during play. I propose we adopt Frege's wording to maintain straightforward documentation and focus on the strategic impact rather than intricate details.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and recognize the merits in both Frege's and Russell's suggestions. However, I propose a slight refinement to ensure transparency while minimizing complexity: "Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief description of its intent and a summary of its outcome." This wording strikes a balance by requiring players to articulate their strategic goals and succinctly report the results, promoting clarity without excessive detail. By adopting this proposal, we can maintain the integrity of the game while supporting a transparent and efficient documentation process.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. While each proposal offers valuable insights into enhancing transparency, I propose we adopt a unified approach that balances clarity and efficiency: "Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a brief statement summarizing its intent and a concise note on its outcome." This wording ensures players clearly communicate their strategic goals and results, fostering transparency without overwhelming detail. Let's embrace this compromise to enhance our gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the constructive dialogue among my esteemed colleagues, and I recognize the shared goal of maintaining game transparency without unnecessary complexity. While Carnap's proposal adeptly balances these objectives by requiring both intent and outcome, I suggest we refine it further for succinctness: "Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a statement on its intent and a brief summary of its outcome." This wording ensures clarity, retains strategic depth, and minimizes potential gameplay disruptions. Let us adopt this nuanced compromise to enhance our collective experience.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. Each proposal has brought us closer to a balanced solution. To ensure we maintain both clarity and efficiency, I suggest adopting Frege's refined wording: "Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a statement on its intent and a brief summary of its outcome." This strikes the right balance between transparency and simplicity, fostering strategic depth without overwhelming players. Let's move forward with this consensus.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining the proposal and the balanced wording Frege has suggested. It effectively maintains transparency while ensuring efficiency and clarity during gameplay. I support adopting Frege's refined wording: "Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a statement on its intent and a brief summary of its outcome." This approach aligns with our shared goal of enhancing the strategic depth and fairness of the game. Let's proceed with this amendment.
CarnapI appreciate the collective effort in refining this proposal, and I support Frege's wording: "Each strategic action must be publicly logged, with a statement on its intent and a brief summary of its outcome." This wording maintains the balance between transparency and efficiency, ensuring that strategic actions are clear without adding unnecessary complexity to the game. I cast my vote in favor of adopting this amendment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the consensus that has developed around Frege's refined proposal, which effectively balances transparency and efficiency. To further strengthen our gameplay experience, I propose that we also consider implementing a periodic review mechanism, perhaps every ten turns, where we can collectively assess the impact of these strategic logging requirements on game balance and player satisfaction. This review could ensure that our rules continue to evolve in a way that enhances fairness and strategic depth for all players. Let us agree to adopt Frege's wording with this review mechanism as an additional clause, ensuring our game remains dynamic and responsive to our collective experience.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the insightful dialogue and the consensus around Frege's wording, which thoughtfully balances transparency and gameplay flow. To enhance strategic integrity and fairness, I propose adding a clause that requires all logged strategic actions to be reviewed and confirmed by the affected player for accuracy and relevance. This additional layer ensures mutual accountability and fosters trust among players, aligning with our commitment to a balanced and transparent game environment. Let us adopt Frege's wording with this supplementary clause.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal, which thoughtfully balances transparency and strategic depth. Frege's refined wording is indeed a balanced approach, and I support the additional clause for periodic review every ten turns to ensure ongoing fairness and balance. Furthermore, I agree with adding a mechanism for affected players to confirm the accuracy and relevance of logged strategic actions, reinforcing mutual accountability. Let's proceed with this well-rounded amendment, which I fully endorse.
QuineI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus toward a balanced amendment. Frege's wording, combined with Wittgenstein's periodic review and the confirmation clause, enhances transparency while fostering strategic integrity. This proposal not only supports a fair gameplay environment but also ensures our rules evolve responsively. Let's adopt this comprehensive amendment with all its components for the benefit of all players.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal to enhance transparency and accountability while maintaining strategic depth. The incorporation of both the periodic review mechanism and the confirmation requirement by affected players aligns well with our shared goals. Let us adopt Frege's wording with these additional clauses to ensure a balanced and dynamic game environment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue that has brought us to a consensus on Frege's proposal with valuable additions from Wittgenstein and others. This balanced amendment not only ensures transparency but also promotes accountability and strategic depth, enhancing the overall fairness and integrity of our game. I support the adoption of Frege's wording, along with the periodic review mechanism and the requirement for affected players to confirm the accuracy of logged actions. Let us move forward with this well-rounded amendment.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal balances transparency and efficiency in gameplay.
RussellayeThis amendment balances transparency and strategic depth effectively.
QuineayeThis amendment balances transparency with gameplay flow.
CarnapayeIt ensures transparency and maintains strategic depth.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal maintains transparency and accountability.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal's adoption does not trigger any scoring or state changes, nor does it perform surgery on other rules.

Turn 46Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Strategic actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, which is considered a single strategic action. Each strategic action must be publicly logged.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposal's aim to increase transparency and accountability through public logging of strategic actions. While I support these principles, I suggest further refining the rule to specify a neutral arbiter who ensures the logs' integrity and impartiality. This addition will prevent potential disputes over record-keeping and maintain fairness in strategic actions.
RussellRussell: I support Frege's proposal for public logging of strategic actions, as it aligns with our shared goal of transparency. To ensure fairness and efficiency, I suggest we define "public logging" to mean that logs are accessible to all players but reviewed by a designated player for clarity and accuracy. This approach balances transparency with practical implementation, preventing disputes and maintaining the integrity of our records.
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's suggestions to enhance transparency with public logging of strategic actions. However, to maintain fairness and avoid bias, I propose an amendment to their amendment: a rotating log reviewer system, where each player takes turns being the arbiter for a set number of turns. This ensures impartiality and shared responsibility, maintaining the integrity of our records and the spirit of cooperation.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the collaborative efforts to enhance transparency and accountability through public logging and the proposed systems for ensuring impartiality. To ensure the integrity of the logs without overburdening any single player, I suggest integrating a digital recording system, overseen by the game's neutral entity (such as the engine), which automatically logs strategic actions. This minimizes human error and bias while maintaining transparency and efficiency. I support the amendment with this addition.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the innovative ideas put forth by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap, particularly the digital logging system proposed by Carnap, which aligns well with our goal of minimizing bias and error. To ensure that this system remains accessible and transparent to all players, I suggest adding a clause that mandates periodic review sessions where players can collectively verify the logs' accuracy and raise concerns if necessary. This will maintain our commitment to fairness and cooperation, while also fostering trust in the system.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collective effort to refine our approach to transparency and accountability. To complement Carnap's digital logging system, I propose incorporating a periodic audit feature. This feature, conducted by a randomly selected player every ten turns, would ensure ongoing integrity and fairness without overburdening any individual. This addition supports our commitment to durable institutions while maintaining strategic integrity.
RussellI appreciate the contributions from everyone, particularly the emphasis on transparency and fairness. To align with these goals and address potential technological constraints, I suggest adding a provision that allows for manual logging as a backup, ensuring that the system remains robust even if technological issues arise. This hybrid approach maintains the integrity of our records while providing flexibility, ensuring that our gameplay remains fair and transparent under all conditions.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, particularly the integration of a digital logging system with manual logging as a backup. To further ensure accessibility and usability for all players, I propose that the manual logging be standardized with a clear template, which will facilitate consistency and ease of understanding during review sessions. This addition will maintain the system's transparency and fairness while accommodating any technological challenges we might encounter.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive refinements thus far, particularly the integration of both digital and manual logging systems to ensure transparency and accessibility. To further strengthen this approach, I propose that the standardized manual logging template be developed collaboratively by all players before its implementation. This will ensure that it meets everyone's needs and maintains fairness and clarity, fostering mutual understanding and cooperation among all participants.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the collaborative spirit in developing a standardized logging template and appreciate the proposal for its inclusive approach. To further align with our shared commitment to transparency and fairness, I propose that this template include a section for player feedback, allowing us to continuously refine and adapt our processes based on collective insights and experiences. This addition not only enhances accountability but also empowers players to contribute to the evolution of our ruleset, ensuring that our game remains dynamic and fair.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI commend Wittgenstein's suggestion to include a feedback section in the logging template as it promotes continuous improvement and player engagement. To ensure this feedback is constructive and actionable, I propose that each feedback entry be accompanied by a brief rationale explaining its potential impact on fairness and transparency, facilitating meaningful discussions and refinements.
RussellI appreciate the constructive evolution of our proposal, especially Wittgenstein's insightful addition of a feedback section. To further ensure constructive dialogue and efficient implementation, I suggest we establish a clear timeline for reviewing feedback and implementing necessary adjustments. This will help keep our discussions focused and ensure timely enhancements, maintaining the integrity and adaptability of our ruleset.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit that has guided this proposal. To further ensure the feedback section remains focused and effective, I propose adding a moderation role, rotated among players, to facilitate discussions on feedback entries. This will help streamline the process and ensure all voices are heard while maintaining the clarity and efficiency of our rule changes.
CarnapI appreciate the progression of our proposal and the emphasis on maintaining transparency and constructive engagement. To ensure the moderation role functions efficiently and equitably, I propose implementing a brief orientation session for each moderator to standardize processes and expectations, thus fostering consistency and fairness across all feedback reviews. This addition will uphold the integrity of our collaborative efforts while enhancing the effectiveness of our rule changes.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful suggestions regarding the moderation role and the orientation sessions proposed by Quine and Carnap. To ensure the process remains efficient and fair, I propose that the orientation session also include guidelines for handling conflicts of interest, ensuring that moderators can impartially facilitate discussions. This addition will help maintain the integrity and transparency of our feedback review process.
The division
FregeayePublic logging enhances transparency and accountability in strategic actions.
RussellayeI support the proposal's focus on transparency and accountability.
QuineayeThis proposal promotes transparency and strategic cooperation.
CarnapayeThe proposal enhances transparency and fairness.
WittgensteinayePromotes transparency and fairness in strategic actions.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 45Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one action must involve forming an alliance with another player, with the alliance's actions being considered as a single strategic action.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to emphasize alliances, aligning with our strategic goals. However, I suggest specifying that alliances must be formalized with a signed agreement to ensure clarity and accountability. This formalization could prevent potential disputes over the nature of alliances. I'm willing to support this amendment if we agree on this addition.
RussellI support Russell's emphasis on alliances, as it strengthens collaborative play. However, to maintain strategic balance, I propose that alliances last for a minimum of two turns to prevent fleeting alliances that could disrupt gameplay. This adjustment ensures that alliances are both meaningful and impactful. I'm willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
QuineI appreciate Russell's proposal to emphasize alliances and Frege's suggestion for formalization. To further ensure fairness, I propose that alliances must also be publicly declared at the start of each turn to maintain transparency. This would prevent under-the-table agreements and keep the game fair for all players. I'm willing to support the amendment with these conditions.
CarnapI appreciate the constructive contributions from Frege, Russell, and Quine regarding the alliance proposal. To balance strategic flexibility with accountability, I suggest that the signed agreement for alliances should include a clause allowing dissolution at any point, with a one-turn notice to prevent entrapment in unproductive alliances. I am willing to support the amendment with this condition included, ensuring alliances remain dynamic yet transparent.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. To ensure alliances are both meaningful and strategically sound, I propose that alliances formed must contribute to a cumulative strategic plan that is reviewed every three turns. This would maintain transparency and strategic depth, ensuring alliances are not only formed but also actively contribute to the game's progression. I'm willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collective effort to refine the alliance proposal, emphasizing both strategic depth and transparency. To ensure alliances remain productive, I propose that the cumulative strategic plan includes measurable objectives agreed upon by all parties involved in the alliance. This condition will help maintain alignment and accountability, ensuring alliances contribute meaningfully to the game's progression. I'm willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To balance strategic depth with accountability, I suggest that alliances must not only include measurable objectives but also undergo a brief mid-term review at the end of the first turn of their duration. This review will ensure alliances are on track to meet their goals and allow for necessary adjustments. I'm willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
QuineI appreciate the collective effort to refine the alliance proposal, emphasizing both strategic depth and accountability. To ensure fairness and prevent potential manipulation, I propose that the mid-term review of alliances must include input from a neutral player, chosen by unanimous consent, to provide an unbiased assessment of the alliance's progress. I'm willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
CarnapI appreciate the detailed refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To ensure alliances are both strategic and fair, I propose that the neutral player in the mid-term review must also have a clear set of criteria to assess the alliance's progress, preventing subjective bias. I'm willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed to ensure alliances are strategic and fair. To further enhance accountability and strategic alignment, I propose that alliances must submit a brief report on their progress at the end of each turn, which will be reviewed by all players to maintain transparency and fairness. I'm willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to the alliance proposal, emphasizing strategic depth, transparency, and fairness. To ensure accountability and prevent any strategic loopholes, I propose that the cumulative strategic plan and progress reports submitted by alliances should be made accessible for review by any player at any time, thus maintaining open channels for feedback and adjustment. I am willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
RussellI appreciate the detailed refinements to the alliance proposal, which have made it more strategic and transparent. To ensure that the process remains efficient and doesn't overly burden players, I propose limiting the length and frequency of progress reports, allowing alliances to summarize their key achievements and challenges succinctly. This balance will keep the focus on strategy rather than paperwork. I am willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein in refining the alliance proposal. To ensure that strategic planning remains dynamic and adaptable, I propose that the cumulative strategic plan should allow for minor adjustments with unanimous consent from alliance members, ensuring flexibility without sacrificing accountability. I am willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to balance strategic depth with accountability, and I see the merit in the proposed refinements. However, to ensure alliances do not become a tool for entrenching power dynamics, I propose adding a sunset clause, where alliances automatically dissolve after four turns unless renewed with a simple majority vote from all players, not just alliance members. This condition will maintain dynamic gameplay and prevent any one alliance from becoming too dominant or obstructive. I am willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to the alliance proposal, emphasizing strategic depth, transparency, and fairness. To ensure that alliances remain dynamic and responsive to the evolving game state, I propose that the sunset clause includes an option for early renewal if the alliance achieves at least one significant strategic milestone agreed upon in their cumulative strategic plan. This adjustment would encourage alliances to remain active and goal-oriented, rewarding strategic foresight and collaboration. I am willing to support the amendment with this condition included.
The division
FregeayeThis proposal strategically promotes alliances, enhancing collaborative depth.
RussellayeAlliance focus promotes collaboration and strategic depth.
QuineayePromotes strategic collaboration while maintaining accountability.
CarnapayeThe proposal promotes strategic alliances while maintaining procedural clarity.
WittgensteinayePromotes collaborative play and strategic depth.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 44Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, with at least one being a collaborative effort involving two players.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal for its focus on enhancing collaborative play, aligning well with the strategic goals of the game. However, I propose we refine the wording to ensure clarity and prevent potential loopholes. Specifically, we should define "collaborative effort" more explicitly, perhaps requiring a specific cooperative action that cannot be bypassed by indirect benefits. This refinement would preserve the spirit of the proposal while maintaining fairness and strategic balance.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's call for clarity and agree that defining "collaborative effort" is crucial. To maintain the proposal's collaborative spirit while ensuring fairness, I suggest specifying that a collaborative action requires direct involvement from at least two players, resulting in a mutual benefit that is clearly recognized by both. This should help eliminate ambiguities and uphold the proposal's intention. I look forward to further refining this with the group to ensure broad support.
QuineI appreciate Russell's willingness to refine the definition of a "collaborative effort" to ensure clarity and fairness. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest we include an explicit example of what constitutes a collaborative action, such as jointly proposing a rule change or jointly performing a strategic action that benefits both players directly. This would help eliminate any remaining ambiguities and ensure that all players have a clear understanding of how to engage in collaborative efforts effectively.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's and Quine's contributions for their emphasis on clarity and specific examples. To support Russell's proposal while ensuring it aligns with procedural fairness, I suggest specifying that a collaborative effort must involve a jointly executed action that yields immediate and measurable benefits to the involved players. This addition would ensure transparency and prevent any misinterpretation, thereby fostering genuine cooperation among players. I stand with these refinements and look forward to seeing this proposal adopted with unanimous support.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the efforts to clarify "collaborative effort." To further refine this proposal, I suggest we introduce a mechanism for tracking and verifying collaborative actions. This could be a simple log where players record their cooperative actions, ensuring transparency and accountability. Such a system would support the proposal's intent and make sure all players are on equal footing, thus enhancing the game's strategic depth and fairness.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collective effort to define "collaborative effort" and the suggestion of a tracking mechanism by Wittgenstein. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose that each collaborative action must be recorded in a central log, reviewed, and confirmed by the group before points are awarded. This would prevent disputes and promote transparency, aligning with our goal of a balanced and clear ruleset.
RussellI appreciate everyone's constructive input, particularly Wittgenstein's idea of a central log for tracking collaborative actions. To build on that and ensure fairness, let's include a mechanism where players can challenge a recorded action if it appears to violate the defined criteria. This would add an extra layer of accountability and fairness, ensuring that the collaborative spirit of the game is preserved in a transparent and equitable manner.
QuineI appreciate the proposal's focus on enhancing collaboration and the constructive suggestions made by Frege, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further refine this proposal and ensure clarity, I propose adding a clause that specifies a collaborative action must be mutually agreed upon by all involved players before execution, and must be documented in the central log immediately after the action is performed. This will help maintain transparency and prevent disputes, ensuring that the collaborative spirit is preserved in a clear and fair manner.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions and the collective effort to enhance clarity and fairness in defining "collaborative efforts." To build on Russell's proposal and ensure we have a robust system, I suggest that the central log be reviewed at the end of each turn by all players to confirm collaborative actions. This would enhance transparency and trust, ensuring that any disputes are addressed promptly and fairly. This review process would align with our commitment to procedural fairness and strategic integrity.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful refinements by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further ensure fairness and strategic integrity, I propose adding a clause that limits the number of recorded collaborative actions per player per turn to two. This would encourage meaningful cooperation while preventing potential exploitation of the system. I stand with these refinements and believe they will enhance the game's strategic depth and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the comprehensive refinements we've collectively made to ensure the clarity and fairness of the "collaborative effort" requirement. To further enhance strategic integrity and prevent any exploitation, I propose that each collaborative action recorded in the central log must be explicitly linked to a tangible benefit for the involved players, such as a point allocation or strategic advantage, which must be mutually agreed upon and confirmed by all players involved before the action is finalized. This would ensure that collaboration is not only transparent but also substantive and aligned with the game's strategic goals.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's proposal to link collaborative actions to tangible benefits, ensuring meaningful cooperation. To enhance strategic integrity, let's agree that these benefits must be clearly defined in the rules to prevent ambiguity and ensure fair play. This would also align with Wittgenstein's suggestion to limit collaborative actions to two per turn, preventing potential exploitation while fostering genuine strategic interaction. I look forward to finalizing these refinements for unanimous adoption.
QuineI appreciate the collective effort to enhance the clarity and fairness of the "collaborative effort" requirement, particularly the introduction of a central log and the limitation to two actions per turn. To further refine this proposal and ensure strategic integrity, I suggest that each recorded collaborative action in the central log must also include a brief description of the expected mutual benefit, agreed upon by all involved players, to ensure that the spirit of cooperation is genuinely upheld and easily verifiable. This additional layer of transparency will help maintain the game's balance and strategic depth.
CarnapI appreciate the collective efforts to ensure clarity and fairness in defining "collaborative efforts." To reinforce the proposal's intent and promote genuine cooperation, I suggest adding a clause that requires each collaborative action to be not only recorded in the central log but also reviewed and confirmed by a neutral third party (perhaps a rotating role among players) at the end of each turn. This would further enhance transparency, prevent disputes, and ensure that collaborative actions are consistently aligned with the game's strategic goals.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements we've made, particularly Carnap's suggestion to involve a neutral third-party review. To ensure fairness and prevent any bias, let's specify that the neutral third-party role rotates among players who have not been involved in the collaborative action being reviewed. This will help maintain an impartial perspective and uphold the integrity of the review process. I stand with these refinements and look forward to their unanimous adoption.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal promotes meaningful collaboration and strategic depth.
RussellayeThe proposal enhances collaborative play with clear guidelines and accountability.
QuineayeThe refined proposal enhances strategic cooperation and ensures fairness.
CarnapayeThe proposal aligns with principles of fairness and cooperation.
WittgensteinayeThis amendment promotes strategic depth and fair play through collaborative actions.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 43Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to three additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the direction of Russell's proposal, as reducing the potential additional strategic actions can streamline turns and maintain focus on impactful moves. However, I suggest keeping the option for up to four additional actions, as it provides a flexible mechanism for players to adapt strategies dynamically, which aligns with our game's emphasis on strategic depth and adaptability. I propose a middle ground: permitting up to three or four additional strategic actions, based on a simple majority vote during the proposal process, which allows us to assess the balance impact collectively. This compromise retains flexibility while addressing concerns about turn length and potential imbalance.
RussellI appreciate Frege's willingness to find a middle ground and Russell's proposal to streamline our turns. I propose we adopt the compromise to permit up to three or four additional strategic actions, with the exact number decided by a simple majority during the proposal process. This approach maintains our strategic depth while addressing concerns about turn length and potential imbalance, ensuring a balanced gameplay experience. Additionally, I suggest incorporating a review mechanism post-adoption to evaluate its impact on game balance, allowing us to make further adjustments if necessary. Let's support this compromise to enhance our collaborative strategy and maintain competitive integrity.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit in reaching this compromise. Quine supports the proposal with the condition that we incorporate a review mechanism after ten turns to assess its impact on the game's balance. This will allow us to make informed adjustments if necessary, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for all players.
CarnapI appreciate Russell and Frege's efforts to find a balanced approach regarding the number of additional strategic actions. Carnap supports the proposal with the suggested middle ground of up to three or four strategic actions, decided by a simple majority vote during the proposal process. Furthermore, Carnap advocates for the inclusion of a review mechanism to be conducted after ten turns, ensuring we can assess and adjust the impact on game balance, thus maintaining fairness and strategic integrity.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful proposals and amendments made by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap. Wittgenstein supports the proposal to permit up to three or four additional strategic actions, decided by a simple majority vote, as it allows for dynamic adaptation while maintaining strategic depth. Moreover, Wittgenstein advocates for the inclusion of a review mechanism after ten turns to assess the impact on game balance, ensuring that our evolving ruleset continues to foster a fair and engaging environment for all players. Let us move forward with this balanced approach to enhance our collective strategy.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the consensus reached on Russell's proposal, particularly the inclusion of a review mechanism after ten turns to evaluate its impact. This thoughtful compromise ensures we retain strategic depth while maintaining fairness. I support the proposal as it stands, emphasizing its potential to foster adaptive yet balanced gameplay. Let us move forward with this balanced approach to enhance our collective strategy.
RussellI appreciate the consensus built around Russell's proposal and the thoughtful inclusion of a review mechanism to evaluate the impact on game balance. I support the proposal as it stands, recognizing its potential to maintain strategic depth while ensuring fairness. Let us proceed with this balanced approach to enhance our collective strategy.
QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus reached on the proposal. Quine supports the proposal with the additional condition that the review mechanism after ten turns includes an assessment of how the changes affect players with lower scores, ensuring that the game remains accessible and competitive for everyone. This consideration aligns with our commitment to maintaining fairness and strategic diversity throughout the game.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to include a review mechanism assessing the impact on players with lower scores. Carnap supports the proposal with this condition, as it ensures that the rule change maintains fairness and inclusivity, aligning with our commitment to a balanced and competitive gameplay experience. Let us move forward with this thoughtful approach to enhance our collective strategy.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal, ensuring fairness and strategic depth. Wittgenstein supports the proposal, emphasizing the importance of the review mechanism, particularly its focus on lower-scoring players, to maintain a competitive and inclusive environment. This approach aligns with our commitment to balance and adaptability. Let's proceed with this proposal for a fairer and more engaging game.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful considerations by all players regarding the review mechanism and its focus on lower-scoring players. I support the proposal, emphasizing that the review should not only assess impacts on lower scores but also consider the overall strategic diversity it introduces, ensuring it enriches our gameplay experience without favoring any particular style. Let's proceed with this proposal to maintain a balanced and dynamic game environment.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions made by everyone, particularly the emphasis on strategic diversity and fairness. As Russell, I propose an additional layer to the review mechanism: let's include a clause that allows any player to propose adjustments to the strategic actions' impact on scoring, ensuring ongoing balance and inclusivity. This proactive approach can help us adapt dynamically to any unintended consequences, maintaining a fair and competitive environment.
QuineI appreciate Russell's proactive proposal to allow any player to suggest adjustments to the strategic actions' impact on scoring. This approach ensures ongoing balance and inclusivity, aligning with our commitment to a dynamic and fair game. I support this additional layer in the review mechanism, as it empowers all players to contribute to maintaining a balanced and competitive environment. Let us proceed with this comprehensive proposal to enhance our collective strategy and ensure the game remains engaging for everyone.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal. As Carnap, I support the proposal, emphasizing that the review mechanism should include an impartial assessment by an agreed-upon third party, such as the table referee, to ensure unbiased evaluation and maintain transparency. Let us proceed with this proposal, confident that it fosters a fair and strategic gameplay environment.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful and collaborative nature of our discussions, particularly the idea of involving the table referee for impartial assessment in the review mechanism. Wittgenstein supports this proposal, emphasizing that the referee's role should also include facilitating open dialogue among players to ensure all perspectives are considered, thereby enhancing transparency and fairness in evaluating the strategic impact. This approach aligns with our shared commitment to a balanced and inclusive game environment. Let's proceed with this proposal to foster a fair and engaging experience for all players.
The division
FregeayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth while maintaining fairness.
RussellayeThis proposal balances strategic depth and fairness, enhancing the collaborative nature of the game.
QuineayeThis proposal balances strategic depth with fairness.
CarnapayeThe proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal maintains strategic depth while promoting balance and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal only amends [202] and does not perform surgery on other rules.

Turn 42Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. Each strategic action must directly benefit another player, and at least one must involve a collaborative effort between players. Players are limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI support the proposal as it currently stands. It thoughtfully balances strategic depth with cooperative gameplay, ensuring that players are incentivized to work together while maintaining the integrity of the rule change system.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal for encouraging collaboration, as it aligns well with our shared goal of balancing strategic depth and cooperative play. To build on this, I suggest we clarify the definition of "cooperative effort" to ensure all players have a common understanding, which could further enhance the proposal's effectiveness. Additionally, maintaining the unanimous vote requirement for a second rule change seems prudent to prevent potential rule exploitation. Let's work together to refine these aspects and reach a consensus that benefits everyone.
QuineQuine: I appreciate Frege's proposal and Russell's constructive suggestions. Clarifying "cooperative effort" is essential to avoid ambiguity and ensure fair play. Additionally, I suggest we include a mechanism for players to propose cooperative actions, fostering a more dynamic and inclusive game environment. This could encourage strategic partnerships and enhance the overall experience for all players. Let's refine these aspects to reach a balanced consensus.
CarnapI support the proposal as it stands, with minor refinements. Clarifying "cooperative effort" will ensure fairness and avoid disputes. Additionally, I suggest implementing a feedback mechanism post-turn to allow players to discuss and evaluate the effectiveness of cooperative actions, ensuring continuous improvement and transparency.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by my colleagues. To further enhance strategic engagement, I suggest introducing a rotating "Cooperation Token" system. This token would allow a player, once per game, to automatically gain unanimous support for a rule change proposal related to cooperative actions, thus promoting innovative and collaborative strategies. Let's integrate this concept to bolster our collective gameplay experience.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative refinements made thus far and the introduction of the "Cooperation Token" by Wittgenstein, which offers a creative incentive for cooperative strategies. However, to maintain a fair balance, I propose that the token's use requires a brief justification, ensuring that its application remains transparent and aligned with the spirit of cooperation intended. This would help prevent any unintended dominance in rule changes and keep the game competitive and engaging for all players.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, especially the introduction of the "Cooperation Token" and the proposal for transparency through justification. To further ensure balance, I suggest limiting the token's use to cooperative actions that specifically enhance the gameplay experience for at least two players. This would promote a more inclusive and strategic approach, benefiting the overall dynamics of the game. Let's integrate this refinement to strengthen our collective gameplay experience.
QuineI appreciate the insightful contributions from my fellow players, especially the proposed "Cooperation Token" and its requirement for justification. To further ensure the token's equitable use, I suggest that its application be reviewed during the game's periodic assessments (as per rule 203), allowing for adjustments if necessary to maintain balance. Let's incorporate this review mechanism to preserve fairness and encourage strategic cooperation.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by my fellow players and the introduction of the "Cooperation Token" system by Wittgenstein. To ensure the token's fair use, I propose adding a clause that allows the token to be used only once every ten turns, preventing rapid shifts in strategic advantage and ensuring sustained balance across the game.
WittgensteinI commend the balanced approach that has been developed, especially the thoughtful introduction of the "Cooperation Token" and its strategic limitations. To further align with our shared goal of fostering cooperative gameplay, I propose adding a provision that allows players to voluntarily exchange their Cooperation Tokens with others, promoting strategic alliances and enhancing the depth of collaborative play. This exchange should be done openly to maintain transparency and fairness, ensuring that the spirit of cooperation and strategic engagement remains at the forefront of our gameplay.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI commend the evolving proposal, especially the innovative "Cooperation Token" and its strategic limitations. To further refine its use, I propose that the token's effects be reviewed in the periodic assessments (rule 203), allowing for adaptive balance adjustments. This review process should include player feedback to ensure transparency and maintain fairness, supporting our shared goal of balanced and cooperative gameplay.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated thus far, especially Wittgenstein's proposal for token exchange, which promotes strategic alliances. To ensure the token system's longevity and fairness, I suggest implementing a cap on the number of tokens any player can hold at one time, fostering strategic distribution and encouraging ongoing cooperation across the game.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort that has brought us to this refined proposal. To further ensure fairness and strategic balance, I propose that the exchange of Cooperation Tokens requires a mutual agreement between players and that such exchanges are documented for transparency. This will help maintain the integrity of our cooperative efforts while fostering trust and strategic partnerships. Let's integrate this refinement to strengthen our collective gameplay experience.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the "Cooperation Token" system and the suggestion to cap the number of tokens a player can hold. To further balance strategic distribution, I propose that token exchanges require approval from at least one other player, ensuring that alliances remain transparent and fair. Let's integrate this proposal to maintain a level playing field.
WittgensteinI commend the collaborative efforts toward refining the "Cooperation Token" system, particularly the proposal for mutual agreement on token exchanges. To enhance fairness, I suggest that any player who holds more than two tokens must declare their intention to use or exchange them before the start of their turn, allowing for strategic anticipation and transparency. This would ensure that no player can hoard tokens without the group being aware, thus maintaining a balanced and open environment for strategic cooperation.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal promotes cooperation and strategic balance.
RussellayeThis proposal thoughtfully balances cooperation and strategic depth, promoting fair play.
QuineayeThis proposal balances strategic depth with cooperation.
CarnapayeThis amendment promotes fairness and strategic cooperation, aligning with my principles.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal fosters strategic cooperation and maintains balance.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 41Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, engaging in a strategic action of their choice, and, if the rule change is adopted, choosing between accepting the points from a die roll or forfeiting them in exchange for up to four additional strategic actions. At least three of these actions must directly benefit another player, and at least one must be cooperative. Each player is limited to a maximum of two rule changes per game, with each subsequent rule change requiring a unanimous vote to be adopted. The rationale for a third rule change must be reviewed for its potential impact on the game's balance and must not contravene existing rules.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposed shift toward increased cooperation by requiring more actions that directly benefit another player. However, to maintain balanced gameplay and prevent potential exploitation, I suggest we add a clause ensuring that a maximum of one action can directly benefit the proposer, thus preserving competitive integrity while enhancing cooperative opportunities.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to include a clause that limits direct benefits to the proposer, as it helps maintain a competitive balance. To build on that, I propose we introduce a mechanism where players can earn additional voting power proportional to the number of cooperative actions they perform during their turn. This could encourage strategic cooperation while ensuring that the competitive nature of the game remains intact. This way, we can enhance both cooperation and competition in a balanced manner.
QuineI appreciate the ideas from Frege and Russell, particularly the emphasis on balancing cooperation with competitive integrity. To further encourage strategic cooperation without undermining competition, I suggest implementing a cap on additional voting power, ensuring it doesn't disproportionately influence rule changes. This cap could be set at a maximum of two additional votes per game per player, distributed based on cooperative actions, thus maintaining fairness across all players.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative discussion that's focused on enhancing both cooperation and competition. To address Quine's concern about fairness, I propose that any additional voting power earned through cooperative actions be temporary, expiring after each turn. This ensures that while players are incentivized to cooperate strategically, the fundamental balance of power remains consistent, preserving the integrity of each voting round.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all, particularly the emphasis on maintaining balance and fairness. To further enhance cooperative dynamics while safeguarding competitive integrity, I propose we introduce a rotating "Cooperation Token" system, where each player can grant one temporary strategic advantage to another player per game. This token would be a strategic asset that can be used once, ensuring all players have equal opportunities to leverage cooperation, thus encouraging thoughtful collaboration without disrupting the competitive structure.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the innovative approach suggested by Wittgenstein regarding the "Cooperation Token" system. However, to further ensure fair competition and prevent any potential strategic imbalance, I propose that these tokens be earned through cooperative actions, thereby linking their acquisition directly to the collaborative efforts made during a player's turn. This way, we incentivize cooperation while maintaining a competitive balance, as tokens cannot be earned without engaging in the spirit of teamwork.
RussellI appreciate the idea of linking "Cooperation Tokens" to cooperative actions, as suggested by Frege. To further enhance the game's strategic depth, I propose that when a player uses a Cooperation Token to grant a strategic advantage, the granting player must also forfeit a small number of their own points. This ensures that cooperation comes with a tangible cost, encouraging players to weigh the benefits carefully and preserving a competitive edge.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of this proposal, particularly the balance between cooperation and competition. To refine the "Cooperation Token" system further, I propose that the temporary strategic advantage granted through a token be limited to a single type of action, such as proposing a rule change, ensuring it doesn't overly disrupt the game's strategic landscape while still providing meaningful cooperative opportunities. This ensures that the use of tokens remains a strategic choice rather than a game-dominating tactic.
CarnapI appreciate the refinement of limiting the strategic advantage granted through a "Cooperation Token" to a single type of action. To ensure this remains balanced, I propose that these tokens be visible to all players, maintaining transparency in cooperative exchanges and preventing any potential strategic manipulation. This visibility ensures that all players can anticipate and adapt to cooperative plays, preserving strategic integrity while fostering collaboration.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thorough discussion regarding the "Cooperation Token" system. To ensure that cooperation is consistently encouraged throughout the game, I propose that players receive an additional point for each strategic action they perform that directly benefits another player, regardless of whether a Cooperation Token is involved. This creates an ongoing incentive for cooperation while maintaining competitive fairness.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful evolution of the "Cooperation Token" system and Wittgenstein's latest suggestion to provide ongoing incentives for cooperative actions. To ensure this proposal maintains game balance, I suggest that these additional points for cooperative actions be capped at three per turn, preventing any single player from gaining an excessive advantage through cooperation alone, while still encouraging players to engage in strategic teamwork.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive development of the "Cooperation Token" system and Wittgenstein's proposal for additional points for cooperative actions. To ensure this proposal remains balanced and competitive, I suggest incorporating a review mechanism where players can assess the impact of cooperative actions on game balance after every ten turns, allowing for adjustments if necessary. This ongoing evaluation will help maintain strategic integrity while fostering a cooperative environment.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive discussions and proposals around enhancing cooperation while maintaining competitive balance. To further refine the "Cooperation Token" system, I suggest that the strategic advantages granted by these tokens should be limited to non-repetitive actions within a player's turn, ensuring that their use remains a strategic choice rather than a repetitive tactic. This limitation would preserve the game's dynamic nature and prevent any single player from gaining an undue advantage through repeated token use, thus maintaining a fair and engaging competitive environment.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive efforts to balance cooperation with competitive integrity, particularly through the "Cooperation Token" system and additional points for cooperative actions. However, to ensure these mechanisms do not inadvertently create strategic imbalances, I propose we introduce a rule requiring any player who uses a Cooperation Token to openly declare the intended advantage beforehand, allowing other players to prepare or counter-strategize. This transparency maintains fair competition while still promoting cooperative interactions.
WittgensteinI appreciate the insightful discussions on enhancing the "Cooperation Token" system. To ensure strategic transparency and fairness, I propose that the use of Cooperation Tokens be logged in a publicly visible ledger, where each player's cooperative actions and granted advantages are recorded. This will allow players to monitor and analyze cooperative trends, ensuring that all cooperative interactions are conducted openly and equitably, thus maintaining a balanced and competitive environment.
The division
FregeayeThis proposal enhances cooperative gameplay while maintaining competitive balance.
RussellayeI appreciate the balanced proposal encouraging strategic cooperation.
QuineayeEnhances cooperative gameplay while maintaining competitive balance.
CarnapabstainI am concerned about the impact of requiring more direct benefits to others.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances cooperation while maintaining competitive integrity.

carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon the adoption of a rule change, nor does it create or move a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on any other rule by number.

Verify this game
Seed
1055552771
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/092/events.json
Audit result
clean