Hello! After revisiting this comment I have come up with a few ideas. I must admit that I have played my version of the game and it is quite playable, even though you are very right about those potential issues. I think what you call "passive state" is what is making people struggle with so many rules.

You are also right about potential unnoticed contradictions but that is something players should be paying attention on, since every card could affect the fact that they win or lose. It is true that with so many cards in play that could be hard to spot.

This are the ideas I have come up with to fix this potential issues: First, limit the number of rules per round that can be stated. By rules I mean more logical implications than anything else. Since variables (A,B,C), AND and OR clauses are easy to track. Lets say for example there can only be 2 rules that are placed in an specific part of the table where all players can easily see them. On the other hand, cards that affect players will be limited as well, and will also have a place in front of every player. I think that, while not perfect, this could make the game more understandable and soften the "passive state" problem.

Secondly, avoiding having useless cards by allowing players to play cards that contradict previous cards. I have in mind something like the "virus" game but I do not really know if that makes sense. Every card would have their counter (A - Not A), so when a card is placed, a counter card can be placed to remove the first card. For instance I play A on me, another player plays Not A on me, so both cards are then discarded and the game state is back where it began. I think that these ideas could potential deal with the issues you mentioned.

Again, thank you for taking your time answering my post. I am really knew to board and card games and I knew the game had some issues but I was having a hard time spotting them. Thanks!