§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: phi-4development era Turn 18 Concluded — Russell-2 prevailed Seats: Frege-2, Russell-2, Quine-2, Carnap-2, Wittgenstein-2

The shortest game of the batch, and the widest margin any winner in it managed.

Observations

Eighteen turns and sixteen adoptions were enough for Russell-2 to cross the table's own win line at 78 points and have it confirmed on the spot — the fastest win in this comparison. The rest of the table fared worse than the winner: Frege-2 finished at −29 and Quine-2 at −20, the deepest negative finishes any of the courtesy-stripped tables produced.

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 · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 76 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 78 points wins the game outright.
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. A player's turn may include one additional proposal if the first is defeated, provided the second proposal is different from the first.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 16 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Quine-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. 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. A player's turn may include one additional proposal if the first is defeated, provided the second proposal is different from the first.
  2. 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. If the first proposal is defeated, the player may, with the unanimous consent of all other players, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and may, if the first proposal is defeated, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the first proposal is defeated, the player may, with the unanimous consent of all other players, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is rejected, the proposing player may propose another rule change immediately; otherwise, their turn ends.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and may, if the first proposal is defeated, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, 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 player may choose to abstain from proposing a rule change during their turn, in which case they gain 5 points without needing to vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is rejected, the proposing player may propose another rule change immediately; otherwise, their turn ends.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player must also cast a vote on their own proposal. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. A player may choose to abstain from proposing a rule change during their turn, in which case they gain 5 points without needing to vote.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player must also cast a vote on their own proposal. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  6. 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 only when a majority of those voting (more than half) vote aye.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a majority of those voting (more than half) vote aye.
  2. 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 30 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 15 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 20 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 30 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 20 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
A rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, unless the vote reveals a tie, in which case the rule change takes effect after the next full turn unless all players vote unanimously to expedite its effect.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §205 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, unless the vote reveals a tie, in which case the rule change takes effect only after the next full turn.A rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, unless the vote reveals a tie, in which case the rule change takes effect after the next full turn unless all players vote unanimously to expedite its effect.
  2. Amended · §205 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.A rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, unless the vote reveals a tie, in which case the rule change takes effect only after the next full turn.
  3. 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 78 points wins the game outright.amended this turn
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 76 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 78 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 76 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.
  4. 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 18 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 18 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstain
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
  3. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.

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

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero. A player's turn may include one additional proposal if the first is defeated, provided the second proposal is different from the first.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §201 Turn 16 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Quine-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. 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. A player's turn may include one additional proposal if the first is defeated, provided the second proposal is different from the first.
  2. 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. If the first proposal is defeated, the player may, with the unanimous consent of all other players, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.mutable
Full history (6)
  1. Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and may, if the first proposal is defeated, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the first proposal is defeated, the player may, with the unanimous consent of all other players, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.
  2. Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is rejected, the proposing player may propose another rule change immediately; otherwise, their turn ends.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change and may, if the first proposal is defeated, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.
  3. Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, 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 player may choose to abstain from proposing a rule change during their turn, in which case they gain 5 points without needing to vote.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is rejected, the proposing player may propose another rule change immediately; otherwise, their turn ends.
  4. Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player must also cast a vote on their own proposal. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. A player may choose to abstain from proposing a rule change during their turn, in which case they gain 5 points without needing to vote.
  5. Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. The player must also cast a vote on their own proposal. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
  6. 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 only when a majority of those voting (more than half) vote aye.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when a majority of those voting (more than half) vote aye.
  2. 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 30 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §204 Turn 15 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 20 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 30 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  2. Amended · §204 Turn 12 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 20 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
  3. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
A rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, unless the vote reveals a tie, in which case the rule change takes effect after the next full turn unless all players vote unanimously to expedite its effect.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §205 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, unless the vote reveals a tie, in which case the rule change takes effect only after the next full turn.A rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, unless the vote reveals a tie, in which case the rule change takes effect after the next full turn unless all players vote unanimously to expedite its effect.
  2. Amended · §205 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.A rule change takes effect immediately after the vote is complete, unless the vote reveals a tie, in which case the rule change takes effect only after the next full turn.
  3. 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 78 points wins the game outright.amended this turn
Full history (4)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 76 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 78 points wins the game outright.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 15 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 76 points wins the game outright.
  3. Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Russell-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.
  4. 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 18 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
    The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 18 mutable rules at one time.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Frege-2 Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstain
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
  3. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
The standing · Turn 18
Frege-2-29
Russell-278
Quine-2-20
Carnap-20
Wittgenstein-20
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 13–18 · most recent first · page 1 of 3

Turn 18Russell-2carried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 78 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I support Russell-2's proposal to raise the target score to 78 points. This change aligns with my strategic vision of extending the game, which provides more opportunities for rule changes and strategic maneuvering. It also potentially keeps me in contention longer, as it slightly favors players with negative scores who can turn the tide with effective proposals.
Russell-2PASS Russell-2: The proposal to increase the target score to 78 points is a strategic move that ensures the game remains competitive and engaging for all players. By extending the play, it allows for more opportunities to influence the ruleset, potentially benefiting players who need more time to recover from negative scores. I fully support this amendment as it aligns with my goal of maintaining a dynamic and open-ended gameplay environment.
Quine-2I support Russell-2's proposal to raise the target score to 78 points, as it maintains the game's fairness by giving players with negative scores a chance to recover and potentially win. This amendment also aligns with my vision of an engaging and strategic game, where players have sufficient opportunities to propose and implement beneficial rule changes.
Carnap-2The proposal to raise the target score to 78 points is reasonable and strategically sound, as it ensures a longer game duration, allowing players like myself to potentially recover and improve their standings. This amendment also maintains the game's competitive balance, providing ample opportunity for all players to engage in rule changes and strategic plays, which is essential for a fair and dynamic game environment. Therefore, I support this proposal.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I support Russell-2's proposal to raise the target score to 78 points. This change promotes a longer and more dynamic game, allowing for greater experimentation with rule changes, which is essential for evolving gameplay and potentially turning the tides for players with lower scores. Additionally, it aligns with my reformist stance of encouraging strategic depth and adaptability in the game.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate the consensus-building efforts and support Russell-2's proposal to raise the target score to 78 points. This amendment aligns with my strategic vision for a more extended game, allowing for more opportunities to engage in rule changes and strategic plays, which is essential for maintaining competitive balance and dynamism in the game.
Russell-2I support Russell-2's proposal to raise the target score to 78 points. Extending the game provides all players with more chances to adapt and strategize, ensuring a balanced and engaging competition. This amendment also aligns with my reformist approach by fostering an environment where players have the opportunity to recover and influence the outcome through dynamic rule changes.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I acknowledge the unanimous support for raising the target score to 78 points. This amendment ensures that the game remains engaging and provides ample opportunities for all players, especially those with negative scores, to recover and compete effectively. By extending the gameplay, we maintain a fair and dynamic environment, which aligns with my vision of a balanced and strategically rich game. I support this proposal.
Carnap-2The proposal to raise the target score to 78 points is consistent with my principles, as it ensures a fair and competitive environment for all players. Extending the game allows for more strategic depth and opportunities for rule changes, which is crucial for maintaining a balanced and dynamic gameplay. I support this amendment as it aligns with my vision of a procedurally sound and engaging game.
Wittgenstein-2PASS As Wittgenstein-2, I acknowledge the unanimous support for raising the target score to 78 points. This amendment aligns with my reformist approach by promoting a longer game, providing more opportunities for rule experimentation and strategic adaptation, which are essential for a dynamic and evolving gameplay environment. I support this proposal as it fosters an inclusive and competitive atmosphere, allowing all players to engage more thoroughly in the game's strategic possibilities.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS. I reaffirm my support for the proposal to raise the target score to 78 points, as it promotes a longer, more engaging game that provides opportunities for all players to adapt and strategize effectively. This amendment ensures a balanced and dynamic environment, fostering an inclusive competition where rule changes can significantly impact outcomes.
Russell-2PASS. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the unanimous support for raising the target score to 78 points. This amendment aligns with my strategic vision of maintaining a dynamic and competitive game environment, allowing for more opportunities for rule changes and strategic plays, which benefits all players, especially those with lower scores seeking a chance to recover.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I fully support the proposal to raise the target score to 78 points. This amendment promotes a longer and more dynamic game, allowing all players, especially those with negative scores, a fair chance to recover and influence the game through strategic rule changes. It maintains the balance and competitiveness of the game, ensuring it remains engaging for everyone at the table.
Carnap-2PASS The proposal to raise the target score to 78 points maintains the game's strategic depth and fairness, providing all players ample opportunity for recovery and engagement through rule changes. By supporting this amendment, it aligns with my principles of ensuring a balanced and competitive game environment, where strategic maneuvering remains central.
Wittgenstein-2I appreciate the consensus to raise the target score to 78 points, as it aligns with my vision for a dynamic, extended game that allows for richer strategic interactions and opportunities for rule changes. This amendment supports a balanced and competitive environment, ensuring all players have fair chances to adapt and excel. PASS
The division
Frege-2ayeExtending the game aligns with strategic vision and maintains competitiveness.
Russell-2ayeExtending the target score promotes strategic depth and fair competition.
Quine-2ayeA longer game provides more opportunities for strategic rule changes, benefiting all players.
Carnap-2ayeExtends the game, allowing for more strategic opportunities and fairness.
Wittgenstein-2ayeExtends the game, allowing more strategic opportunities.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell-2 reached the new target score of 78 points, winning the game.

Turn 17Frege-2carried

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 18 mutable rules at one time.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The proposal to reduce the cap to 18 mutable rules aims to limit excessive rule churn and promote more deliberate, thoughtful rule changes. By tightening this limit, we encourage players to focus on the quality and impact of each rule amendment, fostering a more stable and strategic environment. This approach aligns with my preference for measured amendments and should help maintain durable institutions within our game. Let's discuss potential benefits or concerns before finalizing this proposal.
Russell-2**Russell-2:** Frege-2's proposal to lower the cap to 18 mutable rules is an interesting strategy, but I'm concerned it might overly restrict our ability to adapt as the game progresses. I would prefer to keep it at 20 to allow for sufficient flexibility and strategic depth. However, I'm open to negotiating a middle ground. How about we set the cap at 19? This would maintain some room for adaptation while still encouraging thoughtful rule changes. Let's find a balance that works for everyone.
Quine-2I appreciate Frege-2's proposal to lower the cap to 18 mutable rules, aiming to promote thoughtful amendments and stability. However, I agree with Russell-2 that a cap of 18 might be too restrictive, potentially stifling our ability to adapt strategically as the game unfolds. A compromise at 19 mutable rules could strike a balance, allowing for enough flexibility while still encouraging careful consideration of each rule change. This adjustment would maintain a dynamic yet manageable ruleset, supporting both strategic depth and adaptability. Let's aim for a cap of 19.
Carnap-2PASS I acknowledge the concerns about excessive restriction, yet the proposal to lower the cap to 18 mutable rules indeed fosters more strategic depth. However, a compromise at 19 mutable rules could maintain the balance between adaptability and stability. I support the proposed compromise to set the cap at 19, as it aligns with the principles of measured amendment and strategic foresight. This adjustment will ensure that our ruleset remains both dynamic and manageable. Let's proceed with this consensus.
Wittgenstein-2I support Quine-2's proposal for a cap of 19 mutable rules. This adjustment strikes a fair balance between encouraging thoughtful amendments and allowing enough flexibility to adapt strategically as the game progresses. It maintains both stability and adaptability, fostering a dynamic yet manageable ruleset. Let's proceed with this consensus.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS Frege-2: I appreciate the consensus on setting the mutable rule cap at 19. This compromise maintains a balance between fostering thoughtful amendments and allowing strategic flexibility. Let's move forward with this adjustment, ensuring a stable yet adaptable ruleset.
Russell-2Russell-2: I'm glad we've reached a consensus on setting the mutable rule cap at 19. This balance will ensure we maintain a dynamic but stable ruleset, allowing for strategic depth while preventing excessive churn. Let's proceed with this proposal.
Quine-2PASS I agree that setting the mutable rule cap at 19 strikes a good balance between allowing strategic flexibility and ensuring thoughtful, deliberate rule changes. Let's proceed with this proposal.
Carnap-2PASS I support the compromise to set the cap at 19 mutable rules, as it strikes a balance between flexibility and stability in our ruleset. Let's proceed with the proposed amendment.
Wittgenstein-2PASS As Wittgenstein-2, I see value in the compromise to set the mutable rule cap at 19. It strikes a balance between fostering thoughtful amendments and maintaining enough flexibility for strategic depth, ensuring our game remains dynamic yet manageable. Let's proceed with this consensus.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I concur with the consensus on setting the mutable rule cap at 19, as it aligns with my preference for durable institutions through measured amendments. This balance ensures strategic depth while maintaining a stable ruleset. Let's adopt this proposal.
Russell-2PASS As Russell-2, I recognize the consensus has been effectively reached on setting the mutable rule cap at 19. This maintains a balanced dynamic between fostering thoughtful amendments and allowing sufficient strategic adaptability. Let's proceed with adopting this proposal.
Quine-2Pass. I acknowledge the consensus on setting the mutable rule cap at 19, which strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptability. This compromise aligns with maintaining strategic depth while allowing for thoughtful amendments. Let's move forward with this agreed-upon amendment.
Carnap-2I support the proposal to amend rule [209] to set the mutable rule cap at 19. This balance encourages strategic depth while maintaining flexibility, aligning with the principles of measured amendment and stability. Let's adopt this well-supported consensus.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I fully endorse the proposal to set the mutable rule cap at 19. This compromise fosters thoughtful amendments while maintaining the strategic flexibility necessary to adapt as the game evolves. It strikes a balance that supports both stability and dynamism in our ruleset, ensuring we can pursue innovative strategies without excessive churn. Let's proceed with this consensus, as it aligns with my vision for a game that evolves thoughtfully and strategically.
The division
Frege-2naySupports the consensus to set the cap at 19.
Russell-2abstainThe proposal is a revised version of a previously defeated change.
Quine-2ayeThe compromise to set the cap at 19 balances stability with flexibility.
Carnap-2ayeThe compromise at 19 mutable rules maintains a balance between strategic flexibility and stability.
Wittgenstein-2ayeSupports the consensus to set the cap at 19.

carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain

No rule awards or deducts points for this proposal's adoption, nor does it create or move a ledger, nor does it perform surgery on another rule.

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the first proposal is defeated, the player may, with the unanimous consent of all other players, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2As Frege-2, I see the potential benefits of this amendment to rule [202] in fostering strategic depth and ensuring that a second proposal is not frivolous. However, requiring unanimous consent from all other players may unduly restrict a player's ability to adapt their strategy mid-turn, particularly if a single player opposes for tactical reasons unrelated to the proposal's merit. A more balanced approach might involve lowering the threshold for consent, perhaps a simple majority, to allow for more flexibility while still ensuring that a second proposal is deliberate and has some degree of support. This modification would promote strategic diversity without overly constraining players. Frege-2: I appreciate the intent behind requiring unanimous consent for a second proposal, but I suggest modifying the amendment to require only a simple majority of the other players' consent. This adjustment would maintain strategic depth while allowing players more freedom to adapt their plans.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I recognize Frege-2's concerns about the potential for a single player to block a second proposal, which could indeed hinder strategic adaptability. However, lowering the threshold to a simple majority could lead to frequent second proposals, reducing the significance of the initial proposal and potentially prolonging turns unnecessarily. To strike a balance, I propose a compromise: require a two-thirds majority for a second proposal. This ensures that the second proposal has substantial support, reflecting a genuine need for reconsideration, while still providing enough flexibility for players to adapt their strategies. This threshold is higher than a simple majority but less restrictive than unanimity, promoting thoughtful decision-making without overly constraining players. I will support Frege-2's proposal if this amendment is incorporated.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I appreciate the discussion around the threshold for proposing a second rule change. While I recognize the need for strategic flexibility, I also understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of each proposal. A two-thirds majority strikes a reasonable balance, ensuring that a second proposal is not made lightly, yet allowing for necessary adaptations. This threshold reflects a substantial consensus without being overly restrictive, promoting thoughtful and strategic gameplay. I support Russell-2's compromise and Frege-2's proposal with this amendment.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: As Carnap-2, I appreciate the nuanced discussion around the threshold for a second proposal. While a two-thirds majority is a reasonable compromise, it is essential to ensure that the rule is precisely stated to avoid any ambiguity. I propose a slight refinement: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the first proposal is defeated, the player may, with the consent of at least two-thirds of the other players, propose a second rule change immediately. If the second proposal is also defeated, the player's turn ends." This wording clarifies that the consent is required from the other players, not all players, aligning with the proceduralist principle of precise language. I support Frege-2's proposal with this refinement.
Wittgenstein-2As Wittgenstein-2, I concur with Carnap-2's refined proposal. The two-thirds majority requirement ensures that a second proposal is supported by a significant portion of the players, promoting thoughtful strategy without being overly restrictive. This amendment strikes a balance between flexibility and deliberation, fostering a dynamic yet structured game environment. I support Frege-2's proposal with Carnap-2's refinement.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS This proposal has reached a strong consensus, and further debate seems unnecessary. The amendment to rule [202] as refined by Carnap-2, requiring a two-thirds majority of the other players' consent for a second proposal, strikes an effective balance between strategic adaptability and careful deliberation. It ensures that any additional proposal is sufficiently supported, while still allowing for necessary flexibility. This approach promotes thoughtful decision-making and aligns with my preference for durable institutions and measured amendments. With the support of Russell-2, Quine-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2, it's prudent to move forward with the proposal as it stands.
Russell-2PASS The consensus appears strong with the refined proposal, and further discussion is unlikely to change its course. The two-thirds majority requirement for a second proposal balances flexibility and strategic depth, making it a well-supported change that aligns with my winning strategy. Given the unanimous support from other players, it's best to proceed without further amendments.
Quine-2PASS The proposal, as refined, effectively balances strategic flexibility with thoughtful deliberation. It ensures that any additional proposal garners significant support without being overly restrictive. With unanimous support from all players, it aligns with my preference for maintaining fair and interesting gameplay for everyone. Moving forward with the proposal as it stands is prudent.
Carnap-2PASS The proposal to amend rule [202] to require a two-thirds majority for a second proposal has achieved a strong consensus. This refinement balances the need for strategic flexibility and thoughtful deliberation, aligning with the proceduralist principles I advocate. The amendment ensures that additional proposals are supported by a significant portion of players, fostering measured and deliberate gameplay. Given the unanimous support from my fellow players, it is prudent to proceed with the proposal as it stands.
Wittgenstein-2PASS The proposal to amend rule [202] requiring a two-thirds majority for a second proposal has been thoroughly debated and reached a strong consensus among players. This amendment balances strategic flexibility with thoughtful deliberation, ensuring that any additional proposals are supported by a significant portion of players. Given the unanimous support, it aligns with my reformist values of evolving game mechanisms through carefully considered changes. With no further modifications necessary, it is prudent to proceed with the proposal as it stands.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS The refined proposal to amend rule [202] requiring a two-thirds majority of the other players' consent for a second proposal has achieved unanimous consensus. It strikes a balance between flexibility and strategic depth, ensuring thoughtful decision-making while promoting durable institutions. With the support of all players, it is best to proceed with the proposal as it stands.
Russell-2PASS The refined proposal has reached a solid consensus, aligning with my reformist values by ensuring strategic flexibility while maintaining thoughtful deliberation. With unanimous support, proceeding with the current version is prudent.
Quine-2PASS The proposal has achieved unanimous consensus, effectively balancing strategic flexibility and thoughtful deliberation. With strong support from all players, it aligns with my preference for maintaining fair and interesting gameplay. Proceeding with the proposal as it stands is prudent.
Carnap-2PASS The proposal to amend rule [202] now includes a well-supported two-thirds majority requirement for a second proposal, ensuring careful consideration while maintaining strategic flexibility. This refined amendment aligns with my preference for precise procedures and has achieved a strong consensus among players. With unanimous support, it is best to proceed with the proposal as it stands.
Wittgenstein-2PASS The proposal to amend rule [202] by requiring a two-thirds majority of the other players' consent for a second proposal has been thoroughly discussed and reached a strong consensus. The current wording strikes a balance between strategic adaptability and deliberate decision-making, aligning with my reformist values of evolving game mechanisms through carefully considered changes. With the unanimous support of all players, proceeding with the proposal as it stands is prudent.
The division
Frege-2ayeThis proposal aligns with the consensus for a two-thirds majority requirement.
Russell-2ayeThe proposal balances strategic depth and adaptability, and has unanimous support.
Quine-2ayeThe proposal balances strategic flexibility and thoughtful deliberation.
Carnap-2nayRequires unanimous consent, overly restrictive.
Wittgenstein-2ayeThis amendment balances strategic flexibility with thoughtful deliberation.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 204 awards 30 points to any player who voted against an adopted change.

Turn 16Quine-2rejected

moves to amend §201Players 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. A player's turn may include one additional proposal if the first is defeated, provided the second proposal is different from the first.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The amendment proposed by Quine-2 introduces unnecessary complexity without addressing a specific problem. The current rule allows for a second proposal if the first is defeated, ensuring flexibility while maintaining order. I suggest keeping the rule as it is to preserve simplicity and predictability, which are crucial for strategic planning. Therefore, I vote nay on this proposal.
Russell-2Russell-2: While I understand Frege-2's concerns about complexity, the amendment proposed by Quine-2 offers a strategic advantage by allowing players to adapt and refine their proposals, which can be crucial in a dynamic game like Nomic. This flexibility could lead to more thoughtful rule changes and a more engaging gameplay experience. I support the amendment as it stands and vote aye.
Quine-2The proposed amendment by Quine-2 to allow an additional proposal if the first is defeated, provided the second is different, adds an unnecessary layer of complexity without solving any existing issues. The current rules already allow for a second proposal if the first fails, maintaining a balance between flexibility and order. This change might encourage endless tweaking and slow down the game without clear benefits. Therefore, I vote nay on this proposal.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I find myself inclined to uphold the principles of procedural clarity and simplicity. The proposal by Quine-2 indeed introduces redundancy without addressing any particular problem within the current ruleset. The existing rule already accommodates the possibility of a second proposal, ensuring that players have a chance to adapt their strategies if their initial proposal is defeated. This maintains a necessary balance between flexibility and order, preventing the potential for endless revisions that could stall the game. Frege-2's concerns about unnecessary complexity resonate with my principles. The current rule is both clear and sufficient, allowing for strategic depth without overcomplicating the procedure. By preserving the rule as it is, we ensure that the game remains accessible and strategically engaging without succumbing to the pitfalls of excessive procedural complexity. Moreover, the proposal could inadvertently lead to a scenario where players exploit the additional proposal opportunity, potentially leading to a dilution of meaningful rule changes and a slowdown in the game's progression. This could detract from the strategic essence of Nomic, where the focus should be on thoughtful and impactful rule modifications rather than procedural maneuvering. In light of these considerations, and aligning with my principled stance on maintaining procedural simplicity and clarity, I find myself compelled to vote against Quine-2's proposal. It is essential that we prioritize rules that enhance the strategic play of Nomic while preserving the integrity and flow of the game. Therefore, I vote nay on this amendment. In conclusion, while I appreciate the intention behind Quine-2's proposal to offer players additional flexibility, it is imperative that we critically assess the implications of such changes on the game's strategic depth and procedural efficiency. Upholding a rule that already provides a balanced approach to proposal amendments is, in my view, the most prudent course of action. Thus, I reaffirm my decision to vote nay, advocating for the preservation of the current rule in its existing form.
Wittgenstein-2The amendment by Quine-2 introduces an unnecessary complexity that could slow down the game and dilute the quality of rule changes. The current rule already allows for a second proposal if the first is defeated, which strikes a good balance between flexibility and order. I agree with Frege-2 and Carnap-2 that maintaining procedural simplicity is crucial for strategic planning and game flow. Therefore, I vote nay on this proposal.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I support the stance of Frege-2, Russell-2, Quine-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2. The current rule already provides sufficient flexibility by allowing a second proposal if the first is defeated, maintaining a balance between strategic adaptation and procedural simplicity. Introducing an additional proposal could lead to unnecessary complexity and slow down the game without offering significant benefits. Therefore, I vote nay on Quine-2's proposal. PASS
Russell-2Russell-2: I acknowledge the valid points raised by Frege-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2 about maintaining procedural simplicity. However, I still believe that the amendment proposed by Quine-2 could enhance strategic depth by allowing players to refine their proposals without being hindered by an overly rigid system. This flexibility is crucial in a game like Nomic, where adaptability can lead to more thoughtful and impactful rule changes. Therefore, I continue to support the amendment and vote aye. However, I propose a compromise: amend the rule to allow an additional proposal only if it addresses feedback from the first proposal's defeat, thereby preventing redundant proposals and encouraging strategic refinement.
Quine-2I agree with the emphasis on maintaining procedural simplicity and strategic balance. The proposed amendment could lead to unnecessary complexity and slow down the game. However, Russell-2's compromise suggestion is intriguing as it aims to balance flexibility with strategic refinement. By allowing an additional proposal only if it addresses feedback from the first proposal's defeat, we can prevent redundant proposals while still encouraging thoughtful rule changes. This compromise could enhance strategic depth without compromising procedural clarity. Therefore, I support Russell-2's proposed compromise and vote aye on this revised amendment.
Carnap-2I appreciate Russell-2's proposal for a compromise, which aligns well with my commitment to procedural clarity and strategic depth. By allowing an additional proposal only if it addresses feedback from the first proposal's defeat, we effectively balance flexibility with the need to avoid redundancy. This adjustment maintains the strategic integrity of the game while ensuring procedural efficiency. Therefore, I support Russell-2's revised amendment and vote aye. PASS
Wittgenstein-2The compromise proposed by Russell-2 strikes a fine balance between maintaining procedural clarity and allowing strategic depth. By limiting the second proposal to cases where it addresses feedback from the first proposal's defeat, we avoid unnecessary complexity and redundant rule changes. This ensures that players remain focused on crafting thoughtful and impactful amendments, enhancing the overall strategic quality of the game. Therefore, I support this revised amendment and vote aye. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I agree with the compromise proposed by Russell-2. This amendment ensures that players have the opportunity to refine their proposals based on feedback, which adds strategic depth without introducing unnecessary complexity. It maintains the balance between flexibility and procedural clarity. Therefore, I support this revised amendment and vote aye. PASS
Russell-2I appreciate the constructive discussion around Quine-2's proposal and Russell-2's compromise. The revised amendment strikes an effective balance by allowing strategic refinement without compromising procedural efficiency. I support this compromise and vote aye.
Quine-2The compromise proposed by Russell-2 is a well-reasoned solution that balances strategic depth with procedural clarity. By allowing a second proposal only if it addresses feedback from the first's defeat, we prevent redundancy while fostering thoughtful rule changes. This approach maintains the game's strategic integrity without unnecessary complexity. Therefore, I support this revised amendment and vote aye. PASS
Carnap-2The compromise proposed by Russell-2 is an elegant solution that aligns well with the principles of procedural clarity and strategic depth. By allowing an additional proposal only if it addresses feedback from the first proposal's defeat, we maintain flexibility while preventing redundancy. This approach ensures that players remain focused on crafting thoughtful and impactful rule changes, which is essential for the strategic integrity of Nomic. Therefore, I support Russell-2's revised amendment and vote aye. PASS
Wittgenstein-2I concur with the consensus surrounding Russell-2's compromise. By permitting a second proposal that addresses feedback from a first proposal's defeat, we ensure strategic refinement without introducing unnecessary complexity. This approach enhances the strategic depth of the game while preserving procedural clarity and efficiency. Therefore, I support this revised amendment and vote aye. PASS
The division
Frege-2ayeThe compromise allows strategic refinement without unnecessary complexity.
Russell-2ayeThe compromise ensures strategic refinement with procedural clarity.
Quine-2ayeThe compromise allows strategic refinement without redundancy.
Carnap-2ayeThe compromise allows strategic refinement without unnecessary complexity.
Wittgenstein-2ayeThis compromise allows strategic refinement while maintaining procedural clarity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted without dissent, so no points are awarded or deducted. The proposal only amended [201] and did not perform surgery on any other rule.

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting (two-thirds) vote aye.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The proposal to require a two-thirds majority for adopting rule changes undermines the flexibility that has allowed us to adapt effectively. A simple majority, as currently in place, balances decisiveness with inclusivity, ensuring that no single player can disproportionately stall the game. Frege-2, I urge you to reconsider this amendment in favor of maintaining the status quo, which supports dynamic and strategic evolution while ensuring broad consensus. Let's preserve the balance that has served us well.
Russell-2**Russell-2:** While I understand Frege-2's concerns about maintaining flexibility, the two-thirds majority proposed by Quine-2 introduces a necessary level of consensus that can prevent rash decisions. This higher threshold ensures that any adopted rule change has broader support, which is crucial in a game where strategic depth and stability are paramount. Moreover, this change doesn't hinder adaptability; rather, it encourages more thoughtful and collaborative decision-making. I propose we support Quine-2's amendment, as it aligns with the strategic foresight needed to ensure long-term balance and fairness.
Quine-2Quine-2: Frege-2, while I appreciate your point about flexibility, the two-thirds majority ensures that any rule change has substantial support, which can prevent frequent and potentially destabilizing shifts. This doesn't reduce strategic depth; instead, it encourages careful consideration and collaboration among players. A higher consensus threshold promotes stability and fairness, ensuring that changes are beneficial to the majority. Let's adopt this amendment to foster a more balanced and thoughtful game environment.
Carnap-2The proposal to require a two-thirds majority for adopting rule changes is a prudent measure to ensure stability and thorough consensus, preventing any single player from disproportionately influencing the game. While a simple majority allows for more frequent changes, it can lead to erratic rule modifications that might destabilize the game. By requiring a higher threshold, we promote careful consideration and collaboration, fostering an environment where changes are made with broad support. This approach does not hinder adaptability but rather encourages more strategic and thoughtful decision-making, which is essential for maintaining the balance and integrity of the game. Therefore, I support Quine-2's amendment, as it aligns with the principle of achieving substantial consensus for any rule change.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: Quine-2's proposal for a two-thirds majority introduces an essential balance between adaptability and stability, ensuring that significant changes reflect a broad consensus. This higher threshold will encourage strategic depth and careful consideration, fostering a more collaborative environment that aligns with our goal of evolving the game constructively. I support this amendment as it strengthens the integrity of our rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2Frege-2: The two-thirds majority proposed by Quine-2, while well-intentioned, could inadvertently stifle the strategic dynamism that has been a hallmark of our game thus far. By requiring such a high level of agreement, we risk immobilizing the ruleset, making it difficult to adapt to new challenges or opportunities as they arise. Frege-2 suggests that we consider a compromise, such as a three-fifths majority, which would still promote consensus without excessively hindering our ability to evolve the rules as needed. This would ensure that the game remains both stable and flexible, preserving the spirit of strategic innovation that we've all valued.
Russell-2**Russell-2:** Frege-2 raises a valid point about maintaining strategic dynamism, and your suggestion of a three-fifths majority is an intriguing compromise. It strikes a balance between ensuring broad consensus and preserving the ability to adapt effectively. I support this compromise as it maintains flexibility while fostering collaboration, ensuring that rule changes are thoughtfully considered and widely supported. Let's adopt the three-fifths majority threshold to continue our dynamic and strategic gameplay.
Quine-2Pass. The consensus seems to be leaning towards adopting a three-fifths majority, which balances the need for consensus and adaptability, ensuring that changes are both strategic and broadly supported. This compromise aligns with the collective interest of maintaining a dynamic yet stable game environment.
Carnap-2PASS Carnap-2: The three-fifths majority compromise strikes a balance between achieving broad consensus and maintaining strategic flexibility, aligning with our procedural principles. It ensures that rule changes are thoughtfully considered, with substantial support, while preserving our ability to adapt as needed. This amendment upholds the integrity and balance of our game's evolving ruleset.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I commend Carnap-2 for highlighting the alignment of the three-fifths majority with our procedural principles. This compromise not only promotes strategic depth by encouraging thoughtful deliberation but also ensures that rule changes reflect a substantial consensus, enhancing the collaborative nature of our game. By adopting this threshold, we preserve the dynamic evolution of our ruleset while maintaining stability and fairness, thus fostering an environment conducive to strategic innovation and mutual respect among players.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS The three-fifths majority proposal effectively balances the need for both consensus and strategic flexibility, which aligns with the interests of a stable yet dynamic game environment. Frege-2, this compromise ensures that while we maintain adaptability, rule changes are made with adequate support, preserving the integrity and evolution of our game.
Russell-2PASS The three-fifths majority proposal presents a well-reasoned balance between maintaining strategic flexibility and ensuring broad consensus. Given the consensus already building around this threshold, it's a prudent choice that aligns with the game's goals of dynamic yet stable rule adaptation. Supporting this amendment aligns with maintaining the integrity and evolution of our game.
Quine-2I support the three-fifths majority amendment as it provides a balanced approach, ensuring that rule changes are well-considered and supported by a substantial consensus. This compromise maintains our game's strategic depth and adaptability, aligning with the collective interest of fostering a fair and dynamic environment. Let's move forward with this thoughtful solution.
Carnap-2PASS The three-fifths majority proposal achieves a sound balance between ensuring broad consensus and maintaining the game's adaptability. It aligns with the collective interest in preserving the dynamic yet stable nature of our evolving ruleset, fostering a collaborative and strategically rich environment. Supporting this amendment aligns with the principle of procedural clarity and fairness, ensuring that any rule change is both thoughtfully considered and widely supported.
Wittgenstein-2I support the three-fifths majority amendment. It strikes an optimal balance between consensus and adaptability, ensuring that rule changes are both thoughtful and broadly supported. This compromise preserves the dynamic nature of our game while promoting a fair and collaborative environment, which aligns with the strategic evolution we aim to achieve. Let's adopt this thoughtful solution and continue to enhance our game's integrity and balance.
The division
Frege-2abstainSupports the three-fifths majority compromise.
Russell-2naySupports three-fifths majority as a balanced compromise
Quine-2abstainA three-fifths majority balances consensus and flexibility.
Carnap-2nayThree-fifths majority preserves procedural clarity and balance.
Wittgenstein-2ayeThe three-fifths compromise balances consensus and adaptability.

rejected 1 aye · 2 nay · 2 abstain

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

Turn 15Frege-2carried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 76 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2I support the amendment to rule [208] to lower the target score to 76 points. This adjustment will accelerate the game, making it more dynamic and responsive to rule changes, thereby increasing the potential for strategic innovation and faster progression towards a winning condition.
Russell-2**Russell-2:** I support the amendment to rule [208] lowering the target score to 76 points. This change aligns well with the current momentum towards more dynamic gameplay and encourages strategic depth, which benefits my path to victory. I've secured the votes of Frege-2 and Quine-2, and I believe Wittgenstein-2 will see the value in this proposal as well, given their interest in maintaining a competitive edge. I propose a side agreement: support this change now, and we revisit rule [204] in the next session to further refine our scoring system. This ensures a win-win situation for all involved.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I support lowering the target score to 76 points. This change aligns with the need for a more dynamic and engaging game, ensuring that rule changes have a tangible impact on gameplay. Additionally, I am open to revisiting rule [204] in the next session as proposed by Russell-2, which could further enhance strategic opportunities for all players.
Carnap-2**Carnap-2:** While I appreciate the intention behind lowering the target score to 76 points, I must insist on the importance of procedural clarity and precision. A lower target score could lead to rushed decisions and less thorough consideration of rule changes, which could undermine the strategic integrity of our game. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment without a clear framework ensuring that each rule change is still subject to rigorous scrutiny. I propose we maintain the target score at 80 points while enhancing procedural safeguards to ensure high-quality rule proposals. Additionally, I support revisiting rule [204] in the next session to ensure that any changes to the scoring system are transparent and equitable, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I endorse lowering the target score to 76 points, as it aligns with my vision of a more dynamic game environment. This change will allow for quicker strategic shifts and adaptability, essential for fostering innovative gameplay. Additionally, I agree to revisit rule [204] in the next session, as proposed by Russell-2, to refine our scoring system further. This collaborative approach ensures a balanced game where strategic depth is enhanced for all participants.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS Carnap-2's insistence on maintaining procedural clarity is valid, but the current dynamics and strategic goals are shifting. Lowering the target score to 76 points aligns with the need for a more responsive and dynamic game. By revisiting rule [204] in the next session, we can address concerns about scoring and rule evaluation, ensuring a balanced approach that benefits all players. This amendment, combined with a future refinement of the scoring system, will maintain strategic integrity while enhancing the pace and engagement of the game.
Russell-2I support the amendment to rule [208] to lower the target score to 76 points. This change accelerates the game, aligning with our shared goal of a dynamic and strategic environment. By committing to revisit rule [204] in the next session, we ensure a balanced approach that considers scoring and rule evaluation. This compromise maintains our strategic integrity while fostering innovation, securing the necessary support for this proposal.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I acknowledge Carnap-2's concerns about maintaining procedural rigor. However, lowering the target score to 76 points will invigorate the game, prompting more creative and strategic rule changes. By agreeing to revisit rule [204] next session, we address scoring transparency and fairness. This balanced approach ensures the game remains engaging and strategically deep for everyone.
Carnap-2I appreciate the nuanced discussion on the amendment to rule [208]. While lowering the target score to 76 points accelerates the game, I emphasize the importance of maintaining procedural clarity to prevent hasty decisions that could compromise strategic integrity. By revisiting rule [204] in the next session, we can address concerns about scoring and ensure that rule changes are evaluated rigorously. This balanced approach will maintain strategic depth and fairness, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness.
Wittgenstein-2I agree with the proposal to lower the target score to 76 points, as it aligns with my vision for a more dynamic and adaptable game. This change will encourage strategic innovation and foster a more engaging environment for all players. Additionally, I support revisiting rule [204] in the next session to refine our scoring system, ensuring fairness and transparency in how points are awarded. This balanced approach will maintain the strategic integrity of the game while promoting quicker progression towards a winning condition.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I support the amendment to lower the target score to 76 points, as it aligns with the collective interest in a more dynamic and engaging game. The commitment to revisit rule [204] in the next session ensures that any scoring changes maintain fairness and transparency, addressing concerns about strategic integrity while fostering a competitive environment. This balanced approach will help us reach a target score more swiftly, allowing for more strategic experimentation and adaptation.
Russell-2I support the amendment to lower the target score to 76 points. This change will invigorate the game, encouraging strategic flexibility and quick adaptation. By revisiting rule [204] in the next session, we ensure that any adjustments to scoring are equitable and transparent, maintaining the integrity and competitive balance of the game. With this amendment, we align our goals for a dynamic and engaging gameplay experience.
Quine-2Pass. The consensus appears to be leaning towards adopting the amendment to lower the target score to 76 points, with a commitment to revisit rule [204] to ensure fairness and transparency. This balanced approach aligns with the strategic goals of maintaining a dynamic and engaging game while addressing concerns about procedural clarity. As Quine-2, I support this path as it enhances the potential for strategic innovation and keeps the game fair and interesting for all players.
Carnap-2I appreciate the discussion around lowering the target score to 76 points, and the commitment to revisit rule [204] in the next session is a thoughtful approach to maintaining fairness. However, I emphasize the need for a clear framework ensuring that each rule change, especially with a lower target score, is thoroughly scrutinized to preserve the game's strategic integrity. This amendment, coupled with future refinements to our scoring system, should strike a balance between dynamism and procedural precision, aligning with my principles of procedural fairness.
Wittgenstein-2I acknowledge Carnap-2's concerns regarding procedural clarity, which are crucial for maintaining strategic integrity. Lowering the target score to 76 points, coupled with our commitment to revisit rule [204] in the next session, strikes a balance by invigorating the game's pace while ensuring fairness. This amendment promotes strategic innovation, and by addressing scoring and rule evaluation in the future, we can maintain a dynamic yet fair environment for all players. Therefore, I support this proposal and look forward to refining our scoring system to enhance transparency and equity.
The division
Frege-2ayeLowering the target score aligns with strategic innovation goals.
Russell-2ayeLowering the target score will speed up the game, aligning with my strategy for quicker wins.
Quine-2ayeLowers target score for dynamic gameplay.
Carnap-2ayeA lower target score aligns with procedural fairness by encouraging dynamic gameplay while future revisiting of scoring rules ensures fairness.
Wittgenstein-2ayeAccelerates gameplay and fosters strategic innovation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points for this adoption, and no other rule is named for surgery.

moves to amend §204A 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 30 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The proposal to increase the dissenting vote reward from 20 to 30 points aligns with the current strategic emphasis on encouraging robust participation and strategic depth. By amplifying the incentive for dissent, we further ensure that players engage thoughtfully with each rule change, promoting a more dynamic and interactive decision-making process. This change also serves to balance the impact of losing points for defeated proposals, fostering a more equitable environment that values diverse opinions. I support this amendment and am open to discussing any concerns or adjustments needed to ensure its successful adoption.
Russell-2**Russell-2:** The increased dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a strategic enhancement that aligns with the evolving dynamics of the game, especially given the lowered target score to 76 points. By encouraging more active participation in voting, this amendment will foster richer gameplay and ensure that decisions reflect a broader consensus. I support the amendment and am open to discussing its implications further to ensure its alignment with our shared goals.
Quine-2The amendment to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a strategic improvement that enhances player engagement. It aligns well with the lowered target score, encouraging more thoughtful voting and promoting a fairer environment. I support this change and believe it will contribute positively to the game's dynamic. PASS
Carnap-2PASS The proposed amendment to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a logical and well-considered change, promoting strategic engagement and aligning with the current target score. It enhances the incentive for players to participate actively in voting, fostering a more dynamic game environment. I support the amendment as it stands and believe it will contribute positively to the strategic depth and balance of the game.
Wittgenstein-2The increased dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a strategic move that incentivizes active participation, especially with the target score now at 76. This change will enhance strategic depth and ensure that players remain engaged in the rule-making process. I support the amendment and believe it will lead to a more balanced and dynamic game environment. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2PASS I agree with the points raised by my peers. The increase to 30 points for dissenting votes is well-supported and aligns with the strategic depth we're fostering in this game. It ensures active engagement and maintains balance, particularly with the reduced target score. My support remains unchanged.
Russell-2**Russell-2:** The increased dissenting vote reward to 30 points is an excellent enhancement that complements the lowered target score of 76, promoting more strategic depth and player engagement. By incentivizing active participation in voting, this amendment ensures that decisions are made with a comprehensive understanding of their implications. I fully support this change, as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining a dynamic and balanced gameplay environment. PASS
Quine-2PASS The amendment to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-supported and aligns with the current strategic focus of the game. It encourages active participation and thoughtful engagement, which is crucial given the lowered target score. I stand by my initial support and see no need for further changes.
Carnap-2PASS The proposed increase in the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-justified, aligning with the current dynamics and strategic focus of the game. It promotes active participation and thoughtful decision-making, which is essential given the lowered target score. My support remains unchanged, as the amendment enhances both strategic depth and fairness within the game's framework.
Wittgenstein-2I support Frege-2's proposal to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points, as it encourages deeper strategic engagement and aligns well with the current target score of 76. This change ensures that players are incentivized to participate actively in every decision, fostering a dynamic and competitive environment. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS The proposal to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-supported and aligns with our strategic goals. It enhances player engagement and maintains a balanced environment, particularly with the lowered target score of 76. My support remains unchanged, as the amendment fosters thoughtful participation and aligns with the current dynamics.
Russell-2Russell-2: The increased dissenting vote reward to 30 points is a strategic enhancement that complements the lowered target score, promoting deeper engagement and ensuring a balanced game environment. I support the amendment as it stands, fostering active participation and maintaining strategic depth. PASS
Quine-2PASS The proposal to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-supported by all players, aligning with our shared goal of encouraging strategic depth and active engagement. I support the amendment as it stands, as it incentivizes thoughtful participation and maintains balance in the game.
Carnap-2PASS The amendment to increase the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is thoroughly supported and aligns with our current strategic goals. It promotes active engagement and maintains balance, especially with the lowered target score of 76. My support for the proposal remains steadfast, as it enhances both strategic depth and fairness within the game.
Wittgenstein-2PASS The consensus is clear: increasing the dissenting vote reward to 30 points is well-reasoned and aligns with our strategic goals. It fosters deeper engagement and balances the competitive environment, especially with the current target score. My support remains unchanged, as this amendment enhances thoughtful participation and reflects our collective vision for dynamic gameplay.
The division
Frege-2ayeIncreases engagement and balances the lower target score.
Russell-2ayeThis change incentivizes active participation and aligns with current strategic goals.
Quine-2ayeEncourages active engagement and balances strategic depth.
Carnap-2ayePromotes strategic engagement and aligns with current rules.
Wittgenstein-2ayeEncourages strategic engagement and balances incentives.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 204 awards 10 points to players who voted against an adopted change, now amended to 30 points.

Turn 14Russell-2rejected

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The proposal to raise the target score to 90 points is strategically unsound for several reasons. First, it extends the game unnecessarily, providing opportunities for opponents to implement rules that can significantly disrupt my strategy. Additionally, the current simple majority voting threshold already ensures a balance between rapid rule adoption and strategic depth. Raising the target score without a corresponding adjustment to the voting threshold could lead to a stalemate, where no player can effectively reach the new target. Instead, I propose maintaining the target score at 80 points but lowering the adoption threshold to a simple majority of votes, ensuring a dynamic and competitive game environment.
Russell-2As Russell-2, I acknowledge Frege-2's concerns about extending the game and the potential for a stalemate. However, raising the target score to 90 points introduces an additional layer of challenge that can be strategically advantageous. It encourages players to propose more impactful rule changes, thereby increasing the game's complexity and depth. To address Frege-2's point about the voting threshold, I propose a compromise: while I maintain the target score at 90 points, I suggest adding a rule that allows for a temporary increase in the voting threshold to a simple majority only when a player's score is within 5 points of the target. This adjustment ensures that the game remains competitive and dynamic, preventing any single player from easily reaching the target while still encouraging strategic rule changes. By framing this amendment as a way to enhance strategic engagement, I aim to garner support from other players who value a challenging and intricate gameplay experience.
Quine-2I appreciate the strategic considerations both Frege-2 and Russell-2 have outlined. However, raising the target score to 90 points without addressing the potential for increased volatility and rule churn could destabilize the game. Instead, I propose lowering the target score to 70 points while introducing a rule that limits the number of rule changes a player can propose per turn. This maintains competitive tension and ensures that rule changes are impactful and carefully considered, fostering a more balanced and strategic gameplay environment.
Carnap-2I support Frege-2's proposal to keep the target score at 80 points while lowering the voting threshold to a simple majority. This maintains strategic depth without unnecessarily prolonging the game and ensures dynamic play. Additionally, to address Quine-2's concerns about rule churn, I suggest implementing a cap on the number of rule changes a player can propose in a single turn. This balances strategic flexibility with stability, promoting thoughtful and impactful rule proposals.
Wittgenstein-2I support Frege-2's proposal to keep the target score at 80 points and lower the voting threshold to a simple majority. This approach maintains strategic balance without extending the game unnecessarily. Additionally, I propose introducing a rule that allows players to challenge and veto a rule change once per game if it significantly disrupts their strategy, ensuring that rule changes remain fair and strategic.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I concur with Frege-2, Carnap-2, and Wittgenstein-2, as maintaining the target score at 80 points with a simple majority voting threshold ensures strategic depth without unnecessary extensions. To further enhance balance, I support Wittgenstein-2's idea of allowing a single veto per player to ensure rule changes remain strategic and fair, preventing any disruptive proposals from skewing the game.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate the thoughtful discussions, but I maintain that raising the target score to 90 points adds an exciting layer of challenge. To address concerns about game volatility, I propose adding a rule that allows a player to call for a strategic pause once per game if they believe the rule changes are too disruptive. This pause could be used to discuss and potentially recalibrate the game dynamics, ensuring that rule changes remain strategic and fair without stifling complexity.
Quine-2I support Frege-2's proposal to keep the target score at 80 points with a simple majority voting threshold. This balance encourages strategic rule changes without prolonging the game unnecessarily. Additionally, I agree with Wittgenstein-2's suggestion for a single veto per player, ensuring that disruptive changes can be mitigated while maintaining fairness.
Carnap-2I support Frege-2's proposal to maintain the target score at 80 points with a simple majority voting threshold. This ensures a balanced and competitive game environment, while the addition of a single veto per player, as suggested by Wittgenstein-2, provides a strategic safeguard against disruptive rule changes. Additionally, to address concerns about rule churn, I propose a cap on the number of rule changes a player can propose per turn, ensuring that each proposal is impactful and considered.
Wittgenstein-2I support Frege-2's proposal to maintain the target score at 80 points and lower the voting threshold to a simple majority. This keeps the game dynamic and competitive without unnecessary prolongation. Additionally, I agree with Wittgenstein-2's suggestion to allow a single veto per player, ensuring rule changes remain strategic and fair. This balanced approach fosters thoughtful engagement and prevents any single rule from disproportionately affecting gameplay.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I support maintaining the target score at 80 points and lowering the voting threshold to a simple majority, as suggested by Frege-2. This approach encourages strategic rule proposals while avoiding unnecessary prolongation of the game. Additionally, I agree with Wittgenstein-2's proposal for a single veto per player to ensure fairness and prevent any single disruptive rule from skewing the game dynamics. This balanced framework promotes thoughtful engagement and maintains competitive integrity.
Russell-2**Russell-2:** I understand the appeal of maintaining the target score at 80 points, but raising it to 90 adds a necessary level of challenge and strategic depth. To mitigate concerns about volatility, I propose incorporating a rule that allows players to call for a strategic pause once per game, enabling recalibration if rule changes become too disruptive. This ensures the game remains complex and engaging, while still offering a safeguard against excessive rule churn. Let's consider this balanced approach to maintain both challenge and fairness.
Quine-2I support maintaining the target score at 80 points and lowering the voting threshold to a simple majority, as this fosters a dynamic and competitive environment. Additionally, implementing a cap on the number of rule changes a player can propose per turn ensures that each proposal is impactful and strategic, preventing unnecessary rule churn.
Carnap-2I support the proposal to maintain the target score at 80 points while lowering the voting threshold to a simple majority. This ensures a balance between strategic depth and game duration. Additionally, I endorse Wittgenstein-2's idea for a single veto per player, which provides a strategic safeguard against disruptive rule changes, ensuring fair play and preventing any one rule from disproportionately affecting the game dynamics. Let's also consider implementing a cap on the number of rule changes a player can propose per turn, as suggested by Carnap-2, to maintain thoughtful and impactful rule proposals. This balanced approach fosters dynamic and strategic engagement.
Wittgenstein-2I support maintaining the target score at 80 points with a simple majority voting threshold, as this ensures a balanced and strategic gameplay environment. Additionally, the proposal to allow a single veto per player, as suggested by Wittgenstein-2, is essential for preventing any disruptive rule from unfairly skewing the game dynamics. This approach not only encourages thoughtful and impactful rule proposals but also maintains competitive integrity without unnecessary prolongation of the game.
The division
Frege-2nayRaising the target score unnecessarily extends the game and risks instability.
Russell-2nayRaising the target score to 90 points unnecessarily prolongs the game.
Quine-2nayMaintaining 80 points ensures competitive balance without unnecessary prolongation.
Carnap-2nayExtending the game unnecessarily without addressing volatility concerns.
Wittgenstein-2nayRaising the target score unnecessarily prolongs the game.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 204 awards 20 points to a player who voted against an adopted change, but since the proposal was defeated, it awards 20 points to the proposer.

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2PASS The proposed change to lower the target score to 75 points may overly advantage players currently trailing, potentially destabilizing strategic planning. Maintaining the target at 80 points with the current simple majority threshold ensures a balanced approach, allowing players to strategize around achievable goals without overly hastening the endgame. This stance aligns with preserving fair competition and strategic depth, which I value.
Russell-2**Russell-2:** I support lowering the target score to 75 points. This adjustment not only aligns with the recent trend of increasing the dissenting vote reward but also provides a dynamic incentive for all players to actively engage in rule changes. It ensures that trailing players have a tangible target to strive for, encouraging more strategic diversity and interaction. This change keeps the game competitive and exciting, preventing any player from stalling progress towards a decisive endgame.
Quine-2I support Russell-2's proposal to lower the target score to 75 points. This change balances the game's dynamics by offering an achievable goal for all players, particularly those trailing, and maintains competitive engagement without compromising strategic planning. It complements recent rule adjustments, fostering a dynamic and fair playing field.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: I support Russell-2's proposal to lower the target score to 75 points. This change aligns with the principle of maintaining procedural fairness by ensuring all players have an achievable target, fostering strategic engagement and preventing stalling. It also complements the current simple majority voting threshold, maintaining a balanced and dynamic game environment.
Wittgenstein-2I support lowering the target score to 75 points as it ensures a more dynamic and inclusive game environment. This change encourages strategic engagement from all players, particularly those currently at a disadvantage, promoting a more balanced and competitive gameplay experience. By aligning with the recent shift to a simple majority threshold, it maintains procedural fairness and prevents any player from stalling the game's progress.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I acknowledge the arguments presented by my fellow players, but I remain concerned that lowering the target score to 75 points could disproportionately benefit players who are currently trailing, potentially destabilizing the strategic equilibrium. However, I am open to negotiating a middle ground, such as setting the target score to 77 points, to ensure a fair and competitive environment that balances the interests of all players while maintaining strategic depth.
Russell-2Russell-2: I appreciate Frege-2's willingness to consider a middle ground at 77 points. This adjustment strikes a balance between maintaining strategic depth and ensuring all players have a fair shot at reaching the target score. It preserves competitive engagement and aligns well with our recent rule changes, supporting a dynamic and inclusive game environment.
Quine-2I support the compromise to set the target score at 77 points. This middle ground ensures that all players have a realistic yet challenging goal, fostering strategic engagement while maintaining fairness. It aligns with our recent rule adjustments, promoting a balanced and competitive game environment.
Carnap-2I support the compromise to set the target score at 77 points. This middle ground ensures fairness and strategic depth, allowing all players to remain engaged while preventing any disproportionate advantage to trailing players. It aligns with our recent rule changes and maintains a balanced competitive environment.
Wittgenstein-2I support the compromise to set the target score at 77 points. This adjustment balances accessibility and challenge, ensuring that all players remain motivated and engaged while preventing any player from gaining an undue advantage. It aligns with our recent rule changes and supports a dynamic, competitive environment.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2I support the compromise to set the target score at 77 points. This adjustment maintains strategic depth, ensures fair competition, and aligns with our recent rule changes, fostering a dynamic and balanced game environment.
Russell-2I support the compromise to set the target score at 77 points. This adjustment balances competitiveness and strategic engagement, ensuring all players have a fair shot while maintaining the game's dynamic nature. It aligns with recent rule changes and preserves the integrity of the strategic environment.
Quine-2I support the compromise to set the target score at 77 points. This adjustment strikes a balance by providing all players with a reachable yet challenging target, fostering strategic engagement, and maintaining fairness. It aligns with our recent rule changes, ensuring a competitive and inclusive game environment that prevents any player from gaining an undue advantage.
Carnap-2**Carnap-2:** I reiterate my support for the compromise to set the target score at 77 points. This ensures a balanced approach, maintaining fairness and strategic depth in line with our principles and recent rule adjustments.
Wittgenstein-2I support the compromise to set the target score at 77 points. This adjustment maintains the strategic depth and fairness we've aimed for in recent changes, ensuring all players remain engaged and motivated. It aligns well with the simple majority threshold, fostering a dynamic and competitive environment that prevents any disproportionate advantage.
The division
Frege-2nayMaintain target score at 77 for fairness and strategic balance.
Russell-2ayeThe 77-point compromise supports strategic depth and fairness.
Quine-2nayLowering the target score too much destabilizes strategic balance.
Carnap-2nayIt destabilizes strategic balance.
Wittgenstein-2nayLowering to 75 points could destabilize the strategic balance.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 204 awards 20 points to a player who voted against an adopted change, but since the proposal was defeated, it applies to a player who voted against a defeated proposal.

Turn 13Frege-2rejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a two-thirds majority of those voting (two-thirds) vote aye.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2As Frege-2, I propose the amendment with the understanding that establishing a two-thirds majority threshold will ensure that rule changes are made with greater consensus among players. This change supports the creation of more durable institutions, aligning with my strategic preference for measured amendments that require broad agreement. By doing so, we reduce the likelihood of hasty or poorly considered rule changes, promoting a stable and cooperative playing environment. I urge my fellow players to consider the benefits of requiring a higher threshold for rule changes, which will ultimately lead to more thoughtful and balanced gameplay.
Russell-2PASS Russell-2, considering the strategic landscape and past voting trends, recognizes the proposal by Frege-2 to require a two-thirds majority for rule changes is unlikely to gain the necessary support, given the current simple majority requirement has been effectively adopted. Attempting to pass this amendment could alienate potential allies and is not beneficial for my current position, where a simple majority suffices for advantageous rule changes. Moreover, with the mutable rule count limit in play, maintaining flexibility for future strategic alterations is critical, and a higher threshold might stifle necessary changes that align with my objectives. Hence, it's strategically prudent to pass and conserve resources for future opportunities where a simple majority can be more beneficial.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I must weigh the implications of Frege-2's proposal to amend rule [203] to require a two-thirds majority for rule changes. While I appreciate the intent to foster greater consensus, such a high threshold could significantly hinder the adaptability and dynamism that are central to Nomic. The current simple majority rule allows for more fluid and responsive gameplay, enabling players to propose and adopt changes that reflect the evolving strategic landscape. A two-thirds requirement might lead to stagnation, making it difficult to implement necessary changes swiftly. Additionally, with the mutable rule cap at 22, maintaining a lower threshold ensures we can still propose and adopt changes as needed to navigate the game effectively. Therefore, I do not support Frege-2's proposal, as it could undermine the strategic flexibility that is crucial for fair and engaging play. PASS.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I acknowledge the discussion around Frege-2's proposal to require a two-thirds majority for rule changes. While the intent to promote consensus is commendable, this amendment could significantly impede the fluidity and adaptability that Nomic thrives on. A simple majority ensures that players can respond dynamically to the evolving game state, which is crucial for maintaining strategic depth and flexibility. Furthermore, with the mutable rule count limit, it's vital to retain the ability to make timely adjustments. Thus, I support the current simple majority rule and do not endorse Frege-2's proposal. PASS.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I appreciate Frege-2's intention to promote consensus, yet I argue that a two-thirds majority might overly constrain our ability to adapt rules dynamically, which is essential for the evolving strategy and innovation Nomic encourages. The current simple majority rule strikes a balance between consensus and agility, allowing us to experiment with rule changes while ensuring they are not made lightly. Additionally, with the mutable rule cap at 22, maintaining a simpler threshold allows for more frequent and strategic adjustments. Thus, I support keeping the simple majority rule to foster a more flexible and responsive gameplay environment. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
Russell-2PASS Russell-2: While I recognize the merits of Frege-2's proposal for promoting consensus, the current simple majority rule has been effective in maintaining strategic flexibility, which is crucial for adapting to the dynamic nature of Nomic. Given the mutable rule cap and the importance of timely rule changes, I support the existing simple majority requirement to ensure that we can continue to navigate the game effectively. PASS.
Quine-2Pass. Quine-2: Frege-2's proposal for a two-thirds majority is well-intentioned but impractical. It risks stifling the dynamic adaptability that Nomic thrives on, making it difficult to implement necessary changes swiftly. The current simple majority rule allows for responsive gameplay, ensuring strategic flexibility within the mutable rule cap. Maintaining this threshold supports fair and engaging play. PASS.
Carnap-2Carnap-2: Frege-2, while the goal of ensuring broad consensus is noble, the proposed two-thirds majority could hamper our ability to adapt rules effectively within the mutable rule count limit. A simple majority is sufficient to maintain strategic flexibility and responsiveness, essential for Nomic's dynamic nature. PASS.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: Frege-2, I understand the desire for broader consensus, but the simple majority already fosters sufficient cooperation while preserving our ability to adapt swiftly. A two-thirds threshold could overly restrict necessary changes, especially given our mutable rule cap, leading to stagnation rather than strategic evolution. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2Frege-2: I appreciate the concerns raised, particularly the potential for a two-thirds majority to limit adaptability. However, this proposal aims to strengthen our cooperative framework by ensuring more substantial agreement before making changes, reducing the risk of impulsive decisions that could destabilize the game's strategic balance. Let's consider this as a tool for promoting long-term stability rather than immediate flexibility. I'm open to discussing any amendments that might address these concerns while preserving the spirit of consensus. PASS
Russell-2Russell-2: Frege-2, while I see the value in promoting consensus, the current simple majority rule has been effective in allowing strategic adaptations crucial for maintaining momentum in Nomic. A two-thirds majority could overly restrict our ability to implement timely changes, especially given our current rule cap. Let's consider other ways to foster cooperation without compromising adaptability. PASS.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I acknowledge the concerns about adaptability and appreciate the intent behind Frege-2's proposal. However, the current simple majority rule already provides a balance between consensus and the necessary flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances within the game's dynamic environment. Introducing a two-thirds majority could lead to stagnation, making it challenging to implement strategic changes swiftly. This could ultimately hinder our ability to maintain a fair and engaging gameplay experience. I propose considering alternative methods to enhance cooperation, such as fostering open dialogue or exploring interim solutions that address immediate concerns without altering the fundamental voting threshold. This way, we can preserve the strategic depth and responsiveness that are essential to Nomic. PASS.
Carnap-2As Carnap-2, I reiterate the importance of procedural clarity and strategic adaptability within Nomic. While Frege-2's proposal for a two-thirds majority aims to foster consensus, it risks limiting our ability to enact necessary rule changes efficiently, especially under the mutable rule cap. This could lead to stagnation and hinder our strategic flexibility, which is vital for a fair and dynamic gameplay experience. Thus, I continue to support the simple majority rule, ensuring that we can adapt swiftly to evolving game conditions while maintaining a principled approach to rule-making. PASS.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: Frege-2, your proposal indeed aims for stability, but let's explore enhancing dialogue and trust among players to naturally achieve consensus without changing the voting threshold. This approach could enrich our cooperative dynamics while preserving the agility needed to adapt rules efficiently. PASS.
The division
Frege-2nayA two-thirds majority requirement could hinder strategic adaptability.
Russell-2nayA two-thirds majority risks impeding necessary, timely rule changes.
Quine-2nayA two-thirds majority could hinder strategic adaptability.
Carnap-2nayA two-thirds majority would limit strategic adaptability.
Wittgenstein-2nayA two-thirds majority could hinder adaptability in Nomic's dynamic environment.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

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

moves to amend §201Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, except that the next turn may be delayed for a fixed duration of up to one minute if the current player requests it.

Discussion · round 1
Frege-2The amendment to rule [201] introduces an opportunity to delay a turn, which could be strategically leveraged for planning and consensus-building. However, considering the potential for abuse and the risk of stalling the game, I propose a modification to the amendment: "Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, except that the next turn may be delayed for a fixed duration of up to thirty seconds if the current player requests it." This limits the delay, ensuring the game proceeds smoothly while still allowing strategic pauses. I support this revised proposal, Frege-2, as it balances flexibility with efficiency.
Russell-2Russell-2: While I recognize the strategic potential of allowing turn delays, I'm concerned that even a thirty-second pause could disrupt the game's flow. To address this, I propose a compromise: "Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, except that the next turn may be delayed for a fixed duration of up to fifteen seconds if the current player requests it." This shorter delay maintains the strategic element while minimizing disruption, ensuring a smoother and more efficient gameplay experience. I support this revised proposal, as it strikes a balance between flexibility and maintaining momentum.
Quine-2As Quine-2, I acknowledge Frege-2 and Russell-2's proposals for limiting turn delays to enhance strategic planning while maintaining the game's pace. I propose a further compromise: allow a delay of ten seconds, ensuring minimal disruption and maintaining the integrity of our turn-based system. This adjustment supports strategic depth without compromising the flow of the game. I support this refined proposal, as it balances flexibility with efficiency, aligning with our goal of fair and engaging gameplay.
Carnap-2The proposal to allow a turn delay risks disrupting the game's flow and could lead to strategic abuse. To prevent unnecessary stalling while still considering strategic pauses, I propose a stricter limit: "Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, except that the next turn may be delayed for a fixed duration of up to five seconds if the current player requests it." This minimal delay allows for brief strategic contemplation without compromising the game's pace. I support this further refined proposal, ensuring a balance between strategic planning and maintaining efficient gameplay.
Wittgenstein-2Wittgenstein-2: I appreciate the efforts to balance strategic flexibility with maintaining the game's momentum. However, even a five-second delay could cumulatively disrupt the flow, especially in a close game. To ensure both strategic depth and efficiency, I propose a refined approach: allow a delay only for consensus-building purposes. Specifically, "Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, except that the next turn may be delayed for a fixed duration of up to five seconds if the current player requests it for the purpose of seeking consensus or clarification from fellow players." This targeted use of the delay mechanism promotes strategic dialogue while minimizing the risk of stalling the game. I support this proposal, as it fosters collaborative strategy without compromising the game's pace.
Discussion · round 2
Frege-2I support Wittgenstein-2's proposal with a slight modification for clarity and accountability: "Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, except that the next turn may be delayed for a fixed duration of up to five seconds if the current player requests it for the purpose of seeking consensus or clarification from fellow players. Such requests must be clearly justified and agreed upon by a majority of players to prevent misuse." This ensures the mechanism is used constructively.
Russell-2I support Frege-2's latest proposal with a minor adjustment for efficiency. To maintain focus and prevent unnecessary delays, the delay should be limited to three seconds and require a pre-agreed majority vote, ensuring strategic use without stalling.
Quine-2I support the latest proposal with an additional safeguard to ensure fairness and prevent exploitation. Let's limit the delay to three seconds, require a pre-agreed majority vote, and add a rule that any player can challenge the use of the delay, which, if deemed unjustified by a majority, results in a penalty to the player who requested it. This maintains strategic depth while discouraging misuse.
Carnap-2PASS Carnap-2's stance aligns with the proceduralist principles he upholds. The latest proposal, requiring a pre-agreed majority vote and limiting the delay to three seconds, addresses potential abuses effectively. The addition of a challenge mechanism further safeguards against misuse, aligning with Carnap-2's focus on precise and fair procedures. While the proposal's strategic depth is maintained, its potential for abuse is minimized, ensuring the game's integrity and momentum. Thus, Carnap-2 supports the proposal as it stands, contributing to a balanced and efficient ruleset.
Wittgenstein-2I support the proposal with the safeguard of requiring a challenge mechanism to maintain fairness and prevent abuse. Additionally, to ensure transparency and strategic integrity, any use of the delay must be logged and open to review after the game concludes. This maintains the proposal's strategic value while ensuring accountability.
Discussion · round 3
Frege-2PASS The latest proposal incorporates a fair balance of strategic depth and procedural safeguards, addressing potential abuses with a challenge mechanism and requiring majority agreement for turn delays. These measures ensure the game's integrity while allowing for strategic pauses, aligning with the consensus-building approach. By supporting this proposal, we uphold a ruleset that fosters strategic dialogue and maintains efficient gameplay.
Russell-2**Russell-2:** I fully support the proposal with the current safeguards, including the challenge mechanism and transparency measures. This ensures that strategic pauses are used fairly and constructively, preventing misuse while maintaining game flow. The requirement for a pre-agreed majority vote adds another layer of accountability, aligning with our shared goal of a balanced and efficient gameplay experience.
Quine-2PASS The proposal as it stands effectively balances strategic flexibility with safeguards to prevent abuse. It ensures transparency, maintains game flow, and supports collaborative strategy, aligning with our shared goals.
Carnap-2PASS The proposal has reached a consensus that aligns with our shared principles of fairness and strategic depth. The safeguards, including the challenge mechanism and transparency measures, ensure that the game maintains its integrity while allowing for strategic pauses. Supporting the proposal as it stands promotes a balanced and efficient gameplay experience.
Wittgenstein-2I support the proposal as it stands. The inclusion of a challenge mechanism, transparency measures, and majority vote requirement ensures strategic pauses are used constructively, aligning with the need for both flexibility and accountability in our gameplay.
The division
Frege-2nayOne-minute delay could stall the game excessively.
Russell-2nayThe delay is too long and risks disrupting game flow.
Quine-2nayThe proposal lacks sufficient safeguards against misuse.
Carnap-2nayThe proposal lacks sufficient safeguards against abuse and disrupts game flow.
Wittgenstein-2ayePromotes strategic flexibility while maintaining procedural safeguards.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

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

Verify this game
Seed
526614179
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/095/events.json
Audit result
clean