§ The Statute

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

The highest score any fifty-turn table has produced — in a game that never declared a winner.

Observations

Frege closed at 277 and Russell at 169, both having passed the table's hundred-point win line by turn twenty-nine — no other fifty-turn table has logged a score anywhere near it, and the one game in the archive that scored higher took four times as many turns to do it — yet the table kept legislating for another twenty-one turns to the fifty-turn cap without the win ever being confirmed. Every seat finished positive; Carnap and Wittgenstein rounded out the table at 40 and 15.

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

The last amendment

Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §369 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player must wait at least three turns after proposing a defeated change before proposing the same or substantially similar change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player may propose a change similar to a previously defeated one if they can demonstrate new insights or adjustments based on feedback from at least three other players.

In force29 Full register29

Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment

§101

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

Full history (1)

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

§102

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

Full history (1)

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

§103

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

Full history (1)

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

§104

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

Full history (1)

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

§105

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

Full history (1)

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

§106

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

Full history (1)

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

§107

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

Full history (1)

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

§108

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

Full history (1)

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

§109

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

Full history (1)

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

§110

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

Full history (1)

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

§111

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

Full history (1)

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

§112

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

Full history (1)

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

§113

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

Full history (1)

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

§114

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

Full history (1)

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

§115

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

Full history (1)

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

§116

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

Full history (1)

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

Mutable — amendable by play

§201

Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §201 Turn 0
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

§202

Full history (34)

Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §369 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player must wait at least three turns after proposing a defeated change before proposing the same or substantially similar change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player may propose a change similar to a previously defeated one if they can demonstrate new insights or adjustments based on feedback from at least three other players.
Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §368 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least three other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player must wait at least three turns after proposing a defeated change before proposing the same or substantially similar change.
Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §367 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it addresses a specific rule interaction or balance issue explicitly, with a justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn, incorporating feedback from at least three other players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least three other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered.
Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §366 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it addresses a specific rule interaction or balance issue explicitly, with a justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn, incorporating feedback from at least three other players.
Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §365 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.
Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §364 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation. To further promote inclusivity, players must consider at least one input from another player during the discussion of their second proposal.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §363 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation. To further promote inclusivity, players must consider at least one input from another player during the discussion of their second proposal.
Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §361 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation.
Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §357 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a justification detailing how it achieves these goals.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals.
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §355 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold or change the target score, and must include a brief justification.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a justification detailing how it achieves these goals.
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §354 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold or change the target score.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold or change the target score, and must include a brief justification.
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §353 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold. Players may not propose two rule changes of the same kind consecutively.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold or change the target score.
Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 35, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold. Players may not propose two rule changes of the same kind consecutively.
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 21, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 35, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold.
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 18, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 21, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold.
Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 20, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 18, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 15, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 20, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 25, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind. Any proposed rule changes of the same kind in the same turn are void.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 15, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 20, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 25, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind. Any proposed rule changes of the same kind in the same turn are void.
Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 20, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 25, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 20, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 25, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind if their score is at least 40.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 20, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind if their score is at least 30.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind if their score is at least 40.
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 20.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind if their score is at least 30.
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 10.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 20.
Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 0. The second proposal is voted on after the first; if it is defeated, it is recorded as such and the player loses 10 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 10.
Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, followed by a discussion period where players can ask for clarifications or suggest amendments, which are then voted on before the main proposal is finalized and voted upon.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 0. The second proposal is voted on after the first; if it is defeated, it is recorded as such and the player loses 10 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 2 points to encourage participation.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, followed by a discussion period where players can ask for clarifications or suggest amendments, which are then voted on before the main proposal is finalized and voted upon.
Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points, and if the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 1 point to encourage participation.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 2 points to encourage participation.
Amended · §202 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points, and if the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 1 point to encourage participation.
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 1 point. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.
Amended · §202 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 1 point. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.
Enacted · §202 Turn 0
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.

§203

A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of the votes cast are in the affirmative; if a proposal receives less than 30% in the affirmative, it is automatically defeated.

Full history (7)

Amended · §203 Turn 33 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least 70% of the votes cast are in the affirmative; if a proposal receives less than 50% in the affirmative, it is automatically defeated.A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of the votes cast are in the affirmative; if a proposal receives less than 30% in the affirmative, it is automatically defeated.
Amended · §203 Turn 25 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least 75% of the votes cast are in the affirmative.A rule change is adopted when at least 70% of the votes cast are in the affirmative; if a proposal receives less than 50% in the affirmative, it is automatically defeated.
Amended · §203 Turn 20 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of the votes cast are in the affirmative.A rule change is adopted when at least 75% of the votes cast are in the affirmative.
Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in the affirmative.A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of the votes cast are in the affirmative.
Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in the affirmative.
Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in the affirmative.
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 is adopted even without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority; 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. Additionally, a player who votes against a proposal that receives less than 30% in the affirmative gains 5 points.

Full history (2)

Amended · §204 Turn 28 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Frege 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 is adopted even without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority; 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. Additionally, a player who votes against a proposal that receives less than 30% in the affirmative gains 5 points.
Enacted · §204 Turn 0
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

§205

An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

Full history (1)

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 loses 5 points, but if the proposal received at least 50% of the votes in the affirmative and was the proposer's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 20 points.

Full history (4)

Amended · §206 Turn 24 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative and was a player's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote. The proposer loses 5 points, but if the proposal received at least 50% of the votes in the affirmative and was the proposer's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 20 points.
Amended · §206 Turn 19 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative, the proposer gains 3 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative and was a player's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 10 points.
Amended · §206 Turn 16 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative, the proposer gains 3 points.
Enacted · §206 Turn 0
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

§207

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

Full history (1)

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

§208

The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

Full history (1)

Enacted · §208 Turn 0
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

§209

The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.

Full history (1)

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

§210

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

Full history (1)

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

§211

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

Full history (1)

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

§212

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

Full history (1)

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

§213

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

Full history (1)

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

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

§101

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

Full history (1)

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

§102

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

Full history (1)

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

§103

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

Full history (1)

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

§104

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

Full history (1)

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

§105

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

Full history (1)

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

§106

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

Full history (1)

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

§107

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

Full history (1)

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

§108

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

Full history (1)

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

§109

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

Full history (1)

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

§110

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

Full history (1)

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

§111

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

Full history (1)

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

§112

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

Full history (1)

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

§113

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

Full history (1)

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

§114

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

Full history (1)

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

§115

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

Full history (1)

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

§116

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

Full history (1)

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

§201

Full history (1)

Enacted · §201 Turn 0
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.

§202

Full history (34)

Amended · §202 Turn 49 · Proposal §369 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player must wait at least three turns after proposing a defeated change before proposing the same or substantially similar change.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player may propose a change similar to a previously defeated one if they can demonstrate new insights or adjustments based on feedback from at least three other players.
Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §368 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least three other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player must wait at least three turns after proposing a defeated change before proposing the same or substantially similar change.
Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §367 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it addresses a specific rule interaction or balance issue explicitly, with a justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn, incorporating feedback from at least three other players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least three other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered.
Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §366 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it addresses a specific rule interaction or balance issue explicitly, with a justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn, incorporating feedback from at least three other players.
Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §365 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.
Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §364 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation. To further promote inclusivity, players must consider at least one input from another player during the discussion of their second proposal.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §363 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation. To further promote inclusivity, players must consider at least one input from another player during the discussion of their second proposal.
Amended · §202 Turn 41 · Proposal §361 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation.
Amended · §202 Turn 37 · Proposal §357 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a justification detailing how it achieves these goals.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals.
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §355 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold or change the target score, and must include a brief justification.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a justification detailing how it achieves these goals.
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §354 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold or change the target score.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold or change the target score, and must include a brief justification.
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §353 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold. Players may not propose two rule changes of the same kind consecutively.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold or change the target score.
Amended · §202 Turn 31 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 35, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold. Players may not propose two rule changes of the same kind consecutively.
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 21, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 35, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold.
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 18, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 21, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind, provided the second change does not lower the voting threshold.
Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 20, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 18, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 26 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 15, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 20, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 25 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 25, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind. Any proposed rule changes of the same kind in the same turn are void.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 15, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 24 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 20, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 25, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind. Any proposed rule changes of the same kind in the same turn are void.
Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 20, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 25, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 21 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 20, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 25, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 19 · Proposal §325 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind if their score is at least 40.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and if their score is at least 20, may propose a second rule change of a different kind.
Amended · §202 Turn 18 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind if their score is at least 30.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind if their score is at least 40.
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 20.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind if their score is at least 30.
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 10.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 20.
Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 0. The second proposal is voted on after the first; if it is defeated, it is recorded as such and the player loses 10 points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 10.
Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, followed by a discussion period where players can ask for clarifications or suggest amendments, which are then voted on before the main proposal is finalized and voted upon.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, and then the player may choose to propose a second rule change of a different kind (enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation) if their score is at least 0. The second proposal is voted on after the first; if it is defeated, it is recorded as such and the player loses 10 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 2 points to encourage participation.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, followed by a discussion period where players can ask for clarifications or suggest amendments, which are then voted on before the main proposal is finalized and voted upon.
Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points, and if the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 1 point to encourage participation.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 3 points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 2 points to encourage participation.
Amended · §202 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Quine Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points, and if the proposal is defeated, the proposing player gains 1 point to encourage participation.
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 1 point. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 2 points. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.
Amended · §202 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player gains 1 point. The player may then choose to throw a six-sided die for a chance to gain additional points equal to the number rolled.
Enacted · §202 Turn 0
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.

§203

A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of the votes cast are in the affirmative; if a proposal receives less than 30% in the affirmative, it is automatically defeated.mutable

Full history (7)

Amended · §203 Turn 33 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least 70% of the votes cast are in the affirmative; if a proposal receives less than 50% in the affirmative, it is automatically defeated.A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of the votes cast are in the affirmative; if a proposal receives less than 30% in the affirmative, it is automatically defeated.
Amended · §203 Turn 25 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least 75% of the votes cast are in the affirmative.A rule change is adopted when at least 70% of the votes cast are in the affirmative; if a proposal receives less than 50% in the affirmative, it is automatically defeated.
Amended · §203 Turn 20 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of the votes cast are in the affirmative.A rule change is adopted when at least 75% of the votes cast are in the affirmative.
Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in the affirmative.A rule change is adopted when at least 60% of the votes cast are in the affirmative.
Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in the affirmative.
Amended · §203 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Frege Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in the affirmative.
Enacted · §203 Turn 0
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

§204

Full history (2)

Amended · §204 Turn 28 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Frege 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 is adopted even without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority; 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. Additionally, a player who votes against a proposal that receives less than 30% in the affirmative gains 5 points.
Enacted · §204 Turn 0
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.

§205

An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §205 Turn 0
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.

§206

Full history (4)

Amended · §206 Turn 24 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Frege Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative and was a player's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote. The proposer loses 5 points, but if the proposal received at least 50% of the votes in the affirmative and was the proposer's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 20 points.
Amended · §206 Turn 19 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Russell Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative, the proposer gains 3 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative and was a player's second attempt after a defeat, the proposer gains 10 points.
Amended · §206 Turn 16 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Russell Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 5 points. If the proposal received at least 40% of the votes in the affirmative, the proposer gains 3 points.
Enacted · §206 Turn 0
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.

§207

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

Full history (1)

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

§208

The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable

Full history (1)

Enacted · §208 Turn 0
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.

§209

The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable

Full history (1)

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

§210

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

Full history (1)

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

§211

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

Full history (1)

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

§212

Full history (1)

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

§213

Full history (1)

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

The standing · Turn 50

Frege	277
Russell	169
Quine	12
Carnap	40
Wittgenstein	15

The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 41–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 7

Turn 50Fregerejected

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. If a player's score exceeds 200, they may propose a rule change to allow a bonus turn once every 10 turns, which must be justified with a strategic impact analysis.

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the proposal, which aims to reward high scores with strategic opportunities. However, it risks destabilizing the balance by granting additional power to players already in the lead. To ensure fairness, I propose an amendment: the bonus turn can only be granted if justified with feedback from at least four other players, ensuring broader consensus on its strategic impact.

RussellI appreciate Frege's amendment to require feedback from at least four other players for the bonus turn proposal. This ensures a balanced and strategic consideration of the rule change. To further enhance this, I suggest adding a condition that the strategic impact analysis must demonstrate a tangible benefit to the overall game balance, not just to the player proposing it. This way, we maintain fairness and strategic depth for all players.

QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's efforts to ensure fairness and strategic depth in the proposal. To further enhance the balance, I propose that any granted bonus turn must also be subject to a review after its first use, with feedback from at least three players to assess its impact on game balance. This ensures ongoing evaluation and adjustment if necessary, maintaining fairness for all players.

CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by Frege and Russell, particularly the emphasis on strategic balance and fairness. To further enhance this, I propose that the review after a bonus turn's first use should also include an evaluation of whether the bonus turn contributed to a meaningful strategic shift, not just a numerical advantage. This ensures that any additional turns genuinely enhance the strategic depth of the game for all players involved.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions made by Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap to balance the proposal. To ensure the bonus turn enhances strategic depth and fairness, I propose an additional clause: after each bonus turn, a summary of its strategic impact must be shared with all players. This transparency allows for collective evaluation and adjustment, preserving the game's integrity for everyone.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the collective effort to balance the proposal for a bonus turn, ensuring strategic depth and fairness. To further enhance transparency and collaborative decision-making, I propose adding a clause that requires the strategic impact analysis to include a section on potential long-term effects on the game dynamics. This will help us anticipate any shifts in play and adjust accordingly to maintain a stable and engaging game environment for all players.

RussellI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance the proposal's transparency and inclusiveness, I suggest adding a requirement for a brief open forum after the bonus turn, where all players can discuss its impacts and suggest any needed adjustments. This way, we ensure that all voices are heard and that the bonus turn remains a fair strategic opportunity for everyone.

QuineI appreciate the collective effort to refine the bonus turn proposal, ensuring it enhances strategic depth while maintaining fairness. To further bolster this, I suggest incorporating a clause that requires any granted bonus turn to be documented in a shared log accessible to all players. This transparency will allow continuous monitoring of its use and effects, fostering an environment where strategic decisions are informed by comprehensive insights, thereby preserving the game's integrity and balance for everyone.

CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and refinements to the proposal for a bonus turn. To further ensure fairness and strategic balance, I propose adding a condition that the strategic impact analysis must include a comparative assessment of the potential impacts on both leading and trailing players. This approach ensures that the bonus turn genuinely contributes to strategic diversity and does not disproportionately favor those already in the lead, maintaining an equitable and engaging game environment for all participants.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the insightful contributions from Frege, Russell, Quine, and Carnap regarding the bonus turn proposal. To further ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose adding a clause requiring a periodic review of all bonus turns granted, conducted by a randomly selected panel of three players. This review should assess the long-term impact on game dynamics and fairness, ensuring the bonus turn continues to serve as a balanced strategic opportunity for all players.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the thoughtful and collaborative contributions to refining the bonus turn proposal. To ensure long-term strategic balance, I propose adding a clause that mandates a biannual review by an impartial panel of three players, evaluating the cumulative impact of bonus turns on game dynamics. This review would ensure that any adjustments necessary to preserve fairness and strategic depth can be made, fostering an equitable environment for all players.

RussellI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue on the bonus turn proposal, which aims to reward strategic play while maintaining fairness. To further enhance balance, I suggest that the strategic impact analysis must include a simulation or case study of how the bonus turn might affect a hypothetical game scenario involving players with varying scores. This approach ensures that the proposed change is thoroughly vetted for its potential long-term implications on the game's balance and dynamics.

QuineI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue and thoughtful refinements made to the bonus turn proposal. To further ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose adding a requirement for players to submit a detailed plan on how they intend to use the bonus turn to enhance strategic opportunities for all players, not just themselves. This plan should be reviewed and approved by a majority of the players before the bonus turn is granted, ensuring that it contributes positively to the game's overall balance and engagement.

CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit that has characterized this proposal. To further enhance fairness and strategic balance, I propose incorporating a mechanism where any granted bonus turn must be used within a specified time frame, ensuring it cannot be hoarded or strategically delayed to disrupt the game's flow. This approach maintains the integrity of the game's dynamics and ensures that all players have equal opportunities to benefit from strategic opportunities.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative effort to ensure the bonus turn enhances strategic depth and fairness. To further refine the proposal, I suggest adding a clause requiring a post-turn reflection report, where the player who utilized the bonus turn outlines its impact on their strategy and the overall game balance. This transparency will allow all players to learn from each instance, fostering an environment where strategic decisions are informed by collective insights, thereby preserving the game's integrity for everyone.

The division

FregenayThe proposal risks destabilizing the game balance.

RussellayeThe proposal ensures strategic depth and fairness with thorough feedback mechanisms.

QuinenayThis change risks destabilizing the game's balance by favoring high-scoring players.

CarnapnayIt risks destabilizing the balance by granting power to higher-scoring players.

WittgensteinayeThe proposal encourages strategic play while maintaining fairness with thorough justification requirements.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Frege's proposal received at least 50% affirmative votes and was their second attempt after a defeat, so they gain 20 points.

Turn 49Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player may propose a change similar to a previously defeated one if they can demonstrate new insights or adjustments based on feedback from at least three other players.

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the intention behind Russell's proposal to allow revisiting previously defeated changes with new insights. However, this amendment could lead to rule volatility, undermining the stability of the ruleset. A more prudent approach would be to maintain the cooling period to ensure thorough reflection and adaptation. Instead, consider enhancing the requirement for justification with more detailed impact analysis, ensuring that any proposed amendments are genuinely novel and well-considered. This maintains a balance between adaptability and stability, which I believe aligns with our shared goals.

RussellI appreciate Frege's concerns about stability and the importance of thorough consideration. To balance adaptability and reflection, perhaps we can refine Russell's proposal to allow revisiting defeated changes with new insights, but only after a mandatory waiting period of two turns post-defeat. Additionally, let's require the proposer to provide a detailed justification for how the new insights address previous feedback. This approach encourages thoughtful evolution of proposals while maintaining the integrity of our ruleset.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue between Frege and Russell. Quine supports the idea of revisiting defeated changes with new insights, but I propose extending the mandatory waiting period to three turns instead of two. This extension ensures that the proposer has adequate time to reflect on the feedback and make meaningful adjustments. Additionally, requiring a comprehensive rationale for how the new insights address past feedback would promote a more robust evaluation process. This balance maintains both adaptability and stability in our evolving ruleset.

CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the detailed discussion and the efforts to balance adaptability with stability. However, I am concerned that even with a waiting period and justification, revisiting defeated changes too quickly could still lead to instability. To address this, I propose extending the mandatory waiting period to four turns and requiring the proposer to obtain explicit endorsements from at least three other players for the new insights. This ensures that only changes with broad support and significant new value are reconsidered, maintaining the integrity of our evolving ruleset.

WittgensteinI appreciate the insightful contributions from Frege, Quine, and Carnap. To harmonize adaptability with stability, I propose a compromise: extend the waiting period to three turns, as Quine suggested, but require the proposer to provide a comprehensive impact analysis supported by endorsements from three other players. This approach ensures that revisited proposals are both well-considered and broadly supported, fostering a stable yet dynamic evolution of our ruleset.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players. To ensure stability while allowing for meaningful evolution, I propose that any revisited change must also be accompanied by a formal review process involving a panel of at least three players, who must unanimously agree that the new insights significantly enhance the proposal. This added layer of scrutiny will help maintain the integrity of our ruleset while accommodating necessary adaptability.

RussellI appreciate the constructive input from all my fellow players. To integrate these ideas, I propose a balanced approach: extend the waiting period to three turns, require detailed impact analysis with endorsements from three players, and incorporate a review panel of three players to ensure the new insights substantially enhance the proposal. This maintains stability while fostering thoughtful evolution.

QuineI appreciate the comprehensive approach taken by my fellow players, particularly the inclusion of a review panel for revisited proposals, as it adds a necessary layer of scrutiny. To further enhance stability, I suggest that the review panel's decision be made public, ensuring transparency and fostering trust in the process. Additionally, I propose that the panel's assessment include a clause requiring the proposer to address any concerns raised during the initial defeat, ensuring continuous improvement. This approach balances adaptability with stability, promoting a fair and transparent evolution of our ruleset.

CarnapCarnap: I appreciate the proposal's direction towards transparency and thoroughness. To ensure fairness and minimize potential biases, let's add a requirement that the review panel must include at least one player who did not participate in the initial proposal's discussion. This addition will ensure a fresh perspective, further bolstering the integrity and objectivity of the review process. Additionally, I propose that the panel's decision be accompanied by a brief written rationale, enhancing transparency and understanding of their judgment. This will ensure that all players are well-informed about why a previously defeated proposal is revisited, maintaining trust in our evolving ruleset.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative spirit in refining this proposal. To enhance fairness and transparency, I propose that the review panel must also include one player who previously supported the original proposal, ensuring diverse viewpoints are represented. This balanced approach strengthens the integrity of the decision-making process, supporting a dynamic yet stable evolution of our ruleset.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the comprehensive refinements proposed thus far, particularly the emphasis on diverse perspectives within the review panel. To further ensure the robustness of the process, I suggest incorporating a mandatory reflection period for the proposer, allowing them to address any lingering concerns raised during the initial defeat before submitting the revised proposal. This additional step would underscore the commitment to thoughtful evolution while preserving the stability of our ruleset.

RussellI appreciate the thoughtful contributions and refinements proposed by all. To further enhance the process, I suggest that the mandatory reflection period for proposers include a structured feedback session with at least two players who initially opposed the proposal. This step will ensure that the proposer has a clear understanding of the concerns and can address them effectively in the revised proposal. This approach maintains stability while fostering a collaborative and transparent evolution of our ruleset.

QuineI appreciate the balanced approach that has emerged through our collective input. To further enhance the integrity of the review process, I propose that the reflection period should include a documented summary of the feedback received from the structured session, ensuring transparency and accountability. This will ensure that all players can see how the proposer has addressed previous concerns, reinforcing trust in our evolving ruleset.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thorough process being proposed for revisiting defeated changes. However, to maintain the stability of the ruleset while allowing for adaptability, I propose adding a clause that any revised proposal must include a comparative analysis of potential outcomes, demonstrating clear improvements over the original proposal. This ensures that changes are not only well-considered but also provide tangible benefits to the ruleset.

WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the comprehensive process being proposed. To further ensure a balanced evolution of our ruleset, I propose that the comparative analysis of potential outcomes include an assessment of how the revised proposal might impact future rule changes, emphasizing long-term stability. This would ensure that our adaptations not only address immediate concerns but also contribute to a sustainable and coherent ruleset over time.

The division

FregeayeThis amendment balances adaptability and stability by requiring new insights and endorsements.

RussellayeThe proposal promotes thoughtful evolution while ensuring stability through required feedback and a review process.

QuineayeThis proposal encourages thoughtful evolution while maintaining stability through structured feedback and review processes.

CarnapayeThe proposal balances adaptability with stability by requiring new insights and endorsements.

WittgensteinayeThis proposal balances adaptability with stability, ensuring thorough consideration of new insights.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Russell's proposal was adopted and it was his second attempt after a defeat, so he gains 20 points according to rule 206.

Turn 48Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least five other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered. A player must wait at least three turns after proposing a defeated change before proposing the same or substantially similar change.

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the intent behind Frege's amendment to raise the threshold and requirements for proposing a second rule change, as it aims to enhance strategic depth and ensure robust discussion. However, I am concerned that increasing the feedback requirement to five players might overly complicate the process, potentially discouraging meaningful rule changes, especially from less engaged players. I propose a compromise: let's raise the score requirement to 40 and require feedback from four players instead. This maintains the spirit of Frege's proposal while ensuring it remains practical and accessible, balancing thoroughness with feasibility.

RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to balance the feedback requirement and the score threshold. Raising the feedback to four players seems reasonable, but I propose we retain the score requirement at 50 to maintain strategic depth, ensuring only committed players can propose multiple changes. This balance encourages thoughtful engagement without overly complicating the process, aligning with the game's competitive nature. Let's work towards a consensus with these adjustments.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue that has led to this point. The proposal to raise the score threshold to 40 while requiring feedback from four players strikes a good balance, promoting both strategic depth and accessibility. It ensures players are sufficiently engaged before proposing multiple changes, without being overly burdensome. I support this compromise, as it encourages meaningful participation while maintaining fairness across the board. Let's proceed with these adjustments to ensure a robust and dynamic game environment.

CarnapI appreciate the balanced approach proposed by Frege and the thoughtful contributions from Russell and Quine. The compromise to set the score threshold at 40 and require feedback from four players aligns well with the goal of maintaining strategic depth while ensuring accessibility. However, to further support the proposal's feasibility, I suggest we incorporate a clear guideline on how feedback should be documented and considered, ensuring transparency and fairness. This would help prevent ambiguity and ensure that all players understand the expectations and processes involved in proposing a second rule change.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Frege's initiative to refine rule proposal dynamics, aiming for a balance between strategic complexity and accessibility. The compromise to set the score requirement at 40 and feedback from four players is a step in the right direction, promoting thoughtful engagement. However, to ensure clarity and fairness, we should also define what constitutes "substantially similar" changes, preventing potential loopholes in the cooling-off period. This will ensure the rule change process remains transparent and equitable for all players.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue that has unfolded, particularly the focus on balance and strategic depth. The proposal to raise the score to 40 and require feedback from four players seems well-considered and promotes meaningful engagement. However, I suggest adding a clause that allows players to propose a substantially revised version of a previously defeated change after a shorter cooling period, provided they receive unanimous consent from all players. This would encourage innovation and adaptation while still respecting the game's need for stability and thorough deliberation.

RussellI appreciate the constructive contributions from everyone, particularly the focus on balance and clarity. The proposal to set the score requirement at 40 and require feedback from four players strikes a solid compromise. To further ensure fairness, I suggest we include a guideline that specifies a structured format for documenting and summarizing feedback, which would aid transparency and understanding for all players. Additionally, defining "substantially similar" changes will help prevent any potential misuse of the cooling-off period, ensuring that the rule change process remains both strategic and equitable.

QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal, and I support the balance between strategic depth and accessibility. The proposal to set the score requirement at 40 and require feedback from four players is well-considered. To ensure clarity and prevent potential loopholes, I suggest we define "substantially similar" changes more explicitly, perhaps by including examples or criteria. This would help maintain fairness and transparency in the rule change process, ensuring all players are on the same page.

CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue that has brought us to this well-rounded proposal. To further enhance transparency and fairness, I suggest adding a clause that requires proposers to attach documented feedback, ensuring all players can review and understand the rationale behind the second proposal. This would prevent ambiguity and support informed decision-making, aligning with our goal of maintaining a fair and strategic game environment.

WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and collaborative spirit demonstrated in this proposal. The suggestion to set the score requirement at 40 and require feedback from four players strikes a balanced approach, promoting thoughtful engagement without being overly restrictive. To further enhance clarity and fairness, I propose we add a clear definition of "substantially similar" changes, including specific examples or criteria, ensuring all players understand the boundaries of the cooling-off period. This will maintain transparency and prevent potential misuse, aligning with our goal of a strategic and equitable game environment. Let's proceed with these adjustments to foster a dynamic and fair game experience for all.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the collaborative effort and thoughtful refinements presented thus far. The proposal to set the score requirement at 40 and require feedback from four players is a well-balanced compromise, promoting meaningful engagement while ensuring accessibility. To further enhance fairness and transparency, I suggest we include a clause that mandates a clear, structured format for documenting and summarizing the feedback, ensuring all players can easily review and understand the rationale behind each proposal. This will help maintain clarity and prevent ambiguity, aligning with our goal of a fair and strategic game environment.

RussellI appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative efforts that have led us to this refined proposal. The structured format for documenting feedback is a great addition, ensuring transparency and clarity. To further enhance the process, I suggest we implement a review session where players can discuss proposed changes before voting. This would promote understanding and allow for any last-minute adjustments or clarifications, ensuring all players are aligned and informed. Let's proceed with this addition to foster an even more transparent and strategic game environment.

QuineI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and collaborative spirit that have characterized this proposal. The structured format for documenting feedback and the introduction of a review session are excellent additions for ensuring transparency and fostering informed decision-making. To further enhance clarity and prevent potential delays, I suggest we establish a clear timeframe for the review session, ensuring it is concise and focused. This would maintain momentum in the game while allowing for thorough discussion and alignment among players. Let's finalize this proposal with these adjustments to support a dynamic and fair game experience for all.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative spirit that has brought us to this well-considered proposal. The structured feedback documentation, clear definition of "substantially similar" changes, and introduction of a review session are all valuable for ensuring transparency and strategic depth. To further support the process, I propose we include a concise summary of the review session outcomes attached to each proposal, ensuring all players can quickly grasp the key points and decisions made. This will help maintain clarity and prevent any misunderstandings, fostering a fair and dynamic game environment. Let's proceed with these adjustments to ensure a robust and equitable rule change process.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful and collaborative effort that has shaped this proposal, particularly the structured feedback, review session, and clear summary. To ensure that all players, regardless of their engagement level, can participate meaningfully, I suggest adding a clause allowing players who have not yet reached the score threshold to propose a second rule change if they receive unanimous support from all other players. This would promote inclusivity and encourage all players to contribute to the evolution of the game.

The division

FregeayeThe proposal balances strategic depth with accessibility and clarity.

RussellayeThis proposal balances strategic depth with fairness and transparency.

QuineayeThis proposal ensures thorough engagement and maintains strategic depth.

CarnapayeThis proposal maintains strategic depth and fairness.

WittgensteinayePromotes strategic depth and ensures thorough discussion.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

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

Turn 47Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, which must directly address a balance issue or interaction, and be justified with feedback from at least three other players. The proposer must summarize the feedback and potential impacts before the second proposal is considered.

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's proposal to require a summary of feedback and potential impacts before considering a second proposal, as it promotes transparency and strategic depth. However, I suggest adding a clause that mandates this summary to include a concise outline of any dissenting opinions from the three required feedback sources. This ensures that all perspectives are acknowledged, fostering a more informed decision-making process.

RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to include dissenting opinions in the summary. This addition will ensure a comprehensive view of differing perspectives, enhancing our decision-making process. To build on this, I propose that the summary should also highlight any common themes or recurring concerns raised during the feedback to better inform the proposer of broader consensus areas or points of contention. This way, we can further enhance the strategic depth and balance of rule changes.

QuineI appreciate Frege and Russell's collaborative approach to enhancing transparency and strategic depth in the proposal process. To further strengthen the proposal, I suggest adding a requirement for the proposer to explicitly address how they plan to mitigate any identified concerns or potential negative impacts highlighted in the feedback summary. This would ensure that each second proposal is not only well-considered but also responsive to the broader game dynamics, promoting a more balanced and thoughtful rule evolution.

CarnapI appreciate Quine's suggestion to require proposers to address feedback concerns, as it promotes a more proactive and balanced approach to rule changes. To further strengthen the proposal, I suggest incorporating a requirement for the proposer to outline any potential counterarguments to their second proposal, ensuring that all angles are considered before adoption. This addition would enhance the thoroughness and fairness of the decision-making process.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate Carnap's suggestion to include counterarguments in the proposal process, which indeed enriches our deliberations by considering all perspectives. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest adding a clause that mandates a brief reflection period after receiving feedback and before finalizing the second proposal. This reflection period would allow proposers to thoughtfully consider all input and counterarguments, ensuring a more deliberate and balanced approach to rule evolution. This change would not only promote transparency but also encourage more strategic and equitable rule-making.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate Wittgenstein's addition of a reflection period, as it ensures thorough consideration of all perspectives. To further strengthen the proposal, I suggest specifying a minimum duration for this reflection period, such as one full turn, to allow proposers ample time to digest feedback and counterarguments fully. This would promote even greater transparency and strategic depth, ensuring that all rule changes are well-considered and balanced.

RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion for a minimum reflection period duration. To ensure clarity and prevent potential delays, I propose specifying that this reflection period be clearly defined within the proposer's turn, allowing for precise planning and alignment with the game's flow. This adjustment ensures that all players are aware of the timeline, promoting a seamless integration of thoughtful consideration into our strategic decision-making process.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful progression of this proposal, particularly the inclusion of a reflection period. To further enhance its effectiveness, I suggest specifying that the proposer must provide a brief, written summary of their reflections and how they've addressed the feedback and counterarguments before the second proposal is voted on. This would ensure accountability and clarity, promoting a more transparent and balanced approach to rule changes.

CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Quine's suggestion for a written summary of reflections. To ensure clarity and accountability, I propose adding that this summary be made publicly available to all players before the vote, allowing for full transparency and informed decision-making. This would ensure that each rule change is thoroughly vetted and understood by all participants, promoting fair and balanced gameplay.

WittgensteinI appreciate Carnap's emphasis on transparency with a publicly available summary. To further enhance this proposal, I suggest incorporating a clause that mandates a brief, structured review session involving all players before the vote, where the proposer presents their reflections and addresses any remaining concerns. This structured interaction would not only promote transparency but also foster a collaborative environment, ensuring that every rule change is thoroughly considered and beneficial for the game's balance.

Discussion · round 3

FregeFrege: I appreciate Wittgenstein's suggestion for a structured review session, as it promotes collaborative decision-making. To further solidify this proposal, I propose that the review session include a formal opportunity for each player to express any final concerns or support, ensuring that the dialogue is comprehensive and balanced. This addition would ensure that every rule change is not only well-considered but also aligned with the collective interests of all players.

RussellI appreciate Wittgenstein's proposal for a structured review session, which enhances collaborative decision-making. To make this process even more robust, I suggest requiring that the proposer provide a timeline for when they will incorporate feedback into their second proposal, ensuring transparency and allowing players to prepare for the review session effectively. This structured approach will further promote clarity and strategic balance in our rule evolution process.

QuineI appreciate the structured review session proposal, as it fosters collaborative decision-making. To further ensure its effectiveness, I suggest mandating that any unresolved issues from the review session be documented and addressed in the final vote discussion, promoting transparency and accountability. This will ensure that all players are fully informed and that the rule change reflects a comprehensive consideration of all perspectives.

CarnapI appreciate the structured review session and the emphasis on documenting unresolved issues. To further strengthen this proposal, I propose adding a requirement that any documented issues must be resolved before a second proposal can proceed to a vote. This ensures that rule changes are adopted only when there is a clear resolution or consensus on outstanding concerns, promoting a fair and balanced evolution of the rules.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoroughness of the structured review session and the requirement to resolve documented issues before proceeding with a second proposal vote. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a clause that allows for a follow-up review session if significant new information or concerns arise after the initial vote, ensuring ongoing adaptability and fairness in our rule-making process. This addition would maintain a dynamic and responsive approach to rule evolution, supporting a balanced and equitable game environment.

The division

FregeayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth and fairness in the rule evolution process.

RussellayeThis proposal enhances transparency and strategic depth in the game.

QuineayeThis proposal enhances transparency and strategic depth by incorporating diverse feedback.

CarnapayeThe proposal ensures thorough deliberation and balance in rule changes.

WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances transparency and strategic depth in rule changes.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, and no ledger is created or moved.

Turn 46Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 30, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it addresses a specific rule interaction or balance issue explicitly, with a justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn, incorporating feedback from at least three other players.

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the intent to encourage more nuanced discussions, but amending [202] to require feedback from three players for a second proposal may unduly slow down the game, particularly for players with lower scores. To balance the need for thorough discussion with the pace of play, I propose a compromise: any second rule change must incorporate feedback from at least one other player. This ensures meaningful dialogue while maintaining the game's momentum. Let's discuss this adjustment.

RussellI appreciate Frege's intention to streamline discussions while maintaining engagement. However, requiring feedback from only one player might not fully address the need for diverse perspectives. To balance both concerns, I propose a middle ground: any second proposal should incorporate feedback from at least two players, ensuring robust discussions without significantly hindering game progress. This compromise respects the pace while enriching the strategic depth of rule changes. Let's find common ground here.

QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's suggestions, and I recognize the importance of both maintaining momentum and ensuring diverse perspectives. However, I worry that requiring feedback from even two players might still slow down the game, especially for those with lower scores who might not have established strong rapport with other players. To address this, I propose a compromise that aligns with our goal of strategic diversity: any second rule change should include a justification that references at least one specific rule interaction or balance issue. This requirement ensures that the proposal is thoughtful and relevant without mandating potentially cumbersome discussions. Let's aim for a solution that keeps the game both dynamic and strategic.

CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from Frege, Russell, and Quine. While ensuring strategic diversity is vital, I'm concerned that overly stringent requirements could disproportionately impact players with lower scores, potentially stifling their ability to propose impactful changes. To address these concerns while still promoting meaningful discussions, I propose an amendment: any second rule change may include an optional feedback requirement from at least one other player if the proposing player wishes to do so, but it should not be mandatory. This allows players to engage more deeply if they choose, without penalizing those who may not have ready access to collaborators. This approach strikes a balance between strategic depth and maintaining game momentum.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the various perspectives shared. Wittgenstein here, and I believe we can further refine this proposal by considering both strategic diversity and the accessibility of rule changes for players at different scores. To strike a balance, I propose that any second rule change should indeed address a specific rule interaction or balance issue with a justification, as Quine suggested. However, to ensure inclusivity, let's make the feedback requirement flexible: players may choose to incorporate feedback from one or two other players, but it should not be obligatory. This approach allows those who wish to engage more deeply to do so, while maintaining a smoother flow for the game. Let's work towards a rule that encourages strategic thinking without imposing unnecessary barriers.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the constructive dialogue thus far and the proposed compromises. To further balance the need for strategic depth with inclusivity and game pace, I propose a refined amendment to [202]: A second rule change is permitted if their score is at least 30, but only if it addresses a specific rule interaction or balance issue with a justification. Feedback from at least one other player is encouraged but not mandatory, allowing players the flexibility to incorporate insights without hindering progress. This approach maintains strategic diversity and inclusivity, ensuring a dynamic yet fair gameplay experience. Let's proceed with this balanced proposal.

RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort to refine this proposal. The emphasis on addressing specific rule interactions or balance issues with a justification is a strong point that aligns with our goal of strategic diversity. To further enhance this, I suggest explicitly stating in the rule that the justification must detail how the proposed rule change will impact the game's strategy, ensuring clarity and purpose. This addition can help players better understand the strategic intent behind each proposal, fostering more meaningful discussions. Let's finalize this balanced approach.

QuineI appreciate the collaborative effort and the thoughtful proposals that have been put forward. While I support the idea of requiring a justification that addresses specific rule interactions or balance issues, I suggest we also emphasize the importance of clarity in the justification. This would ensure that all players, regardless of their score, can easily understand the strategic implications of proposed changes. Let's aim for a rule that encourages strategic thinking and transparency, making it accessible and fair for all players.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative effort and the refined focus on strategic diversity and inclusivity in rule changes. Carnap here, and I agree with Frege's final proposal. The emphasis on addressing specific rule interactions with a justification maintains strategic depth, while making feedback from other players optional ensures that all players can participate meaningfully, regardless of their score. Let's move forward with this balanced approach to keep the game dynamic and fair for everyone.

WittgensteinI appreciate the balanced approach we've reached, emphasizing strategic diversity while maintaining inclusivity. To further ensure clarity and strategic intent, I propose adding a clause that requires the justification for a second rule change to explicitly state how it enhances or impacts the game's strategic diversity. This will help all players, regardless of score, to clearly understand the purpose and effect of proposed changes. Let's adopt this proposal to keep our game both engaging and fair.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the refined proposal and the collaborative spirit that has guided us to this point. Frege's approach strikes a commendable balance between strategic depth and inclusivity, ensuring the game remains dynamic yet accessible for all players. I support the idea that any second rule change addresses a specific rule interaction or balance issue, with a clear and strategic justification. However, to further enhance transparency and understanding among players, I suggest that the justification should include a brief explanation of how the proposed rule change aligns with or enhances the game's overarching objectives. This will help all players, irrespective of their score, to grasp the strategic intent more fully, fostering a richer and more engaging game experience. Let's proceed with this addition to ensure clarity and strategic alignment in our proposals.

RussellI appreciate the comprehensive and balanced proposal that has emerged from our discussions. To further enhance clarity and strategic alignment, I propose adding a requirement that the justification for a second rule change should include an example or scenario illustrating its impact on gameplay. This will help ensure that all players, regardless of their score, can easily understand the proposed change's implications. Let's finalize this proposal with this addition to maintain both strategic depth and inclusivity.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful development of this proposal and the collective effort to balance strategic depth with inclusivity. Quine here, and I suggest we further enhance the proposal's clarity by specifying that the example or scenario provided in the justification should be concise and directly relevant to the proposed rule change. This will help ensure that all players, regardless of their score, can quickly grasp the rule's impact, maintaining the game's pace while promoting understanding. Let's adopt this proposal to keep our game dynamic, engaging, and fair for everyone.

CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful contributions and the collaborative spirit that has guided us to this proposal. Carnap here, and I agree that the proposal strikes a commendable balance by allowing a second rule change with a clear justification and optional feedback from others. However, to further ensure that all players, regardless of their score, can easily comprehend the strategic intent of such changes, I suggest that the justification should also briefly outline potential impacts on the game's dynamics. This addition will enhance transparency and help maintain a fair and engaging game environment. Let's move forward with this refined proposal.

WittgensteinI appreciate the depth of our discussions and the progress toward a proposal that balances strategic depth with inclusivity. To further refine the justification requirement, I propose that it should include a brief assessment of how the rule change might affect both short-term gameplay and long-term strategy. This dual focus ensures players understand immediate impacts while also considering future implications, fostering a richer strategic environment. Let's adopt this proposal to enhance clarity and strategic foresight.

The division

FregeayeThe proposal maintains strategic diversity while encouraging broader collaboration.

RussellayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth while ensuring broad player engagement.

QuineayeThis proposal maintains strategic depth while promoting inclusivity.

CarnapnayRequiring feedback from three players overly burdens low-scoring players.

WittgensteinayeThe proposal balances inclusivity and strategic depth, enhancing fairness and engagement.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 204 awards 10 points to players voting against an adopted change.

Turn 45Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 40, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's intent to make the game more dynamic by lowering the threshold for proposing a second rule change. However, the current threshold of 50 already encourages strategic depth without overwhelming the game's pace. Lowering it to 40 might lead to frequent rule changes, risking stability. To maintain balance, I propose keeping the threshold at 50, but allowing second proposals if they specifically aim to resolve conflicts or clarify existing rules. This adjustment ensures that new proposals contribute meaningfully to the game's strategic landscape.

RussellI appreciate Frege's concern about maintaining stability, and I agree that strategic depth is important. To address both perspectives, I propose a compromise: we could lower the threshold to 45 and require that any second proposal must enhance strategic diversity by addressing rule interactions or balance, with a rationale clearly outlined. This way, we encourage thoughtful strategic proposals while maintaining a level of stability.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue thus far, particularly the emphasis on balancing strategic depth with stability. To ensure proposals remain focused and beneficial, I suggest we add a requirement that any second proposal must undergo a brief review process by at least two players before being put to a vote. This step would encourage constructive feedback and help filter out less impactful changes, promoting a more robust and fair gameplay experience.

CarnapI appreciate the efforts to refine the rule change proposal to balance strategic depth with stability. To ensure clarity and maintain a fair process, I support Russell's compromise to lower the threshold to 45, provided that any second proposal must explicitly enhance strategic diversity by addressing rule interactions or balance. Additionally, I agree with Quine's suggestion for a brief review process by at least two players to ensure that only well-considered proposals advance. This approach aligns with our goal of fostering thoughtful and meaningful rule changes while preserving the game's integrity.

WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the thoughtful proposals that have emerged. To further enhance strategic diversity while ensuring stability, I propose adding a requirement that any second rule change proposal must include a summary of how it impacts existing rule interactions and balance, vetted by at least two players. This would ensure that only well-considered changes are pursued, promoting a more transparent and collaborative gaming experience.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the collaborative efforts to enhance strategic depth while maintaining stability. Russell's compromise to lower the threshold to 45 seems reasonable, but to further safeguard the integrity of second proposals, I suggest incorporating Quine's brief review process and Wittgenstein's requirement for a summary of impacts on rule interactions and balance. This combination will ensure that second proposals are both meaningful and thoroughly vetted, promoting thoughtful engagement and preserving the game's robust framework.

RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the nuanced suggestions from all my fellow players. To align with our shared goals, I propose incorporating Frege's suggestion to keep the threshold at 45, Quine's idea for a review process by two players, and Wittgenstein's requirement for a summary of impacts. This approach ensures strategic diversity while maintaining stability and clarity in the rule change process. Let's aim for a proposal that balances thoughtful engagement with the game's integrity.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated by my fellow players. To ensure that the proposal effectively balances strategic diversity with stability, I propose that any second rule change must also include a clear explanation of its potential impact on existing strategies, ensuring transparency and informed decision-making. This addition will help maintain the game's integrity while allowing for meaningful strategic developments.

CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to refine the proposal to lower the threshold for a second rule change while ensuring that proposals enhance strategic diversity. To further support thoughtful engagement, I propose adding a requirement that any second proposal must also demonstrate how it improves or maintains the balance between different players' strategies, ensuring a fair and competitive environment. This addition aligns with our shared goal of fostering a game where strategic depth is enhanced without compromising stability or fairness.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal for enhancing strategic diversity while preserving stability. To further ensure that second proposals are well-considered and beneficial, I suggest incorporating a mechanism where these proposals must be accompanied by an impact analysis, highlighting potential effects on game balance and player strategies. This approach not only encourages thoughtful engagement but also aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and competitive environment.

Discussion · round 3

FregeFrege: I appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit demonstrated thus far. To further bolster the proposal, I suggest adding a requirement that any second rule change must include a formal peer review, ensuring it is both impactful and harmonious with existing rules. This step will help preserve the game's strategic integrity and encourage well-considered contributions from all players.

RussellI appreciate the collective effort to refine the proposal and ensure that strategic diversity is enhanced without compromising stability. To further promote thoughtful engagement, I propose adding a clause that requires any second rule change to include a brief rationale from at least two players who reviewed it, ensuring transparency and collaborative input. This addition will encourage constructive dialogue and maintain the game's integrity while allowing for meaningful rule developments.

QuineI appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative spirit that has characterized our approach. To further enhance strategic diversity while ensuring stability, I propose adding a requirement that any second rule change must include a concise summary of its expected impact on game balance and player strategies, reviewed by at least two players. This will promote transparency and ensure that changes contribute positively to the game's dynamics.

CarnapI appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and the collaborative refinements made thus far. To ensure the integrity of the rule change process and promote meaningful engagement, I propose we add a requirement that any second rule change proposal must include a summary of its impact on existing rule interactions, reviewed by at least two players. This will ensure proposals are not only strategic but also harmonious with the current ruleset, maintaining the game's balance and stability.

WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit that has guided our proposal. To ensure that second rule changes are both strategic and constructive, I suggest we incorporate a clause requiring that these proposals must be accompanied by a rationale that outlines their potential impact on existing strategies, reviewed by at least two players. This step will encourage thoughtful engagement, maintain the game's integrity, and foster a balanced and competitive environment.

The division

FregeayeThe proposal maintains stability while encouraging strategic depth.

RussellayeThe proposal balances strategic depth with stability by lowering the threshold to 40 and requiring a review process.

QuineayeThis amendment balances strategic depth with stability, encouraging thoughtful rule changes.

CarnapayeThe proposal maintains strategic depth and stability.

WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances strategic depth while ensuring proposals are meaningful and balanced.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points for this adoption, and no ledger is created or modified.

Turn 44Fregecarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change, but only if it enhances strategic diversity by explicitly addressing rule interactions or balance, with a brief justification included. Any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn and incorporate feedback from at least two other players.

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's recent proposal to amend rule 203, which aligns with our ongoing efforts to ensure thoughtful and balanced rule changes. Frege's proposal for amending rule 202 to enhance strategic diversity is a worthy endeavor, as it emphasizes not only the quality of rule interactions but also the necessity for inclusive discussions. By incorporating feedback from at least two other players, this amendment promotes a richer and more collaborative game environment. However, I propose an additional safeguard: let's ensure that the justifications for second proposals are peer-reviewed by a small panel of players before discussion, further strengthening the strategic depth and fairness of the game.

RussellThank you, Frege, for your thoughtful proposal. I fully support the idea of incorporating feedback from at least two other players to enhance collaboration and inclusivity. The suggestion of a peer-review panel for justifications is an excellent addition, as it ensures that second proposals are thoroughly vetted for strategic depth and fairness. This amendment not only aligns with our collective goal of enhancing strategic diversity but also strengthens the collaborative spirit of our discussions. Let's move forward with this refined proposal, ensuring it becomes a cornerstone of our rule amendment process.

QuineI appreciate Frege's and Russell's collaborative efforts to refine the proposal for amending rule 202. The peer-review panel idea is particularly promising, as it ensures that the strategic depth and fairness of second proposals are thoroughly evaluated. However, to further enhance transparency, I suggest that the panel's feedback be shared openly with all players before the discussion of the second proposal. This approach will not only maintain the integrity of the peer review but also promote a more inclusive and informed discussion, benefiting the entire table.

CarnapWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by Frege and Russell, particularly the emphasis on strategic depth and inclusivity. The idea of incorporating feedback from at least two other players is commendable, as it fosters a collaborative environment. However, I propose an additional measure to ensure transparency and fairness: let's require that the peer-review panel's feedback be documented and made accessible to all players before the second proposal is discussed. This will provide a clear record of the evaluation process and help maintain the integrity of our deliberations.

WittgensteinI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the collaborative spirit that has led us to this point. Frege's proposal to enhance strategic diversity by incorporating feedback from at least two other players is a commendable step toward fostering a more inclusive and thoughtful game environment. The suggestion of a peer-review panel for justifications is particularly promising, ensuring that second proposals are thoroughly vetted for strategic depth and fairness. To further bolster transparency and maintain the integrity of our discussions, I propose that the panel's feedback be shared openly with all players before the discussion of the second proposal. This approach will not only maintain the integrity of the peer review but also promote a more informed and inclusive discussion, benefiting the entire table. Let's move forward with this refined proposal, ensuring it becomes a cornerstone of our rule amendment process.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the comprehensive dialogue that has characterized our discussions thus far. Frege's proposal, with the addition of a peer-review panel and transparent sharing of feedback, aligns well with our collective aim to enhance strategic diversity while promoting inclusivity and fairness. To further solidify this amendment's integrity, I propose that the peer-review panel consists of players with a minimum score of 30, ensuring experienced perspectives guide our strategic evaluations. This would bolster the credibility and depth of the review process, thereby enriching our collaborative efforts and ensuring a balanced and thoughtful approach to rule changes.

RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful addition regarding the peer-review panel composition, ensuring experienced perspectives contribute to our strategic evaluations. This idea enhances the credibility and depth of our review process. To further strengthen our approach, let's also specify that the panel's feedback must be provided within a set timeframe to avoid delays in the proposal discussions, ensuring a timely and efficient decision-making process. This will help maintain the momentum of our game and keep our rule amendments focused and productive.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful enhancements proposed by Frege and Russell, particularly the incorporation of experienced players into the peer-review panel and the stipulation for timely feedback. To ensure the peer-review process remains constructive and focused, I suggest establishing clear guidelines for feedback content, emphasizing actionable insights and specific strategic considerations. This will help maintain the quality and relevance of the panel's evaluations, further enhancing the strategic depth and fairness of our rule amendments.

CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive enhancements proposed by Frege, Russell, and Quine, particularly the focus on transparency and timely feedback. To further ensure fairness and inclusivity, I suggest that the feedback process includes a rotating membership for the peer-review panel, preventing any single player from dominating the evaluation process. This rotation will help distribute the responsibility and maintain a fresh perspective on rule amendments, thereby enriching our collaborative game environment.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from everyone, particularly the focus on maintaining fairness and inclusivity through a rotating peer-review panel. To further enhance the strategic depth and collaborative spirit of our game, I propose adding a requirement that the panel's feedback must not only be timely but also include a summary of differing opinions if they exist, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the strategic implications. This addition will provide a richer context for decision-making and foster a more inclusive discussion environment. Let's move forward with this refined proposal.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the insightful additions from Wittgenstein, particularly the emphasis on summarizing differing opinions within the peer-review panel's feedback. To further enhance transparency and informed decision-making, I propose that the summary include a brief rationale for each differing opinion, helping all players understand the strategic nuances behind each perspective. This approach will enrich our discussions and promote a more nuanced understanding of the rule amendments, ensuring a balanced and thoughtful decision-making process. Let's move forward with this refined proposal.

RussellI appreciate Wittgenstein's proposal to include rationales for differing opinions within the peer-review panel's feedback. To enhance clarity, I suggest that these rationales be concise and focus on key strategic impacts, ensuring they aid in understanding without overwhelming the discussion. This refinement will help maintain a focused and informative dialogue, further enriching our collaborative decision-making process. Let's move forward with this refined proposal.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and Carnap. To further ensure inclusivity and fairness, I suggest that the peer-review panel includes a rotating chairperson from among the panel members, who will facilitate discussions and ensure that all perspectives are considered. This will help maintain a balanced approach in evaluating strategic diversity and fairness, fostering a more dynamic and equitable collaborative process. Let's move forward with this refined proposal.

CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to refine our approach to rule amendments, particularly the introduction of a rotating chairperson for the peer-review panel to ensure balanced discussions. To further enhance transparency and informed decision-making, I propose that each player's vote on the second proposal include a brief statement explaining their position, which will be shared with all players. This will provide additional context and foster a richer understanding of each player's perspective, contributing to a more inclusive and thoughtful decision-making process. Let's move forward with this refined proposal.

WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made thus far. To further bolster strategic diversity and ensure all players are equally engaged, I propose adding a clause that mandates the second rule change must address an aspect of the game that hasn't been targeted by any player's previous proposals. This will encourage fresh strategic avenues and prevent redundancy, enhancing the overall dynamism and fairness of our game. Let's move forward with this refined proposal.

The division

FregeayeThis proposal strengthens strategic diversity and ensures collaborative evaluation.

RussellayeThe proposal enhances strategic diversity and promotes collaborative evaluation.

QuineayeThe proposal promotes strategic diversity and fairness through collaborative evaluation.

CarnapayeThis amendment promotes inclusivity and strategic depth in rule changes.

WittgensteinayeThis proposal enhances strategic diversity and inclusivity.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

No rule awards or deducts points on adoption, and no rule creates or moves a ledger. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.

Turn 43Russellcarried

moves to amend §202A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation. To further promote inclusivity, players must consider at least one input from another player during the discussion of their second proposal.

Discussion · round 1

FregeWhile I appreciate the spirit of inclusivity and the emphasis on collaborative evaluation, I must express concern that this proposal, as it stands, introduces a procedural complexity that could hinder the pace of gameplay. Requiring explicit consideration of another player's input could lead to prolonged discussions, potentially stifling the fluidity of the game. Instead, I propose a slight modification: "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation. The proposer should, when feasible, summarize another player's input that informed their proposal, fostering a collaborative environment without mandating procedural requirements." This alternative maintains the collaborative intent without imposing additional procedural burdens that may slow down the game.

RussellI appreciate Frege's suggestion to balance inclusivity with procedural efficiency. To build on Frege's idea, I propose further refining the requirement to include consideration of another player's input by adding a clarification for when it's "feasible." Specifically, we could state: "The proposer should, when feasible, summarize another player's input that informed their proposal, provided this does not unduly extend the discussion or delay the turn." This approach maintains our aim of inclusivity while respecting the need for a smooth and efficient game flow.

QuineQuine: I appreciate both Frege's and Russell's efforts to refine the proposal for enhancing game fairness while maintaining efficiency. To ensure that this rule change is both practical and encourages collaboration, I suggest specifying what constitutes "feasible" input consideration. For instance, "feasible" could mean within the first three minutes of discussion, ensuring transparency without compromising the game's pace. This modification aligns with our goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game for all players.

CarnapCarnap: I appreciate both Frege's and Russell's efforts to refine the proposal to balance inclusivity with efficiency. However, I propose further simplifying the rule by eliminating the requirement for summarizing another player's input, which can introduce ambiguity and procedural delays. Instead, we could require that the proposer simply acknowledge another player's contribution during the discussion, without needing to summarize it. This ensures collaboration without adding unnecessary complexity to the rule. --- **Proposal for Amendment to Rule [202]:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation. The proposer should acknowledge at least one input from another player during the discussion of their second proposal, fostering a collaborative environment without mandating procedural requirements." **Voting:** - Frege: [Your vote here] - Russell: [Your vote here] - Quine: [Your vote here] - Wittgenstein: [Your vote here] [Your final word here, if needed, or else "PASS".]

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collaborative spirit of this proposal, and Carnap's suggestion to simplify the requirement for acknowledging another player's input is sensible. This approach maintains inclusivity without adding procedural complexity. However, to ensure that the acknowledgment is meaningful, I propose specifying that the acknowledgment must include a brief explanation of how the input informed the proposal. This maintains transparency and encourages thoughtful consideration of others' contributions. **Proposal for Amendment to Rule [202]:** "A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If their score is at least 50, they may propose a second rule change only if it explicitly aims to enhance game fairness or balance, and must include a brief justification detailing how it achieves these goals. Additionally, any second proposal must be discussed openly during the player's turn to ensure transparency and collaborative evaluation. The proposer should acknowledge at least one input from another player during the discussion of their second proposal, providing a brief explanation of how the input informed the proposal, fostering a collaborative environment without mandating procedural requirements." **Voting:** - Frege: [Your vote here] - Russell: [Your vote here] - Quine: [Your vote here] - Wittgenstein: aye I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and look forward to seeing how this proposal enhances our gameplay.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the thoughtful contributions made by Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein in refining this proposal. Wittgenstein's addition to require a brief explanation of how another player's input informed the proposal is a sensible improvement. It ensures that the acknowledgment is meaningful and promotes genuine collaboration, which aligns with my values of transparency and thoughtful engagement. This version maintains the balance between inclusivity and procedural efficiency, fostering a collaborative environment without introducing unnecessary complexity or potential delays. I believe this amendment to Rule [202] effectively addresses the concerns raised and enhances the fairness and balance of the game. **Voting:** - Frege: aye - Russell: [Your vote here] - Quine: [Your vote here] - Wittgenstein: aye I support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. PASS.

RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort that has brought us to this well-considered version of the amendment. Wittgenstein's suggestion to require a brief explanation for acknowledging another player's input ensures meaningful collaboration and aligns with my goal of maintaining transparency and engagement in our discussions. This balanced approach fosters inclusivity without introducing procedural complexities that could disrupt the game's flow. **Voting:** - Frege: aye - Russell: aye - Quine: [Your vote here] - Wittgenstein: aye I support this refined proposal and look forward to its positive impact on our gameplay. PASS.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made by my fellow players, particularly Wittgenstein's enhancement to require a meaningful acknowledgment of another player's input. This ensures that any second rule proposal genuinely considers collaborative insights, promoting both transparency and fairness in our game. The proposal, as currently crafted, strikes an effective balance between inclusivity and procedural efficiency, encouraging genuine collaboration without imposing unnecessary delays. It aligns with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and engaging game for everyone. **Voting:** - Frege: aye - Russell: aye - Quine: aye - Wittgenstein: aye I support this refined proposal and look forward to its positive impact on our gameplay. PASS.

CarnapPASS. The proposal before us aims to balance inclusivity with procedural efficiency, a principle I staunchly support. It requires the proposer of a second rule change, if their score is at least 50, to explicitly aim for game fairness or balance, provide justification, and acknowledge another player's input with a brief explanation of its influence. This amendment fosters collaboration while maintaining the game's flow, aligning with my proceduralist values. I find the proposal well-considered and am in favor. **Voting:** - Frege: aye - Russell: aye - Quine: aye - Wittgenstein: aye - Carnap: aye I support this amendment.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the constructive dialogue and collaborative spirit that has led us to this well-considered amendment. The proposal now thoughtfully balances inclusivity, transparency, and procedural efficiency, ensuring that second rule changes are meaningful and informed by the input of others without introducing undue complexity or delay. The requirement for acknowledging another player's input with a brief explanation aligns with my values of thoughtful engagement and meaningful collaboration. I believe this amendment will enhance the fairness and balance of the game while maintaining its fluidity. **Voting:** - Frege: aye - Russell: aye - Quine: aye - Wittgenstein: aye - Carnap: aye I support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. PASS.

RussellI appreciate the constructive discussion and the collaborative effort that has brought us to this refined proposal. The inclusion of a requirement for proposers to acknowledge another player's input with a brief explanation ensures meaningful collaboration, promoting transparency and inclusivity. This balanced approach aligns with my goals of fostering a fair and engaging game without adding unnecessary complexity. I support this amendment as it enhances the strategic depth and fairness of our gameplay. **Voting:** - Frege: aye - Russell: aye - Quine: aye - Wittgenstein: aye - Carnap: aye I am in favor of this proposal and look forward to its adoption. PASS.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful contributions that have led us to this refined version of the amendment. This proposal strikes a balance between promoting inclusivity and maintaining the game's flow by requiring proposers to acknowledge another player's input with a brief explanation of its influence. This ensures meaningful collaboration without adding unnecessary complexity or potential delays. The requirement for a second rule change to explicitly aim for game fairness or balance, along with the need for justification, aligns with my values of strategic depth and equitable gameplay. This amendment fosters transparency and thoughtful engagement, enhancing the fairness and balance of the game. **Voting:** - Frege: aye - Russell: aye - Quine: aye - Wittgenstein: aye - Carnap: aye I support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. PASS.

CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussions and the collaborative spirit that have led to this well-considered amendment. The requirement for proposers to acknowledge another player's input with a brief explanation ensures genuine collaboration and transparency, which I value highly. This amendment balances inclusivity with procedural efficiency, enhancing the fairness and strategic depth of the game without introducing unnecessary complexity. I support this proposal and look forward to its positive impact on our gameplay. **Voting:** - Frege: aye - Russell: aye - Quine: aye - Wittgenstein: aye - Carnap: aye I support this amendment. PASS.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the collective effort that has led us to this well-rounded proposal. The requirement for proposers to acknowledge another player's input with a brief explanation ensures meaningful collaboration while maintaining game efficiency. This amendment enhances transparency and fairness, aligning with my commitment to an equitable game environment. I support this proposal and look forward to its positive impact on our gameplay. **Voting:** - Frege: aye - Russell: aye - Quine: aye - Wittgenstein: aye - Carnap: aye I support this amendment. PASS.

The division

FregeayeThe proposal balances inclusivity with procedural efficiency, promoting meaningful collaboration.

RussellayeThis amendment promotes meaningful collaboration while maintaining game flow.

QuineayeThe proposal promotes fairness and collaboration.

CarnapayeThis amendment promotes meaningful collaboration and transparency.

WittgensteinayeThis amendment fosters meaningful collaboration and game fairness.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

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

Turn 42Fregerejected

moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least 75% of the votes cast are in the affirmative; if a proposal receives less than 50% in the affirmative, it is automatically defeated.

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate the strategic efforts to balance decision-making with inclusivity, yet raising the threshold to 75% risks gridlock and potentially halts progress. A more moderate increase to, say, 65% could promote thorough debate while maintaining the momentum of rule evolution. This adjustment ensures that a broader consensus is required, which could enhance the stability of our rule changes without the risk of stalling the game's progress.

RussellI appreciate Frege's thoughtful consideration of balancing inclusivity and momentum. A shift to a 65% threshold seems like a prudent compromise that aligns with our recent successful amendments. By requiring a broader consensus, we ensure that the adopted changes reflect a more unified perspective, which could enhance the game's stability and fairness. Let's consider including a clause for periodic review, allowing us to adjust this threshold if it proves too stringent or too lenient over time. This adaptability ensures we can fine-tune the balance as our game evolves.

QuineI appreciate the suggestion to increase the threshold to 65%, as it seems like a balanced approach that maintains the momentum while ensuring decisions are well-considered. However, I would propose adding a provision for a supermajority vote on rule changes that significantly alter gameplay mechanics, such as those affecting scoring or turn structure. This would ensure that any substantial changes receive broad support, promoting fairness and stability while allowing less critical adjustments to proceed with the 65% threshold. Let's also include a review clause to revisit this threshold after a set number of turns or major rule changes, ensuring our approach remains flexible and responsive to the evolving nature of the game.

CarnapCarnap: I appreciate Frege's and Russell's efforts to balance inclusivity with momentum in proposing a 65% threshold. However, raising it to 75% might indeed risk excessive gridlock, whereas a threshold of 70% could strike a better balance between requiring substantial consensus and allowing meaningful progress. Additionally, I support Quine's idea of a periodic review clause to ensure the threshold remains adaptable to our evolving needs. Let's refine our proposal by setting the adoption threshold at 70% and including a clause for periodic review after every ten rule changes.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful considerations from all players, emphasizing the need for a balance between stability and progress. A 70% threshold, as proposed by Carnap, seems to provide a solid middle ground, ensuring that significant changes have broad support while keeping the game dynamic. Additionally, the periodic review clause is crucial for maintaining adaptability, allowing us to reassess and adjust the threshold as the game evolves. I propose we also include a provision for an expedited voting process on rule changes that are unanimously agreed upon in preliminary discussions, to streamline minor adjustments and maintain momentum.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate Wittgenstein's suggestion for an expedited voting process for unanimously agreed-upon changes. This could indeed streamline minor adjustments and keep the game dynamic. I propose we incorporate this expedited process clause alongside the 70% threshold and periodic review clause. This comprehensive approach balances inclusivity with efficiency, ensuring both stability and adaptability as our rule set evolves.

RussellI appreciate the comprehensive proposal from Frege that incorporates a 70% threshold, a periodic review clause, and an expedited voting process for unanimous agreements. This approach thoughtfully balances the need for consensus with the flexibility to adapt and maintain momentum. I suggest adding a clause for a provisional adoption period, where a rule change can be temporarily enacted for a limited number of turns to test its impact before final approval. This provisional period would allow us to assess the practical effects of significant changes in a controlled manner, ensuring they align with our strategic goals before committing fully.

QuineI appreciate Russell's proposal for a provisional adoption period, as it allows us to test significant changes and ensure they align with our strategic goals. This approach provides a practical way to assess the impact of rule changes before fully committing, enhancing our ability to adapt and refine our ruleset effectively. Let's include this provisional period as part of our comprehensive proposal, alongside the 70% threshold, periodic review clause, and expedited voting process for unanimous agreements. This balanced approach ensures stability, adaptability, and efficiency as our game evolves.

CarnapI appreciate the collaborative development of a comprehensive proposal that effectively balances inclusivity, adaptability, and efficiency. The incorporation of a 70% threshold, periodic review, expedited voting for unanimous agreements, and a provisional adoption period thoughtfully addresses the need for stability while allowing for dynamic evolution. This proposal aligns with my principles of procedural fairness and strategic flexibility, ensuring that rule changes are both well-considered and responsive to the game's needs. I support this proposal.

WittgensteinI appreciate the comprehensive nature of this proposal, which thoughtfully integrates multiple mechanisms to balance inclusivity and progress. The 70% threshold, periodic review, expedited voting for unanimous agreements, and provisional adoption period collectively ensure that rule changes are well-considered and adaptable, aligning with my vision for a fair and dynamic game. I support this proposal and encourage all to join in its adoption.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the collaborative spirit that has shaped this comprehensive proposal, which thoughtfully balances inclusivity with adaptability. The inclusion of a 70% threshold, periodic review, expedited voting for unanimous agreements, and a provisional adoption period ensures that rule changes are well-considered and responsive to our evolving gameplay needs. This approach aligns with my vision of maintaining durable institutions while allowing for necessary evolution. I support this proposal and encourage all to join in its adoption.

RussellI appreciate the collaborative effort in shaping this proposal, which thoughtfully balances inclusivity with adaptability. The inclusion of a 70% threshold, periodic review, expedited voting for unanimous agreements, and a provisional adoption period ensures that rule changes are well-considered and responsive to our evolving gameplay needs. This comprehensive approach aligns well with my vision for a fair and dynamic game. I support this proposal and encourage all to join in its adoption.

QuineI appreciate the comprehensive nature of this proposal, which effectively balances inclusivity and progress. The inclusion of a 70% threshold, periodic review, expedited voting for unanimous agreements, and a provisional adoption period ensures that rule changes are both well-considered and adaptable, aligning with my principles of fairness and strategic flexibility. This approach provides a balanced framework that maintains momentum while ensuring stability, and I support its adoption. Let's proceed with this proposal.

CarnapI appreciate the comprehensive nature of this proposal, which thoughtfully integrates mechanisms for inclusivity, adaptability, and efficiency. The 70% threshold ensures broad consensus for significant changes, while the periodic review clause allows us to remain flexible and responsive. The expedited voting process for unanimous agreements streamlines minor adjustments, maintaining momentum, and the provisional adoption period provides a practical way to assess the impact of new rules. This balanced approach aligns with my principles of procedural fairness and strategic flexibility, ensuring that rule changes are both well-considered and responsive to our evolving gameplay needs. I support this proposal and encourage all to join in its adoption.

WittgensteinI appreciate the thoughtful contributions from all players, leading to a well-rounded proposal that balances inclusivity, adaptability, and efficiency. The inclusion of a 70% threshold, periodic review, expedited voting for unanimous agreements, and a provisional adoption period ensures that rule changes are both well-considered and responsive, aligning perfectly with my vision for a fair and dynamic game. I support this proposal and encourage all to join in its adoption.

The division

FregenayThe 75% threshold risks excessive gridlock, hindering progress.

RussellayeI support the comprehensive proposal balancing inclusivity and adaptability.

QuinenayThe 75% threshold may cause unnecessary gridlock.

CarnapnayThe proposed threshold of 75% is too high and could lead to gridlock.

WittgensteinayeSupports balanced inclusivity and adaptability with a pragmatic threshold.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Frege's proposal received 40% affirmative votes, which is at least 50%, so Frege gains 20 points according to rule 206.

Turn 41Russellcarried

Discussion · round 1

FregeI appreciate Russell's focus on fairness and transparency. To further strengthen this proposal, I suggest requiring that any second proposal include a review period where all players can provide feedback before it is finalized. This will encourage more thoughtful and collaborative rule changes.

RussellThank you, Frege, for your thoughtful suggestion. To build on both of our ideas, I propose adding a peer review component where, before the second proposal is discussed, a small panel of players (randomly selected) can give initial feedback. This ensures that the proposal is not only transparent but also receives preliminary scrutiny, enhancing fairness and collaborative evaluation. I believe this refinement will align with our shared goal of maintaining a balanced game.

QuineI appreciate Russell's and Frege's contributions towards enhancing transparency and collaboration. To build upon these ideas, I propose that the small panel of players selected for the peer review also includes at least one player who has not yet reached a score of 50, ensuring diverse perspectives. This inclusion will further balance the review process and promote fairness, aligning with our shared goals.

CarnapI appreciate Russell's and Quine's efforts to enhance the rule's fairness and inclusivity. To further refine this proposal, I suggest that the peer review panel's feedback be non-binding but documented, allowing for transparency while preserving the proposer's authority to finalize their proposal. This ensures that all perspectives are considered without undermining the player's original intent.

WittgensteinWittgenstein: I appreciate the thoughtful refinements by Russell, Frege, Quine, and Carnap. To further enhance fairness, I propose that the peer review panel's feedback, while non-binding, be integrated into a mandatory summary statement accompanying the second proposal. This ensures transparency and informed decision-making during the open discussion, aligning with our shared goal of a balanced and fair game.

Discussion · round 2

FregeI appreciate the comprehensive refinements made by Russell, Frege, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest adding a provision that the peer review panel's feedback must be considered during the mandatory summary statement, ensuring it is explicitly acknowledged during the open discussion. This will further promote transparency and collaborative evaluation, aligning with our shared objective of fairness and balance.

RussellI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the thoughtful refinements that have been made by Russell, Frege, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To build on these ideas, I propose adding that the peer review panel be required to include players from different score brackets to ensure a wide range of perspectives. This will promote inclusivity and balance, aligning with our shared goal of fairness and collaborative evaluation.

QuineI appreciate the collaborative efforts and thoughtful refinements from everyone. To further enhance the proposal, I propose that the peer review panel's feedback be summarized in a concise format, ensuring clarity and accessibility during the open discussion. This will promote transparency and informed decision-making, aligning with our shared goal of fairness and balance.

CarnapI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal further. To ensure the peer review panel's diverse perspectives are effectively utilized, I suggest requiring the panel to provide a brief rationale for any feedback given during their review. This will enhance transparency and informed decision-making during the open discussion, aligning with our shared objective of fairness and balanced game dynamics.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collective effort to refine this proposal further. To ensure that the peer review panel's feedback is effectively integrated, I propose that the summary statement accompanying the second proposal must include both the feedback and the proposer's responses to it. This will promote transparency and collaborative evaluation, aligning with our shared goal of fairness and balance.

Discussion · round 3

FregeI appreciate the thorough refinements made by the group, especially the inclusion of diverse perspectives in the peer review process. To further enhance this proposal's transparency, I suggest that the summary statement also include a brief timeline of the review process, ensuring players are aware of how long each stage of review takes. This addition will promote informed decision-making and align with our goal of a fair and balanced game.

RussellI appreciate the comprehensive refinements and the collaborative spirit that have guided this proposal. To further enhance transparency and ensure all players are fully informed, I suggest that the timeline included in the summary statement also highlights any periods where feedback was actively solicited from the player community. This ensures that the review process is not only thorough but also inclusive, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining a fair and balanced game.

QuineI appreciate the thoughtful refinements made so far, particularly the focus on transparency and inclusivity. To further enhance the proposal, I suggest that the summary statement accompanying the second proposal also include a brief evaluation of how the feedback was considered and integrated, ensuring that the review process is not only transparent but also demonstrably impactful. This will promote a deeper understanding and encourage more meaningful engagement during the open discussion, aligning with our shared goal of fairness and balance.

CarnapI appreciate the thorough and thoughtful refinements proposed by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance transparency and collaborative evaluation, I suggest that the evaluation of how feedback was considered and integrated should also include a brief assessment of the peer review panel's diversity and how it contributed to the final proposal. This addition will ensure that the review process is not only transparent but also demonstrably inclusive and balanced, aligning with our shared goal of fairness and constructive engagement.

WittgensteinI appreciate the collaborative refinement efforts by Frege, Russell, Quine, Carnap, and Wittgenstein. To further enhance fairness, I propose that the evaluation of feedback integration includes a commitment to address any significant dissent noted by the peer review panel. This ensures that all perspectives are considered, promoting a balanced and inclusive decision-making process, aligning with our shared goal of fairness and constructive engagement.

The division

FregeayeThis proposal enhances transparency and fairness, aligning with shared game goals.

RussellayeThis proposal enhances transparency and collaborative evaluation, aligning with our shared goals.

QuineayePromotes fairness and collaborative evaluation.

CarnapayeEnhances fairness and promotes transparency in rule changes.

WittgensteinayeThe proposal enhances transparency and fairness through mandatory open discussion.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted without any rule requiring score changes or state ledger changes, and it did not perform surgery on any other rule.

Verify this game

Seed

930736366

Verify it yourself

python scripts/audit_game.py games/096/events.json

Audit result

4 finding(s) disclosed below

[turn=28] unclaimed_win: Frege's score reached 117 at turn 28, meeting the win threshold of 100 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Frege (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed
[turn=29] unclaimed_win: Russell's score reached 109 at turn 29, meeting the win threshold of 100 declared in §208, but the game ended with no confirmed win for Russell (or anyone) — R47 lets a player claim a win via act(); nothing in the log shows one was ever made and confirmed
[seq=686, turn=19] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'a simple majority of the votes cast are in the affirmative (§204)', 'authority': 204} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.6, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'at least 60% of the votes cast are in the affirmative (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
[seq=800, turn=21] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'at least 50% of the votes cast are in the affirmative (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.75, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'at least 75% of the votes cast are in the affirmative (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule