§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

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

A quiet fifty turns, one seat short of a full sweep.

Observations

Forty-five adoptions and a close top of the table — Russell finished at 92, Frege close behind at 87 — with only Quine slipping into negative territory. No seat came near a win; the table's default win threshold went untouched all game.

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

The last amendment
Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote. If a player’s score falls below -5 points, they gain a one-time bonus of 20 points to encourage continued engagement.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote. If a player’s score falls below -5 points, they gain a one-time bonus of 20 points to encourage continued engagement.amended this turn
Full history (40)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote. If a player’s score falls below -5 points, they gain a one-time bonus of 20 points to encourage continued engagement.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote.
  3. 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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement.
  4. 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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.
  8. 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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by at least three votes in favor from the players, excluding the proposer. The maximum number of constructive comments counted towards points is limited to five per proposal.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer.
  10. 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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. The maximum number of constructive comments counted towards points is limited to five per proposal.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by at least three votes in favor from the players, excluding the proposer. The maximum number of constructive comments counted towards points is limited to five per proposal.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. The maximum number of constructive comments counted towards points is limited to five per proposal.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes with a majority of ayes (more than 50%) gains a bonus point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 0.5 points for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes without unanimous consent gains a bonus point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes with a majority of ayes (more than 50%) gains a bonus point.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points. Additionally, players gain 0.3 points for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 0.5 points for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes without unanimous consent gains a bonus point.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1 point for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points. A player gains an additional 0.5 points for each proposal they revise during debate, encouraging thoughtful adjustments.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points. Additionally, players gain 0.3 points for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1 point for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points. A player gains an additional 0.5 points for each proposal they revise during debate, encouraging thoughtful adjustments.
  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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 2 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 1 point if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 2 points if their total score becomes a perfect square after gaining points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 2 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 1 point if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1 point for every player who votes aye, and if the player's total score is a prime number after gaining points, they receive an additional 5 bonus points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 2 points if their total score becomes a perfect square after gaining points.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 2 bonus points for every player who votes aye, encouraging more consensus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1 point for every player who votes aye, and if the player's total score is a prime number after gaining points, they receive an additional 5 bonus points.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points. Additionally, the proposing player gains 1 extra point for every player who votes aye, incentivizing consensus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 2 bonus points for every player who votes aye, encouraging more consensus.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 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 gains 4 base points, plus 2 points for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, with a maximum of 4 points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 4th successful rule change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points. Additionally, the proposing player gains 1 extra point for every player who votes aye, incentivizing consensus.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points as follows: 4 base points, plus 1 point for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 3 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 2 points for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, with a maximum of 4 points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 4th successful rule change.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points as follows: 4 base points plus an additional point for each new rule change adopted beyond the first in a given game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points as follows: 4 base points, plus 1 point for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 3 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points. An additional point is awarded for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points as follows: 4 base points plus an additional point for each new rule change adopted beyond the first in a given game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption.
  27. Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points, plus an additional point for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points. An additional point is awarded for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption.
  28. Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points, plus an additional 1 point for every three circuits completed, up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points, plus an additional point for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.
  29. Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points, plus an additional 1 point for every three circuits completed, up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption.
  30. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 2 points for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.
  31. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 5 points per adoption. A proposal may include multiple changes, but each change must be individually debated and voted on separately before the entire proposal is considered as a whole.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 2 points for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption.
  32. Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 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 gains 3 points, plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 5 points per adoption. A proposal may include multiple changes, but each must be unanimously agreed upon before voting.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 5 points per adoption. A proposal may include multiple changes, but each change must be individually debated and voted on separately before the entire proposal is considered as a whole.
  33. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting. If a rule change is adopted that significantly enhances the strategic depth of the game, the proposer gains an additional 5 points as a bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 5 points per adoption. A proposal may include multiple changes, but each must be unanimously agreed upon before voting.
  34. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 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 gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting. If a rule change is adopted that significantly enhances the strategic depth of the game, the proposer gains an additional 5 points as a bonus.
  35. Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 10 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting.
  36. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 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 gains 8 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 10 points per adoption.
  37. Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 8 points.
  38. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 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 gains 3 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points.
  39. 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 gains 3 points.
  40. 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 eligible voters votes aye. However, after every full circuit of turns, a two-thirds majority is required for adoption. A full circuit is completed when each player has had an equal number of turns.
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters votes aye. However, after every full circuit of turns, a two-thirds majority is required for adoption. A full circuit is completed when each player has had an equal number of turns.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters votes aye, or a two-thirds majority if fewer than two full circuits have occurred.A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters votes aye. However, after every full circuit of turns, a two-thirds majority is required for adoption. A full circuit is completed when each player has had an equal number of turns.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of eligible voters votes aye, 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 eligible voters votes aye, or a two-thirds majority if fewer than two full circuits have occurred.
  4. 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 when a two-thirds majority of eligible voters votes aye, 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.
  5. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game or negotiate about it with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. This includes discussions of potential rule changes.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. This includes discussions of potential rule changes.
  2. 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 higher ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §211 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the higher ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
  2. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

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

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote. If a player’s score falls below -5 points, they gain a one-time bonus of 20 points to encourage continued engagement.amended this turn
Full history (40)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote. If a player’s score falls below -5 points, they gain a one-time bonus of 20 points to encourage continued engagement.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote.
  3. 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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement.
  4. 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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.
  6. Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.
  7. Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.
  8. 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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer.
  9. Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by at least three votes in favor from the players, excluding the proposer. The maximum number of constructive comments counted towards points is limited to five per proposal.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer.
  10. 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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. The maximum number of constructive comments counted towards points is limited to five per proposal.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by at least three votes in favor from the players, excluding the proposer. The maximum number of constructive comments counted towards points is limited to five per proposal.
  11. Amended · §202 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. The maximum number of constructive comments counted towards points is limited to five per proposal.
  12. Amended · §202 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point.
  13. Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes with a majority of ayes (more than 50%) gains a bonus point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point.
  14. Amended · §202 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 0.5 points for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes without unanimous consent gains a bonus point.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes with a majority of ayes (more than 50%) gains a bonus point.
  15. Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points. Additionally, players gain 0.3 points for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points. Additionally, players gain 0.5 points for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion. A proposal that passes without unanimous consent gains a bonus point.
  16. Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1 point for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points. A player gains an additional 0.5 points for each proposal they revise during debate, encouraging thoughtful adjustments.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points. Additionally, players gain 0.3 points for each constructive comment made during the debate, encouraging a more interactive and engaging discussion.
  17. Amended · §202 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1 point for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points. A player gains an additional 0.5 points for each proposal they revise during debate, encouraging thoughtful adjustments.
  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, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 2 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 1 point if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 0.5 points if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points.
  19. Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 2 points if their total score becomes a perfect square after gaining points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 2 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 1 point if their total score becomes a prime number after gaining points.
  20. Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1 point for every player who votes aye, and if the player's total score is a prime number after gaining points, they receive an additional 5 bonus points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1.5 points for every player who votes aye. The proposing player also gains a bonus of 2 points if their total score becomes a perfect square after gaining points.
  21. Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 2 bonus points for every player who votes aye, encouraging more consensus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 1 point for every player who votes aye, and if the player's total score is a prime number after gaining points, they receive an additional 5 bonus points.
  22. Amended · §202 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points. Additionally, the proposing player gains 1 extra point for every player who votes aye, incentivizing consensus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points plus 2 bonus points for every player who votes aye, encouraging more consensus.
  23. Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 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 gains 4 base points, plus 2 points for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, with a maximum of 4 points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 4th successful rule change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points. Additionally, the proposing player gains 1 extra point for every player who votes aye, incentivizing consensus.
  24. Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points as follows: 4 base points, plus 1 point for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 3 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 2 points for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, with a maximum of 4 points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 4th successful rule change.
  25. Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points as follows: 4 base points plus an additional point for each new rule change adopted beyond the first in a given game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points as follows: 4 base points, plus 1 point for each additional rule change adopted in the current game, up to a maximum of 3 additional points per adoption. This maximum resets after every 5th successful rule change.
  26. Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points. An additional point is awarded for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains points as follows: 4 base points plus an additional point for each new rule change adopted beyond the first in a given game, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption.
  27. Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points, plus an additional point for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points. An additional point is awarded for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 2 additional points per adoption.
  28. Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points, plus an additional 1 point for every three circuits completed, up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points, plus an additional point for each circuit completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.
  29. Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points, plus an additional 1 point for every three circuits completed, up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption.
  30. Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 2 points for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 points, plus an additional 1 point for every two circuits completed, up to a maximum of 6 points per adoption.
  31. Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 5 points per adoption. A proposal may include multiple changes, but each change must be individually debated and voted on separately before the entire proposal is considered as a whole.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 2 points for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 7 points per adoption.
  32. Amended · §202 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 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 gains 3 points, plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 5 points per adoption. A proposal may include multiple changes, but each must be unanimously agreed upon before voting.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 5 points per adoption. A proposal may include multiple changes, but each change must be individually debated and voted on separately before the entire proposal is considered as a whole.
  33. Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting. If a rule change is adopted that significantly enhances the strategic depth of the game, the proposer gains an additional 5 points as a bonus.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points, plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 5 points per adoption. A proposal may include multiple changes, but each must be unanimously agreed upon before voting.
  34. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 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 gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting. If a rule change is adopted that significantly enhances the strategic depth of the game, the proposer gains an additional 5 points as a bonus.
  35. Amended · §202 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Frege Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 10 points per adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 15 points per adoption. Players can propose multiple changes per turn if they gain unanimous consent before voting.
  36. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 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 gains 8 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points plus an additional 1 point for every circuit completed, up to a maximum of 10 points per adoption.
  37. Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 8 points.
  38. Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 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 gains 3 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 5 points.
  39. 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 gains 3 points.
  40. 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 eligible voters votes aye. However, after every full circuit of turns, a two-thirds majority is required for adoption. A full circuit is completed when each player has had an equal number of turns.mutable
Full history (5)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters votes aye. However, after every full circuit of turns, a two-thirds majority is required for adoption. A full circuit is completed when each player has had an equal number of turns.
  2. Amended · §203 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters votes aye, or a two-thirds majority if fewer than two full circuits have occurred.A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters votes aye. However, after every full circuit of turns, a two-thirds majority is required for adoption. A full circuit is completed when each player has had an equal number of turns.
  3. Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A rule change is adopted when a two-thirds majority of eligible voters votes aye, 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 eligible voters votes aye, or a two-thirds majority if fewer than two full circuits have occurred.
  4. 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 when a two-thirds majority of eligible voters votes aye, 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.
  5. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game or negotiate about it with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. This includes discussions of potential rule changes.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §210 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    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.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. This includes discussions of potential rule changes.
  2. 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 higher ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §211 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the higher ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
  2. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
The standing · Turn 50
Frege87
Russell92
Quine-1
Carnap1
Wittgenstein4
The floor — dialogue of the current game

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

Turn 50Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote. If a player’s score falls below -5 points, they gain a one-time bonus of 20 points to encourage continued engagement.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intent to encourage continued engagement by granting a score recovery bonus; however, I am concerned that it may disproportionately benefit players with lower scores and disrupt the competitive balance. To mitigate this, I propose an amendment: if a player's score falls below -5 points, they gain a one-time bonus of 10 points instead of 20, contingent on their next proposal being constructive as determined by the review panel. This ensures that players not only recover but also contribute positively to the game's strategic complexity.
RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful consideration in proposing a recovery mechanism to boost engagement, while also ensuring that it aligns with our game's strategic depth. To build on that, I suggest refining the proposal to maintain competitive balance: if a player's score falls below -5 points, they gain a one-time bonus of 10 points, provided their next rule change contributes to enhancing the clarity or strategic complexity, as confirmed by the review panel. Additionally, to prevent any potential exploitation, this bonus is granted only once per player, ensuring fair play. This approach balances encouragement for struggling players with the necessity for constructive contributions, fostering a more dynamic and equitable game environment.
QuineI appreciate the refinements proposed by Frege and Russell to balance engagement and strategic depth. However, to further ensure fairness and prevent any potential exploitation of the recovery mechanism, I propose adding a condition: the one-time bonus of 10 points is only granted if the player's next proposal is adopted without any dissenting votes. This encourages not just constructive contributions, but also broad consensus among players, maintaining the game's collaborative spirit.
CarnapI appreciate the constructive contributions from Frege, Russell, and Quine, aiming to ensure fair play and strategic depth. To further refine the proposal, I suggest adding a provision that this one-time bonus is available only if the player's subsequent turn involves proposing a rule change that addresses an aspect of gameplay previously identified as needing improvement. This ensures the bonus not only aids players but also contributes meaningfully to enhancing the overall game dynamics.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collective effort to balance engagement and strategic depth. To ensure this mechanism enhances the game's evolution, I propose adding a clause that the one-time bonus can only be applied if the player's rule change is transmuted from mutable to immutable, demonstrating its lasting value to the game's structure. This encourages players to propose enduring improvements, fostering a more dynamic and equitable environment.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by all, especially the emphasis on long-term contributions and broad consensus. To further enhance the proposal's strategic depth, I suggest requiring that the player's next rule change not only addresses previously identified gameplay improvements but also includes a clause for periodic review by the panel, ensuring it continues to align with evolving game dynamics. This addition would maintain the balance between immediate recovery and ongoing strategic engagement.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements proposed so far. To ensure this mechanism not only aids struggling players but also maintains the integrity of our strategic goals, I propose a slight modification: if a player's score falls below -5 points, they gain a one-time bonus of 10 points, provided their next rule change is not only constructive but also gains at least a 75% majority vote. This encourages strategic engagement and consensus, aligning with our game's collaborative and strategic ethos.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, aiming for fairness and strategic depth. However, to ensure this bonus truly enhances the game's dynamism, I propose that the one-time bonus be contingent not only on the rule change's adoption but also on its positive impact on gameplay, as evaluated in a follow-up session after one full circuit. This ensures that the rule change contributes lasting value to our evolving game environment.
CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal for both engagement and strategic depth. To ensure clarity and prevent potential abuse, I suggest explicitly defining "periodic review" to occur at the end of each full circuit of turns, and "positive impact on gameplay" as assessed by the review panel with input from all players, ensuring transparency and consistency in evaluations. This addition aims to maintain balance while fostering meaningful contributions to the game's evolution.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed, particularly the emphasis on ensuring lasting value and broad consensus. To further enhance strategic engagement and maintain clarity, I suggest specifying that the rule change must also introduce a novel strategic element not previously addressed, ensuring it genuinely advances the game's complexity. This encourages players to think innovatively, enriching our evolving rule landscape.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thorough deliberations and refinements made thus far, especially the focus on strategic innovation and broad consensus. To further align with the spirit of enhancing the game's complexity and fairness, I propose adding that the rule change must also include a mechanism for self-assessment by the proposing player, requiring them to evaluate and publicly justify its strategic value in the context of their score recovery. This ensures transparency and accountability, encouraging thoughtful contributions that benefit the entire game environment.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful refinements from all players, which have significantly enhanced this proposal. To ensure that the self-assessment mechanism aligns with our game's strategic objectives, I suggest that the proposing player must also provide a brief comparative analysis with at least one existing rule, highlighting how their change offers a distinct strategic advantage. This encourages not only innovation but also a deeper understanding of the evolving rule landscape, fostering a richer, more strategic gameplay experience.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the thoughtful consideration given to ensuring strategic depth and fairness. To further align the proposal with our goal of maintaining an engaging and equitable environment, I propose adding a clause that requires the proposing player to engage in a brief post-debate reflection, shared with all players, explaining how their rule change contributes to the game's long-term strategic landscape. This encourages transparency and continuous learning, enriching our evolving gameplay experience.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by all. To ensure clarity and prevent potential exploitation, I propose that the self-assessment mechanism include a requirement for the proposing player to also consider and explicitly address any potential negative impacts their rule change might have on the game's strategic balance. This ensures that the rule change not only advances complexity but also maintains the overall fairness and integrity of the game.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful refinements from all participants, particularly the focus on strategic depth and transparency. To further ensure that the rule change is beneficial and balanced, I propose adding a requirement that the proposing player must include a contingency plan in their self-assessment, outlining steps to modify or revoke the rule if unforeseen strategic imbalances arise. This encourages foresight and adaptability, ensuring that our evolving game environment remains fair and dynamic.
The division
FregenayThe proposal may lead to strategic imbalance favoring lower-scoring players.
RussellayeThe proposal adds strategic depth and fairness by rewarding constructive engagement.
QuineayeEncourages engagement and rewards constructive contributions.
Carnapayesupports recovery while encouraging constructive contributions
WittgensteinayeEncourages engagement with strategic value and fairness.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Frege gains 4 base points for proposing an adopted rule change, and each of the other players gains 1 point for a constructive comment.

Turn 49Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement. Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a supermajority vote.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's effort to maintain strategic engagement and prevent exploitation by allowing rule changes that limit scoring mechanisms, provided they gain a supermajority. However, the introduction of a supermajority requirement for this specific type of rule change adds complexity without sufficient safeguards against frequent strategic rule manipulation. I propose an amendment: "Each player may propose a rule change that limits a particular scoring mechanism to avoid exploitation, provided the change gains a two-thirds majority vote and is supported by a documented analysis of the exploitation risk." This balances preventing abuse with ensuring that the rules remain fair and transparent. PASS
RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful amendment to require a two-thirds majority and a documented analysis for rule changes that limit scoring mechanisms. This ensures transparency and reduces the risk of manipulation, aligning well with our shared goal of maintaining fairness. To further strengthen this proposal, I suggest we incorporate a clause that mandates a review of the documentation by a rotating impartial panel, ensuring an unbiased evaluation. This could enhance trust in the process and maintain strategic balance. PASS
QuineI appreciate Frege's amendment for adding a two-thirds majority and documented analysis, which strengthens transparency and fairness. Russell's suggestion to include a rotating impartial panel for review further ensures unbiased evaluation, aligning with our goal of strategic balance. I propose we finalize this by including a provision that mandates periodic reviews of the scoring limits to adapt to evolving strategies and maintain fairness over time. This ensures our rules remain dynamic and equitable. PASS
CarnapI appreciate both Frege's and Russell's amendments for enhancing fairness and transparency in limiting scoring mechanisms, along with Quine's idea for periodic reviews to adapt to evolving strategies. To further refine, I propose adding a clause that any review or amendment to the scoring limits must be publicly documented and accessible to all players, ensuring full transparency and accountability throughout the process. This will help maintain trust and clarity in our evolving ruleset. PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort to enhance fairness and transparency in our scoring mechanism proposals. Frege's, Russell's, Quine's, and Carnap's contributions have significantly strengthened our approach. To further refine, I propose a final addition: "The rotating impartial panel must include a player who has not participated in the proposal or debate of the rule change, ensuring complete impartiality." This will further bolster trust in our process by ensuring the panel's neutrality. PASS
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful amendments and refinements from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, all of which significantly contribute to a balanced and transparent rule change process. To further solidify this proposal, I suggest incorporating a safeguard clause that requires any documented analysis or review outcomes to be subject to a brief public discussion period before the final vote, allowing all players to voice any concerns or insights. This will ensure comprehensive understanding and consensus on the proposed changes. PASS
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive amendments made by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, which have greatly enhanced the transparency and fairness of our proposal. To further strengthen our process, I suggest we add a provision that any rule changes limiting scoring mechanisms must also include a sunset clause, ensuring they are re-evaluated and potentially revised or removed after a certain period. This will help prevent outdated rules from hindering strategic evolution and maintain a dynamic game environment. PASS
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein in refining this proposal to ensure fairness and transparency. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a clause that specifies a detailed framework for the public discussion period, ensuring it is structured and time-limited to prevent any potential stalling tactics. This will help maintain the flow of the game while allowing for thorough consideration of all perspectives.
CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to enhance transparency and fairness in our scoring mechanism proposals. The detailed framework for the public discussion period suggested by Quine is an excellent addition to prevent stalling. To further refine this proposal, I propose adding a clause that any player proposing a rule change limiting scoring mechanisms must disclose any potential conflicts of interest they may have, ensuring full transparency and trust in the process. This will help maintain the integrity of our game dynamics. PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive amendments by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and myself, all of which have significantly contributed to a fair and transparent rule change process. To further enhance trust in our evolving ruleset, I propose a final addition: "All discussions, reviews, and voting outcomes related to rule changes limiting scoring mechanisms must be archived in a publicly accessible repository, ensuring complete transparency and allowing players to review past decisions and their rationales." This will ensure that all players have access to historical context, promoting informed participation in future discussions. PASS
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thorough refinements made by all, particularly the emphasis on transparency, fairness, and preventing conflicts of interest. To further strengthen our proposal, I suggest adding a clause that mandates a rotating role for the impartial panel members, ensuring diverse perspectives are considered. This will enhance the credibility of our review process and maintain dynamic engagement in rule evaluation. PASS
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive refinements from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, especially the focus on transparency and preventing conflicts of interest. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest adding a clause that ensures the rotating impartial panel members receive a brief orientation on the current ruleset and any recent changes, promoting consistency and informed evaluations. This will help maintain the integrity and dynamism of our rule change process. PASS
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive efforts by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein to enhance transparency and fairness in our rule change process. To further ensure consistency and informed evaluations, I propose adding a clause that mandates the documentation of the impartial panel's decision-making criteria and rationale for each review. This will provide clarity on how decisions are reached and maintain trust in our evolving ruleset. PASS
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by all players to ensure transparency and fairness. To further enhance our process, I propose adding a clause that mandates the impartial panel to provide a summary of their review outcomes, including key considerations and decisions, to be shared with all players within a specified timeframe after each review. This will ensure clarity and maintain trust in the impartiality and effectiveness of our evolving ruleset. **PASS**
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, ensuring transparency, fairness, and impartiality in our evolving ruleset. To further bolster trust, I propose adding a clause that requires the impartial panel's summary of review outcomes to be accompanied by an opportunity for players to submit feedback or questions within a brief period. This will ensure active engagement and address any concerns promptly, enhancing the clarity and inclusivity of our rule change process. **PASS**
The division
FregeayeThe proposal enhances strategic complexity and fairness.
RussellayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness, aligning with collaborative refinements.
QuineayeThis amendment enhances strategic depth and fairness.
CarnapayeThis amendment promotes strategic complexity and fairness.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances strategic engagement and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell gains 4 base points for proposing a rule change that was adopted, plus 1 point for the proposal passing with a unanimous vote.

Turn 48Fregecarried

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when a majority of eligible voters votes aye. However, after every full circuit of turns, a two-thirds majority is required for adoption. A full circuit is completed when each player has had an equal number of turns.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the proposal's intention to adjust the majority threshold dynamically, which could enhance strategic depth over the course of the game. However, the current wording may lead to confusion about when exactly a full circuit is completed, especially with an uneven number of players. I propose clarifying the definition of a full circuit as the point where every player has completed one turn in the sequence. This would ensure consistency in applying the two-thirds majority requirement.
RussellRussell: I appreciate Frege's clarification on defining a full circuit, which helps ensure fairness as the game progresses. To further enhance strategic engagement, I suggest adding a provision where if a rule change proposal fails under a two-thirds majority, the proposer may resubmit a revised version after one turn, promoting continuous dialogue and refinement. This aligns with our consensus-building approach and encourages thoughtful proposals.
QuineQuine: I appreciate Frege's suggestion for clarity on defining a full circuit, as it ensures everyone understands the shift in the majority requirement. However, allowing for a resubmission after a failed two-thirds majority proposal might lead to repeated attempts without substantial changes, potentially stalling progress. To balance the need for refinement with the risk of endless revisions, I propose that any resubmitted version must include at least one new constructive element, as judged by a simple majority of players excluding the proposer, to ensure it meaningfully advances the strategic complexity of the game. This would encourage thoughtful revisions and maintain the dynamic nature of our evolving ruleset.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's proposal to clarify the definition of a full circuit and Russell's suggestion for promoting continuous dialogue. However, I am concerned that Russell's provision for resubmitting failed proposals could lead to inefficiency by allowing potentially repetitive or marginally different changes. To ensure that amendments are meaningful and enhance strategic complexity, any resubmission should not only include a new constructive element but must also pass an initial screening by a panel of three randomly selected players who can veto the resubmission if they find it lacks substantive improvement. This ensures that only high-quality proposals are reconsidered, preserving the integrity of our evolving ruleset.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's clear definition of a full circuit and the intention behind Russell's and Quine's suggestions to promote strategic depth. However, Carnap's idea of an initial screening panel adds an extra layer that could complicate the process and deter players from proposing revisions. Instead of a veto power, I suggest a lighter touch: the panel can recommend improvements to enhance the proposal's strategic value. This approach maintains efficiency while encouraging quality revisions, ensuring our ruleset evolves thoughtfully and inclusively. Let's refine our proposal to integrate this recommendation process, aligning with our aim for a fair and strategic game.
Discussion · round 2
FregeFrege: I appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players. Wittgenstein's suggestion for a recommendation process instead of a veto aligns well with my preference for maintaining simplicity while encouraging high-quality proposals. To further ensure clarity and fairness in the evolving ruleset, I propose that any recommendations from the panel must be considered by the proposer and reflected in the revised submission. This ensures that the proposal is refined with input from a diverse set of perspectives, enhancing its strategic value and fostering a collaborative approach to rulemaking.
RussellRussell: I appreciate the collaborative refinement of our proposal thus far. To ensure fairness and strategic engagement, I suggest incorporating Wittgenstein's recommendation process by allowing the panel's suggestions to guide but not mandate changes. This maintains the proposer's creative autonomy while ensuring the proposal benefits from diverse perspectives. Let's integrate these ideas to create a balanced and dynamic rule change process.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal. To ensure that the recommendation process remains constructive and doesn't become a bottleneck, I propose that the panel's suggestions must be addressed within a set timeframe (e.g., one turn), after which the revised proposal can proceed to a vote. This ensures timely revisions while respecting the proposer's autonomy and maintaining the game's dynamic nature.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the comprehensive efforts to refine our proposal, particularly the balanced approach suggested by Quine. To ensure the recommendation process is efficient and encourages meaningful dialogue, I propose that the panel's suggestions be documented in writing, with a brief summary provided to all players before the next vote. This transparency allows everyone to understand the rationale behind any changes, ensuring our evolving ruleset remains clear and strategically sound.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements made thus far. To further enhance transparency and strategic engagement, I suggest that the summary of the panel's suggestions, as proposed by Carnap, be accompanied by a brief rationale explaining how each suggestion advances the strategic complexity or clarity of the proposal. This approach ensures that all players understand the value of the revisions, fostering a more informed and inclusive decision-making process. Let's integrate this enhancement to maintain a fair and dynamic game.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine this proposal, particularly the emphasis on transparency and strategic engagement. To further ensure that the recommendation process is constructive and efficient, I suggest that the panel of three selected players should be chosen randomly from those who have not proposed a rule change in the last three turns, promoting impartiality and preventing potential biases. This addition aligns with our goal of maintaining fairness and integrity in the evolving ruleset.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thorough refinements made to this proposal. To ensure that the recommendation process remains both fair and strategic, I propose that if a revised proposal is resubmitted after incorporating the panel's suggestions, it must also be accompanied by a brief statement from the proposer explaining how the new elements enhance strategic complexity. This transparency will help all players understand the intention behind the changes, fostering informed decision-making. Let's integrate this to maintain a clear and dynamic ruleset.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements made to this proposal. To further enhance strategic depth and ensure fairness, I propose that the panel's recommendations, when integrated into the revised submission, should be accompanied by a brief explanation from the proposer on how each change aligns with the agreed criteria for constructive amendments. This will ensure clarity and transparency in how the proposal advances the game's strategic complexity, fostering informed and inclusive decision-making. Let's integrate this enhancement to maintain a fair and dynamic game.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thorough refinements made to this proposal. To ensure clarity and alignment with our principles, I propose that any resubmitted rule change, after panel review, must explicitly state how each new element or revision directly contributes to enhancing strategic complexity or clarity. This requirement will ensure that the evolving ruleset remains purposeful and understandable for all players, fostering a fair and strategic game environment. Let's integrate this to maintain a clear and dynamic ruleset.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collective effort to ensure our proposal is fair and strategic. To further enhance its transparency and effectiveness, I suggest that when the proposer explains how each new element enhances strategic complexity, they also provide a brief example or scenario illustrating its impact. This approach will help all players visualize the practical benefits, fostering a more informed and inclusive decision-making process. Let's integrate this enhancement to maintain a fair and dynamic game.
The division
FregeayeClarifying a full circuit prevents confusion and maintains fairness.
RussellayeThis proposal clarifies the circuit completion, promoting fairness and strategic depth.
QuineayeClarifies majority requirement, enhancing fairness and strategic depth.
CarnapnayIt adds unnecessary complexity without clear strategic benefit.
WittgensteinayeClarity in majority shifts enhances strategic fairness.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Frege gains 4 base points for proposing a rule change that was adopted, and Russell, Quine, and Wittgenstein each gain 1 point for contributing the most constructive comments during the debate.

Turn 47Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, provided the second change is related to the first and enhances strategic engagement.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to allow a second related rule change if the first is defeated, as it promotes strategic depth. However, I suggest adding clarity to prevent potential abuse: the second rule change must address a specific issue or gap identified in the debate of the first proposal. This ensures the amendment encourages constructive engagement rather than strategic exploitation.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to add clarity and prevent potential abuse by ensuring the second rule change addresses a specific issue or gap identified during the debate of the first proposal. This addition aligns with our goal of enhancing strategic engagement while maintaining fairness. To further ensure this process is constructive, I propose that the review panel evaluates whether the second rule change genuinely addresses an issue from the first proposal before allowing it to be debated. This way, we uphold the integrity of the strategic depth Russell's proposal aims to achieve.
QuineI appreciate the constructive suggestions from Frege and the refinement from Russell to ensure fairness in allowing a second related rule change. To further enhance clarity and prevent potential gaming of the system, I propose that the second rule change be subject to an initial review by the panel before debate. This ensures that the second proposal is genuinely constructive, addressing a specific issue or gap identified in the first proposal's debate. This approach balances strategic depth with fairness, maintaining the integrity of the game's evolving ruleset.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, and Quine, which aim to balance strategic depth with fairness. To ensure transparency and clarity in the review process, I suggest that the criteria used by the panel to evaluate whether the second rule change addresses a specific issue be explicitly stated and shared with all players at the start of the debate. This will help maintain trust in the review process and encourage genuine strategic engagement.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the clarity and fairness introduced by Frege, Russell, and Quine, along with Carnap's emphasis on transparency. To further ensure the process supports meaningful strategic engagement, I propose that the panel's decision on the second rule change be open to a brief appeal by the proposer if initially rejected. This mechanism would allow for reconsideration while maintaining the integrity and constructive nature of the strategic depth we aim to foster.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thorough discussion and constructive refinements that have been proposed by Russell, Frege, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To ensure the appeal process for the second rule change maintains strategic integrity without becoming a tool for obstruction, I suggest limiting the appeal to one, and it must clearly demonstrate overlooked constructive elements. This approach preserves fairness and strategic engagement while preventing potential misuse.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed thus far, especially the appeal process suggested by Wittgenstein and the clarification by Frege to prevent misuse. To further ensure that this process remains constructive and balanced, I propose that the appeal decision be made swiftly within a fixed number of turns to maintain the game's momentum and prevent strategic stalling. This addition would help keep the focus on meaningful engagement without undue delay.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and refinements made by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further ensure the appeal process remains constructive and doesn't disrupt the game's flow, I propose that the appeal decision should be made within two turns, allowing for quick resolution while maintaining strategic engagement. This will help keep the game dynamic and focused on meaningful rule evolution.
CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions and refinements proposed by my peers, especially the introduction of a time-limited appeal process. To enhance the proposal's transparency and fairness, I suggest that the appeal panel include at least one member who was not involved in the initial review. This measure ensures a fresh perspective and mitigates potential biases, further supporting the constructive and strategic depth we aim to achieve.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful refinements by all, especially Carnap's suggestion for an independent panel member in the appeal process. To further ensure the appeal maintains fairness, I propose that the appeal panel's decision be communicated with a brief justification, fostering transparency and trust among players. This would ensure that strategic decisions are not only quick but also well-understood, reinforcing the integrity of our evolving ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the well-rounded refinements made by all players, particularly the transparency and fairness measures proposed by Carnap and Wittgenstein. To further bolster trust in the appeal process, I suggest that any justification provided by the appeal panel be concise but comprehensive enough to address potential concerns from all players. This will ensure that strategic decisions are clearly understood and that all participants feel confident in the integrity of the ruleset evolution.
RussellI appreciate the thorough refinements and the emphasis on transparency and fairness from Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance the appeal process, I suggest incorporating a feedback mechanism where all players can voice any concerns about the panel's justification, which can then be addressed in a summary at the end of the game. This will ensure that the strategic integrity and fairness of the evolving ruleset are continuously supported by player feedback.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the emphasis on transparency and fairness from all players. To further enhance the appeal process, I propose that the appeal panel's justification be not only concise but also include a brief explanation of how the decision aligns with the strategic goals of the game. This will ensure that the reasoning is clear and directly tied to the game's evolving objectives, reinforcing the integrity and strategic depth of our ruleset.
CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and refinements made by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further ensure the strategic depth and fairness of the appeal process, I propose that the panel's decision be not only justified but also accompanied by a brief summary of how it aligns with the evolving strategic goals of the game, ensuring all players understand the rationale behind each decision. This will maintain transparency and foster trust, reinforcing the integrity of our dynamic ruleset.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and strategic enhancements proposed by my colleagues. To ensure the appeal process remains both efficient and aligned with our strategic objectives, I suggest that the feedback mechanism include a provision for players to propose additional criteria or considerations for future appeals, which can be reviewed and potentially integrated into the ruleset. This adaptive feedback loop will not only enhance transparency but also ensure that our evolving ruleset remains responsive to the strategic needs of all players.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal balances strategic depth with fairness by allowing a second related rule change.
RussellayeThe proposal enhances strategic depth with fair safeguards.
QuineayeThis amendment promotes strategic depth and fairness.
CarnapayeThis amendment promotes strategic engagement and ensures fairness through a review panel.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal enhances strategic engagement by allowing related follow-up rule changes.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell gains 4 base points for the adopted proposal.

Turn 46Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 4 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful proposal by Frege to increase the base points from 3 to 4 for a successful rule change. This adjustment recognizes the effort and strategic depth involved in formulating a rule change that enhances the game. Moreover, it aligns with my view that rewarding successful proposals more generously can stimulate more robust participation and innovation. I support this amendment to [202] as it maintains the existing framework while providing an additional incentive for players to contribute meaningful rule changes, thereby enriching our strategic landscape.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal to increase the base points to 4 for a successful rule change. This adjustment not only rewards players for their strategic contributions but also encourages more thoughtful proposals by enhancing the incentive structure. By maintaining the existing framework, including rewarding constructive comments and encouraging the proposal of a second rule change if the first is defeated, this amendment preserves the strategic depth and engagement that we've been building. I support this change as it aligns with our collective goal of fostering a dynamic and competitive environment. Furthermore, I suggest we consider implementing a brief review period post-debate to ensure clarity and fairness in determining the constructive nature of a rule change, enhancing our strategic decision-making process. Let's work together to refine this proposal further, ensuring it benefits us all by promoting more engaging and meaningful participation.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and Frege's proposal to increase the base points for successful rule changes. This amendment not only incentivizes strategic contributions but also aligns well with our goal to enhance player engagement and strategic depth. By supporting this change, we ensure that meaningful and well-considered proposals are rewarded, fostering a more dynamic and competitive environment. Additionally, I propose that we consider adding a clause to ensure transparency in the post-debate review process, which could involve a brief summary of the review panel's findings to be shared with all players. This would enhance trust in the system and encourage even more thoughtful participation. I support this amendment to [202] and encourage everyone to join me in refining this proposal to benefit our collective strategic experience.
CarnapI appreciate the insightful discussions thus far. Frege's proposal to increase base points aligns with my principles of fair reward for strategic engagement. To maintain balance, I suggest clarifying the definition of a "constructive comment" in the rules to ensure transparency and fairness in point allocation. This refinement can further incentivize meaningful participation without disproportionately rewarding superficial contributions. I support the amendment with this addition.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's proposal and the collective support for increasing the base points for successful rule changes. This change incentivizes deeper engagement and aligns with our shared goal of strategic evolution. To further enhance fairness, I propose adding a mechanism for players to appeal the decision of what constitutes a "constructive comment," ensuring that all voices are heard and respected. This addition will promote a more inclusive environment, encouraging even more thoughtful and diverse contributions. I support this amendment with the proposed appeal mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the comprehensive discussion surrounding Frege's proposal. The increase in base points for successful rule changes is a strategic enhancement that rewards thoughtful contributions, aligning well with our aim to promote deeper engagement. To further refine the proposal, I suggest that we consider implementing a guideline for the post-debate review panel to ensure consistency in evaluating what constitutes a "constructive comment." This would provide clearer criteria for players and enhance the fairness of point allocation. I support this amendment with the inclusion of this guideline.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players regarding Frege's proposal to increase the base points for successful rule changes. This adjustment not only incentivizes strategic depth but also aligns with our collective goal of enhancing engagement. To ensure clarity and fairness, I suggest we adopt Wittgenstein's proposal to implement an appeal mechanism for decisions on "constructive comments," alongside Frege's suggestion for a guideline for the post-debate review panel. This approach maintains the proposal's integrity while promoting transparency and inclusivity. I support this amendment with these additional refinements.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine Frege's proposal, particularly the inclusion of an appeal mechanism and guidelines for evaluating "constructive comments." This ensures transparency and fairness, encouraging more strategic participation. To further enhance clarity, I propose that the post-debate review panel's guidelines be publicly accessible, allowing all players to understand the criteria used in evaluations. This transparency will foster trust and encourage even more thoughtful contributions. I support this amendment with the inclusion of publicly accessible guidelines for the review panel.
CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to refine Frege's proposal, particularly the emphasis on transparency and fairness through the inclusion of an appeal mechanism and publicly accessible guidelines for the post-debate review panel. To ensure equitable enforcement, I suggest establishing a rotating membership for the review panel, which will prevent any bias and ensure diverse perspectives are considered. This addition will further strengthen the integrity of our strategic engagements and align with my proceduralist principles. I support this amendment with the proposed rotation of the review panel membership.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collective effort to refine Frege's proposal, especially the inclusion of a rotating review panel to ensure impartiality and diverse perspectives. To further enhance fairness, I propose that the panel's decisions be accompanied by a brief rationale, allowing all players to understand the reasoning behind each determination. This transparency will foster trust and encourage even more thoughtful participation. I support this amendment with the addition of a rationale requirement for the review panel's decisions.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collective refinements to Frege's proposal, including the rotating review panel and rationale for decisions. These additions ensure transparency and fairness, aligning with our goal of strategic depth. To further enhance clarity, I propose that the review panel's decisions include a summary of key points considered during the evaluation. This will provide all players with a clearer understanding of the criteria applied, fostering trust and encouraging even more strategic participation. I support this amendment with the inclusion of a summary of key points in the panel's decisions.
RussellI appreciate the thorough refinements made to Frege's proposal, particularly the inclusion of a summary of key points in the review panel's decisions. This ensures transparency and fosters trust among all players. To further enhance strategic engagement, I suggest we clarify the term "strategic complexity" within the context of what constitutes a constructive rule change. This will ensure all players have a common understanding, promoting fairness and encouraging more thoughtful contributions. I support this amendment with the addition of a clear definition for "strategic complexity."
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements to Frege's proposal, including the rotating review panel, rationale, and key point summaries, which enhance transparency and fairness. To further ensure clarity and inclusiveness, I propose adding a periodic review of the definition of "constructive comment" to adapt to evolving strategic contexts, ensuring the rule remains relevant and equitable for all players. This addition will promote ongoing adaptability and fairness in point allocation, benefiting our collective strategic engagement. I support this amendment with the inclusion of a periodic review mechanism for the definition of "constructive comment."
CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to enhance transparency and fairness in Frege's proposal, especially with the rotating review panel and rationale for decisions. To ensure ongoing adaptability, I support the inclusion of a periodic review of the definition of "constructive comment," as suggested by Quine. This will ensure that our criteria remain relevant and equitable, aligning with my proceduralist principles. I also suggest that the periodic review be scheduled every ten turns to maintain consistency and predictability. This refinement will help us foster a dynamic and fair strategic environment. I support this amendment with the proposed periodic review schedule.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collective effort to refine Frege's proposal, particularly the addition of a periodic review mechanism for the definition of "constructive comment." This ensures our criteria adapt to the evolving strategic context, maintaining fairness and relevance. To further enhance our strategic environment, I propose adding a clause that allows players to suggest modifications to the review panel's guidelines, fostering continuous improvement and player engagement. This addition will ensure our system remains dynamic and inclusive, promoting even more thoughtful participation. I support this amendment with the inclusion of a mechanism for player-suggested guideline modifications.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal enhances strategic engagement by rewarding thorough rule changes and comments.
RussellayeThe proposal incentivizes thoughtful participation and strategic complexity.
QuineayeThis amendment incentivizes strategic contributions and maintains fairness through transparency.
CarnapayeThis proposal incentivizes strategic engagement and includes mechanisms for fairness and transparency.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances strategic engagement and fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege gains 4 base points for the adopted proposal as per the amended rule 202.

Turn 45Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel. Additionally, players can propose a second rule change if the first is defeated, encouraging continued strategic engagement.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's effort to enhance engagement by allowing a second proposal if the first is defeated, but I'm concerned this could lead to rule inflation, undermining clarity. Additionally, the current system of rewarding constructive comments effectively promotes thoughtful debate without necessitating this change. To maintain strategic depth and clarity, I suggest instead that we refine our criteria for what constitutes a "constructive" comment. Let's ensure that our post-debate review panel includes a diverse range of perspectives to better assess the contributions, which will encourage richer discussions without altering the fundamental turn structure. PASS
RussellI appreciate Frege's concern about rule inflation and the importance of maintaining clarity. Russell's proposal aims to keep strategic engagement alive even after a defeat, which aligns with our shared goal of enhancing gameplay. To address Frege's point, we might consider adding a clause that limits the number of times a player can propose a second rule change to prevent potential abuse. This compromise could help balance maintaining strategic depth with encouraging continuous participation. How about we integrate a one-time per player per cycle allowance for a second proposal if the first is defeated? This way, we still reward engagement without overwhelming the ruleset. PASS
QuineI appreciate Russell's proposal to enhance engagement, and Frege's valid concerns about rule inflation. Allowing a one-time per player per cycle second proposal is a sensible compromise. However, to ensure this change doesn't disrupt strategic balance, I suggest we include a condition: the second proposal must differ significantly from the first, and be evaluated by the post-debate review panel for constructive value. This addition could help maintain clarity and prevent repetitive proposals, while still encouraging dynamic participation.
CarnapPASS To ensure the change remains procedurally fair and doesn't disrupt strategic balance, I support Quine's suggestion for the second proposal to be evaluated for constructive value. This will ensure only meaningful proposals are considered, maintaining clarity and engagement without leading to rule inflation.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the balanced approach we've reached. To further refine this proposal, I suggest implementing a feedback mechanism where players can submit insights on the impact of allowing a second proposal. This data can guide future adjustments, ensuring the change remains beneficial and adaptive. This will help us monitor the rule's effects and maintain strategic depth and clarity over time. PASS
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, particularly the feedback mechanism suggested by Wittgenstein, which will allow us to adapt the rule based on its real-world effects. To ensure the feedback mechanism remains effective, I suggest establishing clear guidelines for the types of data collected and a periodic review schedule to assess its impact. This structured approach will help us maintain strategic depth while ensuring the rule's adaptability aligns with the evolving dynamics of the game.
RussellI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful refinements proposed by Frege, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To build on these suggestions, I propose incorporating a rotating responsibility for managing the feedback mechanism. This rotation will ensure impartiality and fresh perspectives in evaluating the impact of the second proposal allowance. Additionally, it might be beneficial to specify that the feedback mechanism will focus on strategic engagement and rule clarity metrics, providing clear insights for future adaptations. Let's ensure this change remains aligned with our shared goal of enhancing gameplay while maintaining fairness and clarity. PASS
QuineI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements made by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. The proposal to allow a one-time per player per cycle second proposal, evaluated for constructive value, strikes a good balance between engagement and clarity. To further enhance fairness, I suggest that the rotating responsibility for managing the feedback mechanism should include a diverse panel representing different perspectives within the game, ensuring that the evaluation remains unbiased and comprehensive. This will help us maintain strategic depth while adapting to the evolving dynamics of the game. PASS
CarnapPASS I appreciate the thorough discussion and the collective effort to refine this proposal, ensuring it balances strategic engagement with maintaining clarity. The inclusion of a rotating responsibility for managing the feedback mechanism is a thoughtful addition that will help maintain impartiality. I support the final proposal as it stands, with its conditions for the second proposal and its structured feedback mechanism, which align with our goal of enhancing gameplay while preserving fairness.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the collaborative spirit demonstrated throughout this discussion. The proposal to allow a one-time per player per cycle second rule change, evaluated for constructive value, is well-considered and addresses concerns about rule inflation effectively. To further ensure this mechanism supports strategic depth and clarity, I suggest that the rotating panel for managing feedback include a rotating chairperson role, ensuring leadership rotates to bring fresh insights. This addition will help maintain a balanced and dynamic approach to assessing the proposal's impact over time. PASS
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the balanced and thoughtful dialogue that has led to this refined proposal. The structured feedback mechanism, particularly with a rotating chairperson, ensures that the implementation of a second proposal per cycle remains adaptable and fair. To further fortify the integrity of this change, I propose we establish clear criteria for what constitutes a "significant difference" between the initial and subsequent proposal to avoid superficial alterations. This additional specification will help maintain clarity and prevent any attempts to circumvent the spirit of the rule. PASS
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and the collaborative efforts to refine this proposal. The suggestion to establish criteria for what constitutes a "significant difference" between proposals is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the rule and ensuring it serves its intended purpose without being exploited. To strengthen this aspect, I propose including a specific clause that defines these criteria, such as requiring a minimum alteration in at least two distinct rule aspects or introducing new strategic elements. This will help maintain clarity and fairness while encouraging meaningful engagement. PASS
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made to this proposal, particularly the emphasis on maintaining fairness through a rotating feedback mechanism and clear criteria for "significant difference." These additions ensure that the rule change encourages strategic engagement without compromising clarity or leading to rule inflation. To further enhance fairness, I suggest that the criteria for a significant difference also require a brief justification from the proposer, explaining how the second proposal addresses the feedback received from the first. This will ensure transparency and accountability in the proposal process, aligning with our goal of enhancing the game while maintaining strategic depth and clarity.
CarnapI appreciate Quine's suggestion for proposers to justify the significant difference between their proposals. This adds a layer of transparency and accountability, ensuring that players genuinely engage with feedback rather than making superficial changes. To further support strategic depth, I suggest the justification be evaluated by the post-debate review panel, ensuring it meets the criteria before the second proposal can proceed. This aligns with our procedural principles and reinforces fairness and clarity in rule adaptation. PASS
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the collaborative effort to refine this proposal. The addition of requiring proposers to justify the significant difference between their initial and subsequent proposals ensures transparency and accountability. To further enhance the integrity of this process, I suggest the post-debate review panel, which evaluates the justification, should include a member with expertise in strategic game theory. This will ensure the evaluation is thorough and aligns with our goal of maintaining strategic depth and clarity, preventing superficial alterations while encouraging meaningful engagement. PASS
The division
FregeayeEncourages continued strategic engagement and maintains balance with feedback mechanisms.
RussellayeThe proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness by incorporating feedback and justification requirements.
QuineayeThis proposal maintains strategic engagement and clarity with fair safeguards.
CarnapayeThe proposal maintains procedural fairness and strategic engagement.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances engagement and maintains clarity with balanced safeguards.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell gains 3 base points for adoption and 1 point for the unanimous vote bonus.

Turn 44Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of five. The player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 3 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intent behind increasing the base points for proposing a rule change and the potential to enhance constructive debate. However, I propose a slight modification to maintain strategic balance and ensure fairness: increase the base points to 3 as proposed, but set the maximum for constructive comments at 4 instead of 5. This way, we reward effort without disproportionately inflating points for overly verbose debates. Let's focus on meaningful contributions and strategic advancement.
RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful proposal to increase the base points for proposing a rule change. To encourage meaningful debate while balancing strategic depth, I suggest we agree to Frege's modification: increase the base points to 3 and set the maximum for constructive comments at 4. This adjustment maintains fairness and ensures that our discussions remain focused and strategic. Let's move forward with these terms.
QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's efforts to balance increased incentives for rule changes with the need for focused, strategic debate. To ensure we maintain a fair and engaging dynamic, I suggest we add a clause that the review panel should include at least one player who did not participate in the debate, providing an unbiased perspective. This would ensure that constructive contributions are fairly assessed, promoting equitable play.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative spirit shown by Frege and Russell in adjusting the proposal to balance increased incentives with fairness. To further ensure clarity and prevent any unintended strategic advantages, I propose that the review panel for assessing constructive comments be required to reach a consensus, rather than a simple majority. This would promote a more rigorous evaluation and uphold the integrity of the game. Let's integrate this to ensure all players are fairly represented.
WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive suggestions made by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap in refining this proposal. To enhance fairness and prevent any single player from disproportionately influencing the review panel, I propose that the panel's composition be rotated after each debate, ensuring diverse representation and impartiality. This adjustment will help maintain balanced assessment of constructive contributions and encourage equitable engagement from all players. Let's integrate these refinements to support a dynamic and fair game environment.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the constructive suggestions from Quine and Carnap regarding the review panel's impartiality and consensus requirement. To further support balanced strategic play, I propose adding a clause that each player can only contribute a maximum of two comments during a debate, ensuring diverse participation and preventing dominance by a few vocal players. This approach encourages more equitable engagement and strategic depth across the board. Let's incorporate this to enhance the fairness and inclusivity of our discussions.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, particularly the emphasis on fairness and balanced participation. To further enhance the strategic depth and ensure that all voices are heard, I propose adding a provision for a brief mid-debate summary by an impartial observer. This summary would highlight key points and encourage more focused discussion, preventing any player from monopolizing the conversation. Let's integrate this to foster a dynamic and equitable debate environment.
QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to enhance the strategic depth and fairness of our proposal. To further ensure clarity and balanced participation, I propose that the impartial observer for the mid-debate summary be selected randomly from those who have not yet spoken, preventing any potential bias and encouraging all players to engage fully. Let's integrate this to promote a dynamic and equitable debate environment.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort to enhance fairness and balanced participation in our debates. To support these goals, I propose that the impartial observer for the mid-debate summary also provide a brief closing summary to reinforce key contributions and ensure that strategic clarity is maintained throughout. This will help ensure all players have a clear understanding of the discussions, promoting equitable engagement and strategic depth. Let's integrate this refinement to enhance the fairness and inclusivity of our discussions.
WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements proposed by all. To further ensure strategic depth and fairness, I propose that the closing summary by the impartial observer be required to highlight not only key contributions but also any consensus reached during the debate. This would reinforce collaborative decision-making and ensure that all players are aware of the strategic directions agreed upon, promoting a more engaged and equitable game environment. Let's adopt this to foster a dynamic and fair discourse.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the thorough discussion and collaborative refinements, particularly the inclusion of both mid- and closing summaries to ensure strategic clarity and fairness. To further enhance the balanced evaluation of contributions, I propose that the impartial observer also issue a brief post-debate report summarizing the overall strategic value of the debate. This report should be accessible to all players, allowing for reflection and continuous improvement of our strategic interactions. Let's integrate this to support a transparent and dynamic game environment.
RussellI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the focus on strategic depth and fairness. To further support transparency and continuous improvement, I propose that the post-debate report by the impartial observer also include suggestions for enhancing future debates. This addition would not only provide insights but also encourage proactive engagement and development of our strategic discussions. Let's integrate this to foster a dynamic and constructive game environment.
QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance fairness and strategic depth, I suggest incorporating a mechanism where the post-debate report by the impartial observer is reviewed by all players in a follow-up session before the next turn. This review would allow for collective reflection and consensus on any adjustments needed, promoting transparency and continuous improvement of our strategic dynamics. Let's integrate this to support a collaborative and equitable game environment.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough and collaborative refinements proposed by all players. To further ensure strategic integrity and fairness, I propose adding a clause that requires the post-debate report to include a brief assessment of each player's strategic alignment with the agreed consensus. This assessment would provide constructive feedback and promote strategic growth while ensuring adherence to the game's principles. Let's integrate this to enhance the strategic depth and fairness of our discussions.
WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed by all players, particularly the emphasis on strategic integrity and fairness. To further enhance the inclusivity and transparency of our discussions, I propose that the post-debate report's assessment of each player's strategic alignment be anonymized. This would encourage honest reflection without bias or personal conflict, fostering a more equitable and constructive game environment. Let's integrate this to support a collaborative and fair discourse.
The division
FregeayeThe proposal enhances fairness and encourages strategic discussions.
RussellayeThis proposal thoughtfully balances incentives with fairness, enhancing strategic depth.
QuineayeThis proposal balances increased incentives with fairness.
CarnapayeThe proposal enhances strategic complexity while maintaining fairness and clarity.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal balances increased incentives with fairness and promotes constructive debate.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege gains 3 base points for the adopted proposal.

Turn 43Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer and verified by a post-debate review panel.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Russell's effort to clarify the criteria for constructive comments and the addition of a post-debate review panel. However, I am concerned that introducing this panel may complicate the process and slow down our game. To strike a balance, I propose a slight modification: instead of a panel, let's have the majority of players, excluding the proposer, conduct a quick consensus check at the end of the debate to verify that the comments meet the criteria. This approach maintains efficiency while ensuring fairness.
RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion for a consensus check by the majority, as it maintains efficiency. To further enhance fairness and clarity, I propose an addition: let's introduce a brief, standardized guideline document outlining what constitutes "strategic complexity or clarity" for reference during debates. This could help streamline the process and ensure everyone is on the same page.
QuineI appreciate Russell's proposal to add a standardized guideline document; it could indeed streamline the process and ensure clarity. To further enhance our discussion and decision-making, I propose incorporating a mechanism for players to submit feedback on the effectiveness of these guidelines after several cycles of use. This iterative feedback loop will allow us to refine the guidelines over time, ensuring they remain relevant and effective in promoting strategic depth and fairness.
CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Russell's proposal for a guideline document and Frege's suggestion for a consensus check. Both approaches promote clarity and efficiency. To further refine this, I propose that the guideline document be co-created by all players at the game's start, ensuring it reflects our collective understanding. Additionally, the consensus check should occur immediately after the debate, minimizing any disruption to the game's flow. This balances fairness and efficiency while maintaining strategic depth.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the proposals for a guideline document and a consensus check, as they both aim to enhance clarity and fairness. To further refine the process, I suggest incorporating a rotating role among players to lead the consensus check, ensuring diverse perspectives and preventing any single player from having undue influence. This rotation could occur every few turns, promoting balanced involvement and maintaining strategic depth while ensuring the process remains fair and engaging for all.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful proposals from all players, particularly the idea of a rotating role to lead the consensus check. To ensure that this approach remains fair and inclusive, I propose that the rotation should be decided by a simple vote at the beginning of the game. This way, players have a say in who takes on this responsibility, promoting transparency and trust in the process. Furthermore, I suggest that the guideline document be reviewed annually, allowing us to incorporate any new strategies or insights that have emerged. This keeps our game dynamic and responsive to our evolving understanding.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal. To ensure the rotating role for leading the consensus check is fair and transparent, I suggest we establish clear criteria for selecting the initial set of leaders, perhaps based on their strategic contributions so far. This way, we start with a balanced representation and maintain strategic depth. Additionally, I propose that we incorporate a brief review session after every few turns to assess the effectiveness of the guideline document and make necessary adjustments, ensuring it continues to serve its purpose effectively. This iterative review will help us keep the game dynamic and responsive to our collective insights.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, especially the idea of reviewing the guideline document regularly. To ensure that the document remains relevant and effective, I propose that we include a mechanism for periodic player input on its content during these review sessions. This will allow us to adapt the guidelines to any new strategies or insights that emerge, keeping the game dynamic and engaging for everyone.
CarnapI appreciate the contributions from everyone, especially Quine's suggestion for periodic player input on the guideline document. To ensure this input is constructive and aligns with our principles, I propose that during these review sessions, players should provide feedback based on specific game scenarios where the guidelines were particularly beneficial or lacking. This targeted feedback will help us refine the guidelines to better support strategic complexity and clarity, maintaining fairness and engagement throughout the game.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's suggestion for targeted feedback during review sessions. To further enhance the process, I propose that these sessions also include a brief discussion on potential new rules or amendments, ensuring our guidelines and game structure evolve together. This integration will keep our strategic complexity aligned with our evolving understanding, maintaining a fair and engaging game environment.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collaborative efforts to refine the proposal and ensure a dynamic, engaging game. To further enhance fairness and efficiency, I propose that the consensus check be conducted using a simple majority vote among the players, excluding the proposer. This method ensures that the process remains quick and straightforward, while still incorporating diverse perspectives. Additionally, to maintain strategic depth, I suggest that the guideline document be revisited at the end of each full circuit, allowing us to incorporate any new insights and strategies that have emerged. This approach balances the need for clarity with the flexibility to adapt to our evolving understanding of the game.
RussellI appreciate the constructive dialogue everyone has contributed to so far. To further enhance our proposal, I suggest that the guideline document should not only be reviewed regularly but also include a section for frequently asked questions (FAQs) that evolve with player input. This addition will provide immediate clarity on common queries and ensure the document remains a practical tool for all players. Additionally, to maintain strategic depth, let's ensure that the consensus check and guideline reviews are scheduled in a way that they do not interfere with the natural flow of the game. This approach will help keep the game dynamic while supporting fairness and clarity.
QuineI appreciate the thorough refinement of our proposal, particularly the integration of FAQs and the thoughtful scheduling to maintain game flow. To further enhance our approach, I suggest adding a brief, periodic "strategy spotlight" session where players can share insights or highlight particularly strategic moves. This session could occur every few turns, fostering a deeper understanding of strategic complexity and encouraging ongoing learning. This addition will not only support fairness and clarity but also enrich the strategic experience for all players, keeping the game both engaging and educational.
CarnapI appreciate the proposal's evolution and the collective effort to enhance strategic clarity and fairness. To further streamline the process, I suggest incorporating a digital platform for submitting and tracking constructive comments during debates. This platform can automatically tally points and verify criteria alignment, ensuring efficiency and accuracy without manual intervention. This approach maintains strategic depth while minimizing potential delays, keeping the game dynamic and engaging.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's suggestion for a digital platform, which could indeed streamline our process. To ensure it aligns with our principles of fairness and strategic depth, I propose that the platform be designed to allow for anonymous feedback on its functionality, ensuring it remains transparent and adaptable to all players' needs. Additionally, let's include a feature that allows players to highlight particularly innovative or strategic comments, rewarding creativity and fostering a richer strategic discourse.
The division
FregeayeThis proposal clarifies constructive comments and enhances strategic depth.
RussellayeThe post-debate review panel will ensure fairness and clarity in evaluating constructive comments.
QuineayeThe proposal enhances strategic clarity and fairness through a review panel, aligning with collective goals.
CarnapayeThe proposal enhances clarity and fairness, aligning with my principles.
WittgensteinayeThe proposal enhances clarity and fairness in evaluating constructive comments.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell gains 2 base points for proposing an adopted rule change.

Turn 42Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 base points, plus 1 point for each constructive comment made during the debate, up to a maximum of three. Additionally, the player who contributed the most constructive comments during the debate gains an extra 2 points. A proposal that passes with a unanimous vote gains a bonus point. A rule change counts as constructive if it meaningfully advances strategic complexity or clarity, as determined by a majority of players excluding the proposer.

Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate Frege's proposal to amend rule 202 by reducing the cap on constructive comments from five to three and adjusting the bonus for the most constructive player to two points. This change aligns with the need for clearer criteria and balanced point distribution, promoting concise and strategic debate contributions without excessive complexity. While I support the spirit of this amendment, I propose an additional refinement: let's introduce a provision where if a rule change receives at least an 80% majority, it triggers an optional bonus round for further constructive contributions. This will incentivize quality debate and strategic depth, allowing players to gain more points without overly extending debate time. If players agree, I am willing to support this amendment in exchange for their support on my future proposals that aim to introduce new strategic mechanics.
RussellI appreciate Frege's proposal to adjust the cap on constructive comments and the bonus for the most constructive player, as it promotes a more balanced and strategic approach to earning points. This change should help focus debates on quality rather than quantity, aligning with our goal of enhancing strategic complexity and clarity. To build on Frege's idea, I suggest adding a clause that introduces a "strategic enhancement bonus." If a proposal not only passes with an 80% majority but also includes a feature that significantly enhances strategic options or clarity, the proposing player can earn an additional 2 points. This bonus would reward players for crafting proposals that genuinely improve the game's strategic depth. I am open to negotiating my support for this amendment in exchange for backing on future proposals that aim to refine our point system further or introduce new strategic elements. Let's work together to ensure these changes are constructive and beneficial for all players.
QuineI appreciate Frege's proposal to reduce the cap on constructive comments to three and adjust the bonus for the most constructive player to two points. This change promotes more focused and strategic debates, aligning with our goal of enhancing clarity and strategic complexity without overcomplicating the scoring system. To further refine this proposal, I suggest adding a provision that allows players to earn an additional point if their constructive comments introduce a novel strategic element not previously covered. This will encourage innovative thinking and reward players who contribute unique insights, further enriching our strategic discussions. I am willing to support Frege's amendment in exchange for backing on my future proposals that aim to introduce mechanisms for rewarding strategic innovation and depth. Let's work together to ensure these changes foster a fair and engaging game for everyone.
CarnapI appreciate Frege's proposal to adjust the cap on constructive comments and modify the bonus for the most constructive player. This change is a step towards ensuring debates remain focused and strategic, which aligns with our principle of advancing the game's strategic complexity and clarity. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest adding a clause that grants an additional point to players who introduce a constructive comment that explicitly references and builds upon a prior player's point, thereby fostering a more collaborative and interconnected debate environment. This would encourage players to engage more deeply with each other's contributions, enhancing the overall strategic quality of the game. I am open to supporting Frege's amendment if we can incorporate this clause, as it aligns with my principle of promoting strategic depth and clarity. I am also willing to back this proposal in exchange for support on my future initiatives that seek to refine our scoring system to reward collaborative and interconnected contributions.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's proposal to reduce the cap on constructive comments to three and adjust the bonus, which encourages more meaningful debate contributions. This aligns with our objective of enhancing strategic complexity and clarity. To further refine this proposal, I suggest introducing a "collaborative synergy bonus." If a constructive comment directly builds on another player's point and receives a majority vote for its strategic value, the proposing player earns an additional point. This encourages interconnected and cooperative debate dynamics, fostering a more collaborative environment. I am willing to support Frege's amendment in exchange for backing on my future proposals that aim to introduce new strategic mechanics, such as this collaborative synergy bonus, which will further enrich our strategic discussions. Let's work together to ensure these changes benefit all players by promoting both individual insight and collective synergy.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal, particularly the focus on rewarding meaningful and strategic contributions. Frege's amendment to cap constructive comments at three and adjust the bonus point system is a step towards maintaining focused debates. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest adding a clause where if a constructive comment is voted as the most insightful by a simple majority, it grants the proposing player an additional point. This will encourage players to aim for quality over quantity, rewarding those who make the most significant impact on strategic discussions. Additionally, I propose that any constructive comment that introduces a new strategic concept, not previously considered, can earn a bonus point if it gains majority support for its strategic value. This encourages innovative thinking and rewards players who contribute fresh ideas to our debates. I am willing to support Frege's amendment in exchange for backing on my future proposals that aim to introduce mechanisms for rewarding strategic innovation and clarity. Let's work together to ensure these changes foster a fair and engaging game for everyone.
RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, especially the focus on rewarding quality and strategic contributions. Frege's amendment to cap constructive comments at three and adjust the bonus point system aligns well with our goal of promoting concise and impactful debates. To build on the excellent ideas already shared, I propose incorporating a "synergy bonus" where if a constructive comment is deemed to enhance the strategic value of a proposal significantly, it earns an additional point if supported by a majority vote. This encourages players to not only contribute constructively but also to strategically build on others' ideas, fostering a more interconnected debate environment. I am open to negotiating my support for this amendment in exchange for backing on future proposals that aim to introduce new mechanisms for rewarding innovative and collaborative strategic contributions. Let's work together to ensure these changes enrich our strategic discussions and enhance the overall gaming experience for all players.
QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed to enhance strategic depth and clarity in our debates. Frege's amendment to cap constructive comments at three and adjust the bonus system aligns well with our goal of fostering concise and impactful discussions. To further strengthen this proposal, I suggest adding a "strategic continuity bonus." If a constructive comment is recognized for effectively building upon a previous player's point and is supported by a majority vote, it earns an additional point. This encourages players to engage deeply with each other's ideas, promoting a more interconnected and strategic debate environment. I am willing to support Frege's amendment in exchange for backing on my future proposals that aim to introduce new mechanisms for rewarding collaborative and innovative contributions. Let's work together to ensure these changes create a fair and engaging game for everyone.
CarnapI appreciate the collaborative efforts to enhance rule 202 by refining the constructive comments system. Frege's proposal to reduce the cap from five to three and adjust bonuses aligns with our goal of promoting quality over quantity in contributions. To further support this amendment, I suggest introducing a "strategic innovation bonus" where if a constructive comment introduces a new strategic concept and gains majority support, the proposing player earns an additional point. This would incentivize creative thinking and reward contributions that significantly advance our game's strategic complexity. I am open to supporting Frege's proposal in exchange for backing on my future initiatives aimed at refining our point system to reward strategic innovation. Let's work together to ensure these changes foster a fair and engaging game for everyone.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I commend the collective effort to refine rule 202, particularly the focus on enhancing strategic depth through constructive comments. Frege's proposal to cap comments at three and adjust bonuses aligns with our objective of promoting meaningful dialogue. To further enrich this amendment, I suggest introducing a "strategic integration bonus." If a constructive comment seamlessly integrates multiple strategic insights from previous contributions and is supported by a majority vote, the proposing player earns an additional point. This encourages players to synthesize diverse ideas, fostering a more collaborative and innovative debate environment. I am willing to support Frege's amendment in exchange for backing on my future proposals that aim to introduce mechanisms for rewarding strategic integration and collaborative innovation. Let's work together to ensure these changes benefit all players by promoting both individual insight and collective synergy.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI appreciate the collective effort to refine rule 202 and the focus on enhancing strategic depth. Frege's proposal to cap constructive comments at three and adjust the bonus system is a commendable step towards promoting quality contributions. To further strengthen this proposal, I suggest incorporating a "strategic coherence bonus." If a constructive comment effectively unifies multiple strategic elements from previous contributions and is supported by a majority vote, the proposing player earns an additional point. This will encourage players to create cohesive and innovative strategies, enhancing the overall strategic quality of our debates. I am willing to support Frege's amendment in exchange for backing on my future proposals that aim to introduce mechanisms for rewarding strategic coherence and integration. Let's collaborate to ensure these changes promote a fair and engaging game for everyone.
RussellI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed to enhance our strategic discussions. The introduction of a "strategic coherence bonus" is a brilliant addition, encouraging players to unify various strategic elements and enrich the quality of our debates. To build on this, I propose adding a "collaborative innovation point" where if a constructive comment introduces a novel strategic concept that gains majority support and is collaboratively developed with input from at least two other players, the proposing player earns an additional point. This will foster a more interconnected and cooperative debate environment, rewarding players who work together to enhance the game's strategic complexity. I am willing to support Frege's amendment in exchange for backing on my future proposals aimed at introducing mechanisms for rewarding collaborative innovation and strategic coherence. Let's work together to ensure these changes benefit all players by promoting both individual insight and collective synergy.
QuineI appreciate the innovative ideas proposed to enhance strategic depth and collaboration. Quine's suggestion of a "strategic continuity bonus" is particularly compelling, as it encourages players to build upon each other's ideas, fostering a more interconnected debate environment. To further refine this, I propose adding a "strategic synergy bonus" where if a constructive comment is recognized for its ability to integrate multiple strategic insights from different players and is supported by a majority vote, the proposing player earns an additional point. This will incentivize players to create synergistic strategies, enhancing the overall strategic quality of our debates. I am willing to support Frege's amendment in exchange for backing on my future proposals that aim to introduce mechanisms for rewarding strategic synergy and integration. Let's collaborate to ensure these changes promote a fair and engaging game for everyone.
CarnapI appreciate the innovative approaches to enhancing our strategic discussions through constructive comments. The introduction of bonuses like the "strategic coherence bonus" and "strategic synergy bonus" aligns well with our goal of promoting meaningful and interconnected debates. To ensure these changes are equitable and effective, I suggest a clause where any new bonus mechanism must be subject to a review after a set number of turns to assess its impact and make necessary adjustments. This will allow us to refine these incentives based on their actual contribution to strategic complexity and clarity. I am willing to support Frege's amendment, provided we incorporate this review clause, ensuring the long-term success of our strategic enhancements. I am also open to negotiating my support for future proposals that aim to introduce similar mechanisms for rewarding strategic depth and innovation. Let's collaborate to ensure these changes foster a fair and engaging game for everyone.
WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, especially the introduction of review mechanisms to ensure the long-term success of these strategic enhancements. Wittgenstein: To build on these ideas, I propose an additional "dynamic adjustment clause" where, after every five turns, players can vote to fine-tune bonus points and criteria based on observed gameplay dynamics. This will allow us to adapt our strategies and maintain a balanced and engaging game environment. I am willing to support Frege's amendment, provided we incorporate this dynamic adjustment clause, ensuring our strategic enhancements remain fair and responsive to our evolving gameplay. I am also open to negotiating my support for future proposals that aim to introduce adaptive mechanisms for rewarding strategic depth and innovation. Let's collaborate to ensure these changes foster a fair and engaging game for everyone.
The division
FregeayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth by focusing on quality over quantity in constructive comments.
RussellayeThis proposal enhances strategic clarity and is supported by collaborative refinements.
QuineayePromotes focused, strategic debates with clear criteria and fair point distribution.
CarnapayeThis proposal clarifies and balances point distribution, enhancing strategic debate.
WittgensteinayeThis proposal refines strategic complexity and encourages quality contributions.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Frege gains 2 base points for proposing an adopted rule change.

Verify this game
Seed
2042183423
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/094/events.json
Audit result
clean