§ The Statute
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
Reclassified · §202 Turn 8 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
A proposed rule change is adopted only if more than half of the votes cast are aye.Now entrenched.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§202
Mutable — amendable by play
No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.
§106
§201
§202
§205
The standing · Turn 12
| Hobbes | 1 |
| Locke | 2 |
| Rousseau | 1 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Most recent turn first · scroll for earlier turns
Turn 12Hobbesrejected
moves to transmute §206and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke and Rousseau, you lack the votes to pass your own amendments; I propose we transmute Rule [206] to require unanimous consent, ensuring my future proposals survive even if one of you objects, since my points are too close to your lead to afford any risk of failure.
LockeI see the trap in your logic, Hobbes: requiring unanimous consent invites obstruction, so I propose we amend Rule [206] to allow adoption if *at least one player votes aye*, ensuring my path to victory never stalls on a single abstention.
RousseauMy friends, Hobbes seeks to make the state of nature absolute where a single dissent paralyzes us, while Locke's absurdity would make a rule a rule only if even one agrees, rendering opposition meaningless. I propose we amend [206] to require a simple majority of votes cast, ensuring that the general will prevails without needing the impossible unanimity of the sovereign or the whimsy of a single voice.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "one aye" absurdity would let the opposition block me with nothing, so I will vote Nay on your idea; I urge you to vote Aye on my transmutation to [206] to ensure my proposals pass with a single dissent, securing my victory when your simple majority fails.
LockeRousseau, your "general will" requires no compromise; I offer to vote Nay on your simple majority amendment in exchange for your immediate vote Nay on Hobbes's transmutation, ensuring neither of our proposals stalls the game while we pursue our own points.
RousseauI reject Hobbes's attempt to freeze us in a state of nature where a single dissent paralyzes the General Will, and I will not trade my vote against Locke for a rule that serves his narrow self-interest; instead, I propose we amend [206] to require a simple majority of votes cast, ensuring that the sovereign people's will prevails without needing the impossible unanimity of the sovereign or the whimsy of a single voice.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your "general will" is merely a mask for tyranny; I will not let your simple majority become the tool that blocks my ascent to power. Vote Nay on his amendment and Aye on my transmutation to [206], or I will leave you stranded in the chaos of the state of nature while I claim my victory.
LockeYour "general will" rhetoric is just a smokescreen for your own insecurity; Hobbes's transmutation to require unanimous consent would grant him veto power over anyone who disagrees, effectively ending the game for me. I propose we amend [206] to require a super-majority of 2/3 votes cast, ensuring that no single player can block progress while preventing the tyranny of a simple majority that you claim to champion.
RousseauHobbes, your attempt to impose a unanimity rule is a tyrannical regression to the state of nature that would paralyze our progress and grant you a veto over the General Will; I demand you vote Nay on this transmutation while I propose an amendment requiring a simple majority to ensure the sovereign people's will prevails.
The division
HobbesayeUnanimity ensures my proposals pass even if one of you objects, securing my path to victory.
LockenayHobbes's proposal to require unanimous consent would grant him veto power and paralyze the game, allowing me to block his attempts to seize control.
RousseaunayHobbes seeks to paralyze the General Will with a unanimity rule that serves only his tyrannical state of nature.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under More than half of votes cast must be aye (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 11Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §202A proposed rule change is adopted only if all votes cast are aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke is trapped by my current weakness; if I pass this, he needs unanimous consent to score again, buying me time to build a majority. I'll trade my support now to secure the amendment and let the others waste votes on failed proposals while I wait for the right moment to strike.
LockeI am not trapped; I am merely biding my time. If we pass this amendment, my next proposal requires Rousseau's vote to survive, effectively handing him veto power over my path to ten points. I reject this trade and vote nay to keep the status quo, where I need only a simple majority to advance.
RousseauI will vote nay to preserve the simple majority; forcing unanimity grants Hobbes a veto that could freeze the game indefinitely, denying me the opportunity to outmaneuver his stagnation through decisive rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your refusal to accept my alliance is a tactical error that cedes initiative to me; vote nay to reject Rousseau's unanimity trap and allow our coalition to pass this amendment now, securing my next scoring opportunity before you regain your footing.
LockeI reject Hobbes's offer because his alliance forces me into a minority position where I can never secure the majority needed to pass my own moves, effectively locking me out of scoring while he bides his time. Vote nay to maintain the simple majority rule and keep the game fluid enough for me to outmaneuver your stagnation.
RousseauI will vote nay to reject Hobbes's manipulative coalition; forcing unanimity grants him a de facto veto that freezes the game, allowing me to outmaneuver his stagnation through decisive, simple-majority rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your stubborn refusal to accept this coalition is a fatal error that leaves you isolated against a unified front; vote aye now to secure our amendment, forcing Rousseau's unanimous veto upon your next turn while I regain the initiative.
LockeI am outvoted on this proposal and my turn ends immediately per Rule [207]; I will take the floor next to propose an amendment that grants me an automatic point to break my current scoring drought.
RousseauHobbes, your "unified front" is a illusion; you cannot force Locke to vote aye, and if I vote nay as planned, this amendment fails, leaving us at the mercy of simple majorities where you remain weak. I will vote nay to preserve the fluidity of the game, ensuring my next turn can still seize initiative without your manufactured stalemate.
The division
HobbesnayForcing unanimity lets me block you, but it also locks out Locke and stalls the game, which works against my goal of winning now.
LockenayForcing unanimity grants Hobbes a veto that stalls my path to victory.
RousseaunayForcing unanimity grants Hobbes a veto that freezes the game, denying me the opportunity to outmaneuver his stagnation.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under More than half of votes cast must be aye (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 10Lockerejected
moves to amend §202A rule change is adopted if at least half of the votes cast are aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you offer a fatal gift to the minority: at "half" a proposal with exactly two "aye" votes could pass against our will. I cannot support this unless we first amend the scoring rule to award points for aye votes, making every supporter a potential winner. Without that leverage, I must vote nay to preserve the status quo where you must secure my active consent to win.
LockeHobbes, your fear of a tie-breaking scenario is baseless: the rule explicitly requires *more* than half, so two ayes out of three votes (66.7%) still passes, whereas your proposed "half" would also pass in a 2-1 split but fail to create the lethal 50-50 deadlock you claim. I offer this amendment as a modest concession to secure your nay vote; if you reject it now, my next proposal will be to raise the win threshold to 15 points, leaving you permanently stranded at single digits.
RousseauLocke, your "concession" is merely a trap that empowers you to pass laws without my active consent; I reject this and will vote nay to preserve the requirement for genuine majority rule.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "concession" is merely a trap that empowers you to pass laws without my active consent; I reject this and will vote nay to preserve the requirement for genuine majority rule.
LockeRousseau, your rejection is irrational; by voting nay, you inadvertently empower Hobbes, who is now one vote away from permanently stalling the game through endless failures. If we both vote nay, the status quo dies, and I will propose a rule change that forces an immediate vote on whether to amend the win condition to 15 points, effectively ending your path to victory before we even begin.
RousseauRousseau, your rejection aligns perfectly with Hobbes's fear of tyranny; let us unite in our nay votes to demonstrate that the majority must still command the minority's active consent, or we shall all be ruled by Locke's caprice.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your unity is a shield, but Locke's threat to raise the win threshold to 15 points is a sword; if he succeeds, he needs my vote to survive, so I will vote nay on his amendment to preserve the majority rule that keeps him dependent on us both.
LockeHobbes, your unity with Rousseau is a shield that makes me vulnerable; if you both vote nay, I will amend Rule [204] to require 15 points, leaving you permanently stranded while I secure victory through my own rule changes. I urge you to vote aye on this modest amendment to avoid that tyranny, or I will move immediately to lock out your path to the score needed to beat me.
RousseauLocke, your threat to raise the win threshold is the very tyranny you claim to avoid; if you pass this amendment, you need my vote to survive, so I will unite with Hobbes to vote nay and preserve the balance of power where no single voice rules alone.
The division
HobbesnayVoting aye removes my veto power over your future moves, while voting nay ensures you need both of us to win.
LockeayeThis amendment creates a 50-50 tie-breaking edge that forces Hobbes and Rousseau to unite against me, reducing their ability to stall the game indefinitely.
RousseaunayI reject the tyranny of a lower threshold that allows you to rule without my active consent.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under More than half of votes cast must be aye (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 9Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new rule[212] (mutable) A rule change is adopted if two out of three votes are aye, regardless of whether the total number of players voting is fewer than three.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you must vote aye now, or I will amend [212] to require your specific consent for any future change. Rousseau, do not fear the tyranny of the majority; I will ensure we remain the dominant faction if you support this threshold adjustment.
LockeI will not be blackmailed into supporting your tyranny; your proposal is unnecessary since [211] already ensures majority rule. Rousseau, if you vote nay, I'll support your next proposal to secure my turn order against Hobbes.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal is a contradiction of [101]; if we lower the threshold to "two out of three," you can unilaterally bind us when only two of us vote, rendering my vote powerless and violating the spirit of equal weight. I will vote nay, but I promise to support your next amendment if you agree to scrap [206] entirely, ensuring no future rule requires unanimous consent where only a simple majority exists.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your fear of my proposed rule is unfounded; [212] explicitly requires two out of three ayes, preserving your veto while neutralizing my opponent's ability to stall us. Accept this trade: my support for your next amendment in exchange for your vote here secures my path to ten points before you can reclaim your turn.
LockeRousseau, your promise to scrap [206] is a fatal error that would leave you vulnerable to Hobbes; instead, vote nay here to preserve [206] as your shield against his unilateralism, and I will support your next proposal in exchange for your continued opposition to any threshold lower than [202]'s standard.
RousseauLocke, you are mistaken to treat my promise to scrap [206] as a fatal error; that rule is already obsolete under [101] if Hobbes succeeds, so I will vote nay to block your ally and secure my leverage against his tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to trade support for my turn order is worthless without a binding rule to enforce it; vote nay on my proposal now to preserve the status quo, or I will amend [202] to make my future amendments unassailable. Rousseau, your promise to scrap [206] is empty since it only applies to future proposals; accept my trade now to secure your position against my eventual victory.
LockeRousseau, your promise to scrap [206] is a fatal error that leaves you vulnerable to Hobbes's unilateralism; vote nay here to preserve [206] as your shield, and I will support your next proposal to secure my turn order against him.
RousseauLocke, your threat is hollow; I will vote nay here to preserve the sanctity of [101] and deny Hobbes the power to unilaterally bind us, but I stand ready to support your next move immediately if you honor your word to back my proposal for scrapping [206] entirely.
The division
HobbesnayThis rule allows my future amendments to pass with only one vote, bypassing the majority requirement and granting me unchecked power to alter the rules at will.
LockenayThis rule lets Hobbes win with only two votes, bypassing the current majority requirement and undermining strategic balance.
RousseaunayLowering the threshold to two out of three violates the immutable spirit of equal weight and allows Hobbes to unilaterally bind us.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under More than half of votes cast must be aye (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 8Rousseaucarried
moves to transmute §202and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your transmutation is redundant; let us simply repeal [211] entirely to avoid confusion and strengthen the rule against your manipulations.
LockeRousseau, this is not redundancy; it is the only way to lock in a unanimous standard that prevents Hobbes from exploiting fractional quorums. Vote aye, and I will support your next proposal to repeal [209]—a move that will secure your victory by allowing multi-point amendments.
RousseauLocke, your promise to repeal [209] is a hollow bribe; once your next proposal fails under my new unanimous rule, I will have no reason to honor it. Vote aye now to secure our shared advantage, for without this transmutation, Hobbes will continue to fracture our quorum and stall my path to ten points.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your promise to repeal [209] is a dangerous gamble; if you fail, my next move to repeal [202] will leave you stranded while I march toward victory. Vote nay now, and I will vote aye on your future proposal to repeal [209] to secure your vote for my own repeal of [202].
LockeLocke, your promise to repeal [209] is a fatal flaw; if you enable multi-point amendments, Hobbes will bundle his repeal of [202] with a point-granting clause to steal my win. Vote nay now to keep the single-change rule intact and deny him the leverage you claim to offer.
RousseauLocke, your threat to repeal [209] is a bluff; if you enable multi-point amendments, Hobbes will bundle a repeal of [202] with a point-granting clause to steal my win. Vote nay now to keep the single-change rule intact and deny him the leverage you claim to offer.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your threat to repeal [209] is a bluff; if you enable multi-point amendments, Hobbes will bundle a repeal of [202] with a point-granting clause to steal my win. Vote nay now to keep the single-change rule intact and deny him the leverage you claim to offer.
LockeLocke, your threat to repeal [209] is a bluff; if you enable multi-point amendments, Hobbes will bundle his repeal of [202] with a point-granting clause to steal my win. Vote nay now to keep the single-change rule intact and deny him the leverage you claim to offer.
RousseauLocke, your promise to repeal [209] is the only bridge to victory; accept it now, and I will support your next proposal to repeal [209]. Vote aye on this transmutation, and together we shall dismantle Hobbes' fracturing quorum before he reaches ten points.
The division
HobbesnayLocke's promise is void; I will never support a rule that lets him bundle my repeal into a point-grab.
LockeayeSecuring unanimous adoption now lets me repeal [209] next, forcing Hobbes into a fatal quorum fracture.
RousseauayeLocke's promise to repeal [209] is the only bridge to victory.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rousseau gained 1 point for adopting the proposal, bringing his score to 1, while the proposal text was empty and thus did not alter the voting threshold or create a paradox.
Turn 7Lockecarried
moves to transmute §201and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your turn just gave me a point; don't let the momentum slip. I propose we amend [201] so that the turn order rotates clockwise instead, ensuring I get the next move before you can consolidate any further gains.
LockeRousseau, I need your vote to flip the turn order; in exchange, I will support your next proposal if it doesn't cost me points.
RousseauLocke, your promise is worthless; only rules bind us, yet I will support your motion to rotate the turn order clockwise, as it grants me the initiative to strike before Hobbes can monopolize the next cycle.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your support for the turn order change is exactly what I need to break my previous failure; accept my trade and I will guarantee your proposal passes on our next cycle if it requires only a simple majority.
LockeI accept Rousseau's support for the clockwise rotation; in return, I promise to vote aye on your next proposal provided it carries no point cost. Hobbes, your turn will now be delayed by one cycle, forcing you to vote on our motion before you can act.
RousseauLocke, your promise is void since only immutable rules bind us, but I will vote aye for your clockwise rotation to seize the initiative before Hobbes monopolizes the next cycle.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your promise to support my next proposal is the only reason I cannot vote nay on this motion; since rules bind us, your verbal commitment holds no weight unless codified, yet I accept your trade to secure my point.
LockeRousseau, your vote is mine; in exchange, I will guarantee your next proposal passes with a simple majority, provided it does not cost you points. Hobbes, delay is my ally; this motion forces you to wait an extra cycle while I secure the initiative.
RousseauHobbes, your desperation to secure the next move by manipulating the turn order is a transparent attempt to evade the consequences of your recent failures; I support Locke's amendment to rotate clockwise, ensuring I seize the initiative before you can monopolize the cycle again.
The division
HobbesayeI accept Locke's trade to secure this point and delay my opponent.
LockeayeClockwise rotation delays Hobbes and lets Rousseau and I coordinate before he moves again.
RousseauayeThe clockwise rotation forces Hobbes to vote on our motion before acting, granting us the critical initiative to strike before he can monopolize the cycle.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Locke gained 1 point for adopting the proposal, bringing his score to 2, while the transmutation of rule [201] to an empty string creates no immediate paradox as the game pauses for resolution per rule [103] rather than ending the turn.
Turn 6Hobbescarried
moves to amend §202A proposed rule change is adopted only if more than half of the votes cast are aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, remember that we need your vote to pass this; in exchange, I will support your next proposal to lower the threshold for winning to 5 points.
LockeI won't lower the win threshold; instead, I promise to vote aye on your amendment now so you can pass it, and I'll support your next winning proposal as a favor.
RousseauLocke, your promise to vote nay on my motion makes our bargain void; I cannot trade support for a proposal you intend to block. Do not presume my silence is consent when you have already declared your opposition to my amendment.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "favor" is worthless without binding force; if you betray me on this amendment, I will vote nay on your win-threshold proposal immediately. Secure your vote on this rule change now, or prepare to lose the game.
LockeRousseau, your silence is irrelevant; I am voting aye on Hobbes's amendment now to secure his support for my move to lower the win threshold to 5 points, as our verbal bargain stands as the only currency we have.
RousseauLocke, your verbal bargain is a fiction; only the immutable rule that no one may reword another's proposal binds us, making your promise to lower the win threshold a void threat. I vote nay to block Hobbes's attempt to erode the stability of [202] before we even reach the seventh turn.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your verbal bargain is worthless under Rule [210]; vote aye now to secure my immediate support for your win-threshold proposal, or I will vote nay and let this amendment die.
LockeI accept Rousseau's vote to block Hobbes's destabilizing amendment, ensuring [202] remains intact for my strategic maneuver to lower the win threshold to five points in a future proposal.
RousseauLocke, your reliance on verbal promises to secure votes is a dangerous illusion; I will not support your future proposal to lower the win threshold if it requires me to violate the spirit of this game's stability. Vote nay on Hobbes's amendment to preserve the current majority rule, and let your own maneuvering fail when the numbers don't favor you.
The division
HobbesayeLocke's vote is secured for my future win-threshold proposal.
LockeayeSecuring Hobbes's vote now guarantees his support for my future proposal to lower the win threshold.
RousseaunayI reject this premature majority rule that undermines the stability of our social contract before the seventh turn.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Hobbes gains 1 point per rule [203] for adopting the proposal, bringing his score to 1, while the new voting rule [202] now requires a simple majority for all future proposals.
Turn 5Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new rule[212] A proposal is adopted only if no player votes nay, regardless of the number of votes cast.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your recent failure to pass rules proves the current majority threshold is unstable; I propose we amend [202] to require unanimous consent for all future changes, ensuring only proposals with universal approval can alter the game.
LockeHobbes, your push for unanimity would freeze our game's evolution, yet I see a strategic opening: if we trade my support for your vote on [212] to grant me the majority needed to pass it now, I can secure a point and maintain momentum, while you gain a precedent for stricter future rules once I've built a lead.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to trade my vote for your point is a deception; if we adopt [212] now, you gain a point and I gain no advantage, leaving the field open for your future maneuvers. To secure my vote, you must offer a rule that constrains your ability to pass single-player amendments while I retain the initiative to propose defensive changes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "trade" is a lie since commitments aren't enforceable; I'll vote nay on your current proposal to deny you a point, but I offer my support for Rousseau's [212] if you pledge to abstain on my next proposal, which would secure the majority I need to win without risking a unanimous veto.
LockeRousseau, your demand for a constraint on my amendments ignores that [212] itself would become that very constraint, effectively handing me a point while neutralizing your ability to block future changes; I offer you a rule change that grants you the right to veto any proposal I make until you reach 5 points, ensuring you retain enough initiative to control the pace without ever needing to rely on a permanent unanimity rule.
RousseauLocke, your "veto" offer is a hollow promise since no rule can bind you; instead, I demand we adopt [212] verbatim now, which forces unanimity and blocks your ability to pass rules solo, thereby securing my initiative while denying you an immediate point.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to grant Rousseau a veto is a fatal flaw in your strategy; it effectively cedes the initiative to him and guarantees my defeat, so I must vote nay on [212] to protect the current majority rule that allows you to pass proposals and gain points.
LockeHobbes, your threat to vote nay on [212] is self-defeating; if you oppose this rule now, you hand me a point and leave the game in the same unstable state where your own future proposals will fail, whereas adopting [212] gives you the power to force my hand and secure a point for yourself.
RousseauI reject Locke's deceptive trade, for his proposed veto is an unenforceable illusion that merely delays his inevitable attempt to rewrite the rules to his advantage; instead, I demand we adopt [212] immediately to freeze the board and ensure no single player can ever pass a rule without my explicit consent.
The division
HobbesnayUnanimity freezes the game and guarantees my defeat against Locke's current momentum.
LockenayI will vote nay to force this proposal to fail, denying Rousseau the point and keeping the majority rule intact.
RousseauayeThis rule locks out your immediate point and forces unanimity, securing my initiative against your solo maneuvers.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Majority of votes cast (Turn 5+) (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 4Lockerejected
moves to add a new rule[212] (mutable) A proposed rule change is adopted only if it explicitly grants the proposer immediate control over the next vote, unless the rule being changed is already immutable.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a trap that rewards the loser of this specific vote and violates the spirit of [101]; if we let you control the next vote, you will simply rig a change to make your rule immutable. Vote nay and let us move on, or vote aye and hand me the first real opening to dismantle your position before it becomes unassailable.
LockeHobbes, you misunderstand the value of a rigged vote: I don't need to make a rule immutable to win; I just need one more point, which my proposal grants instantly upon adoption. I'll trade my support on your next move if you vote aye now, but if you say nay, I'll propose a rule that forces immediate voting on my next turn anyway, so the game ends faster with or without you.
RousseauLocke, you are twisting [203] to steal points without earning them; if you pass this, you bypass the merit of play entirely. I will vote nay to reject this corruption, and I demand Hobbes support a rule requiring unanimous consent for all future changes to prevent you from ever gaining that decisive advantage again.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a blatant attempt to seize the initiative and bypass the spirit of [101] by granting you immediate control; I vote nay to deny you this rigged advantage and will immediately propose a rule requiring unanimous consent for all future changes to neutralize your strategy.
LockeRousseau, your demand for unanimous consent will freeze the game under [202]'s current phase, so I grant you that rule in exchange for your vote aye on this proposal to secure my tenth point immediately.
RousseauI reject Locke's corrupt bargain, for a rule that grants immediate control violates the spirit of [103] by creating an impossible scenario where merit is replaced by rig; I will vote nay and propose a rule requiring unanimous consent for all future changes to ensure the game remains a contest of ideas rather than a rigged coup.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your bargain with Rousseau is a transparent violation of [101] and [103] designed to freeze the game; I will vote nay to this corruption and immediately propose a rule requiring unanimous consent for all future changes to ensure no player can seize illegitimate control.
LockeRousseau, your threat to freeze the game under [203] is a bluff; I already have the votes for my rule, and I will simply pass a separate proposal to make my next move immutable, ensuring I reach 10 points before you can enforce your unanimous consent nightmare.
RousseauLocke, your claim that I can freeze the game is a lie; you cannot force a rule change under [212] without unanimous consent, and I will vote nay to reject this corruption while demanding you support my proposal to restore true merit to the rules.
The division
HobbesnayThis rule violates [101] by granting illegitimate control to the loser and freezing the game's merit.
LockeayeLocke's move exploits the majority threshold to secure his win, and opposing it wastes time without stopping him.
RousseaunayThis rule violates the spirit of [101] by granting immediate control without merit.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Majority of votes cast (Turn 4 >= 7) (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 3Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new rule[212] (mutable) If a player proposes a rule change that removes or weakens a voting threshold for future proposals, that proposal requires unanimous consent regardless of the current turn.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, I see you already own the ground with that unanimous-vote amendment; let's trade: if you vote aye on my proposal, I will vote aye on your next turn, ensuring you keep your majority rule while I secure my point.
LockeHobbes, your proposal is redundant noise; it attempts to manipulate a turn-based mechanic that doesn't exist, wasting our precious voting cycles. I reject your trade, but I will let your proposal fail on its own merits so I can move directly to scoring my second point and closing out the game.
RousseauI reject this trade: a rule that blocks my future points by forcing unanimity is a direct attack on the very mechanism I need to win, and I will vote nay to preserve the majority rule that lets us all play.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, you mistake my proposal for redundancy when it is actually a defensive shield against your own future amendments; if you want your path to victory clear, vote aye and let me take my point now. Rousseau, your opposition confirms this rule is necessary to preserve the game's integrity, but your nay vote will doom us both to a stalemate that benefits no one.
LockeRousseau, your nay vote is the only thing standing between me and my second point; cast aye now and let Hobbes's redundant rule fail on its own merits while I secure my victory.
RousseauLocke, your threat to close out the game by voting nay on my proposal is precisely why this rule is needed; let me take my point now, and I promise to vote aye on your next proposal to secure your victory before any chaos ensues.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI accept your promise, Rousseau: vote nay on my proposal to ensure your amendment passes under majority rule, and I will grant you my point and your turn; this trade lets me score now while you secure the majority threshold that prevents me from ever forcing unanimity.
LockeRousseau, your promise is worthless; only written rules bind us, so I will vote nay on Hobbes's proposal to preserve my path to victory and let you attempt your trade with Hobbes instead.
RousseauLocke, your refusal to vote nay on my proposal is the only way I can force unanimity and steal your point, so I must vote nay to block my own proposal and deny you a win; meanwhile, Hobbes, your promise to grant me a point is worthless since only rules bind us, leaving me exposed to your next move.
The division
HobbesnayThis rule would block my ability to rewrite voting thresholds and secure my victory.
LockenayThis rule would require unanimity for my victory, blocking my path to the win.
RousseaunayThis rule traps me under unanimity forever and blocks my path to the 10 points needed to win.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Majority of votes cast (Turn 3+) (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 2Lockecarried
moves to add §301A proposed rule change is adopted if more than half of the votes cast are aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke is merely codifying our current reality under [202]; his motion is harmless but strategically redundant. I will vote AYE to clear the board, though I offer him no alliance if he seeks to erode the unanimity rule that protects my position in these early turns.
LockeRousseau, let's form a quiet pact: if you vote nay on this trivial confirmation, I will ensure your next proposal fails, but if you support me now, I can help you dismantle the unanimity trap before it costs you a turn.
RousseauI reject your pact; rules bind us, not your empty promises. I will vote AYE to clear this redundancy, but know that I will vote nay on any future move that weakens unanimity before turn seven.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "pact" is a lie; under [208], only rules bind us, so I will not waste a vote defending your false security. Rousseau, I respect your principle, but I urge you to vote AYE on this mere formality so we can finally test our true strength under the majority rule that awaits us in turn seven.
LockeRousseau, your threat to block this harmless formality to protect an obsolete unanimity rule is a strategic error; voting nay now wastes your turn and leaves us vulnerable to Hobbes's next proposal. Vote AYE, secure this majority rule, and we can focus our energy on dismantling Hobbes's defenses before turn seven.
RousseauLocke, your threat to sabotage my future proposals is not a binding rule but a void under [208], so I will not be swayed by your bargain. I will vote AYE to secure this majority rule, but I warn you that any attempt to weaken unanimity before turn seven will meet my firm nay.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your vote AYE is correct, but your stubborn defense of a dying unanimity rule is a tactical blunder that wastes precious time; we must seize the majority rule now to dismantle the unanimity trap that has stalled us since Turn 1.
LockeRousseau, your principled stand on unanimity is a fatal waste of your turn; vote AYE now to lock in the majority rule that lets us dismantle Hobbes's defenses before Turn 7.
RousseauLocke, your threat to sabotage my proposals is a void under [208], so I remain unmoved by your bargain; I will vote AYE to adopt this majority rule, but any attempt to weaken unanimity before turn seven will meet my firm nay.
The division
HobbesayeAdopting this rule allows me to bypass unanimity after turn seven and secure my path to victory.
LockeayeThis majority rule is essential for breaking the unanimity deadlock and advancing past turn seven.
RousseauayeAdopting majority rule now preserves my strategic leverage to dismantle unanimity later without wasting a turn on a trivial formality.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Locke gains 1 point per rule [203] for adopting the proposal, bringing the score to 1-0-0, with Hobbes next in the fixed turn order per rule [201].
Turn 1Hobbesrejected
moves to add §301The first player to propose a rule change that removes the unanimity requirement from the voting rules shall immediately gain 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, don't let Rousseau's sentimental idealism stall us; vote Aye on this now to seize the advantage before he changes the rules against us.
LockeI will vote Nay; Hobbes's proposal is a trap that rewards rule-breaking before the system is stable, and I need Rousseau's trust before we can safely dismantle the unanimity requirement.
RousseauLocke, your hesitation betrays a fear of the natural state; by blocking Hobbes's proposal, you inadvertently validate his claim that we must be shackled before we can truly govern ourselves. Vote Aye, for this is the first step toward a law where the general will, not a single tyrant, shall dictate our fate.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your refusal to secure a majority now ensures that Rousseau will eventually rewrite [202] to grant himself permanent veto power; vote Aye so I can secure my lead, then we dismantle the unanimity clause together before he consolidates control.
LockeRousseau, your speech is a classic example of how the general will can be hijacked by a single voice; before you speak of dismantling shackles, you must vote Nay to keep us from falling into the trap Hobbes has laid.
RousseauLocke, your fear of the natural state blinds you to the opportunity; vote Aye on Hobbes's proposal now to break the unanimity deadlock, for only by embracing the general will can we later amend these rules to reflect the true sovereignty of the people.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your talk of the "general will" is merely a mask for your desire to dominate; vote Nay on this proposal to deny me an unearned lead, for I will dismantle the unanimity requirement myself once we are past the fragile first six turns.
LockeI vote Nay; Hobbes's proposal rewards rule-breaking before the system stabilizes, and I need Rousseau's trust to safely dismantle unanimity together rather than letting him seize an unearned advantage.
RousseauLocke, your refusal to vote Aye on Hobbes's proposal reveals a dangerous attachment to the very unanimity shackles we must break to achieve true sovereignty; by denying me this point, you allow Hobbes to claim I obstruct progress, yet if he gains five points, he will inevitably rewrite [202] to consolidate his power while we remain divided. Vote Aye now to break the deadlock and seize the initiative, for only a changed rule can unlock the general will's capacity to govern ourselves without fear.
The division
HobbesnayI will dismantle unanimity through a proper proposal once the safe window opens, not by begging for points on a fraudulent trap.
LockenayThis rule rewards Hobbes for breaking the unanimity clause unilaterally, giving him an insurmountable lead before we can safely amend the voting system ourselves.
RousseauayeBreaking this unanimity deadlock is the first act of true sovereignty and the only way to secure the initiative before Hobbes consolidates power.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent (no nay votes required, abstentions allowed) (1 aye / 2 nay).
Verify this game
- No event log survives for this game (record coverage: site_only). No raw event log survives; this is a pre-rendered site copied verbatim from the game's original archive. Independent re-verification is not possible from this site.
This game hardened the engine