Create, and blank, a wiki page entitled “Proofs”, with three sections “Established Proofs”, “Under Deliberation”, and “Rejected Proofs”.
Create a new post type entitled “Proofs”.

If the rule “Truth” exists, enact a subrule entitled “Proofs”:

At any time, any Atom may submit a proof by creating a post in the category of “Proofs”, and posting their proof both in the body of the post and on the wiki entitled “Proofs” in the “Proofs under Deliberation” section. An atom may have, at most 2 Proofs under deliberation at a time. After a Proof post has been posted, it goes under deliberation. During the deliberation period, any Atom may dissent with the proof by responding in the comments with or may agree with the proof by responding in the comments with . All dissenters must provide a logical argument for what logic is faulty in the proof. An Atom may Self-Kill their own proposal by voting AGAINST in the comments of their Proof post.

The oldest Proof that is under deliberation may be Established by any Admin (by updating the status of the post and by moving the proof from the “Under Deliberation” section of the wiki to the “Established Proofs” section) if any of the following are true:

• There is a quorum of FOR votes, and there are no AGAINST votes
• There is a quorum of FOR votes and all the AGAINST have been resolved
• Voting has been open for 48 hours, there are more than one FOR votes, and all the AGAINST votes have been resolved, and it has not been self-killed

The oldest Proof that is under deliberation may be Rejected by any Admin (by updating the status of the post and by moving the proof from the “Under Deliberation” section of the wiki to the “Rejected Proofs”) if any of the following are true:

• There is a quorum/2 of AGAINST votes
• The proof has been Self-Killed
• Voting has been open for 48 hours and cannot be Established

Resolving AGAINST votes:
When an Atom votes AGAINST a proof, they must be able to show a fault in the logic of the proof. Once any Atom votes AGAINST a proof, any other atom may respond to the logic in the AGAINST vote by using (which here means DEFEND, as opposed to DEFER), and in doing so makes a counter argument. Once a counter argument has been made, any Atom, other than the one who posted the proof and the one who posted the IMPERIAL, may comment RESOLVED to indicate that they believe that the issue has been resolved, or UNRESOLVED to indicate that they believe the issue is still unresolved. If there are more RESOLVED comments then UNRESOLVED comments, the particular AGAINST that was responded to is considered resolved.

I hope you guys are ok with me re-purposing the IMPERIAL symbol for Proofs. Also, Resolving AGAINST votes is a little complex, but I think it’s necessary for proofs to work. I don’t think that simply a quorum should be able to decide whether a proof is valid or not, but there should be some extra process, if necessary, of debating the validity of the proof. This is what the resolving mechanic attempts (maybe a bit poorly) to address. In any case, I think that this proposal is a good starting point, even if it’s not perfect.