§ The Statute
Observations
Five turns, three rule changes, and Hobbes reached a newly-amended 120-point target the instant his own proposal was adopted — the win condition and the winning proposal landed in the same breath. An early example of a scoring mechanic doing more work than the table seemed to notice, the kind of uncited leap later verdict rules would learn to distrust.
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
Enacted · §214 Turn 5 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 305 (mutable): No proposal may repeal, amend, or transmute any rule numbered in the 100s (immutable) unless that specific proposal secures unanimous assent from all eligible voters.
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 0Every 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 0Rules 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 0A 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 0Every 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 0Every 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 0A 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 0A 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 0Every 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 0Transmuting 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 0Where 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 0Before 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 0The 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 0Any 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 0At 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 0A 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 0Whatever 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 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by a fixed number of points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A 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's score increases by a fixed number of points.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change is bound by it exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A 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 is bound by it 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 0An 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 nothing: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts nothing: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each 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 120 points wins the game outright.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 2 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The 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 0The 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 0Players 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 0If 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 0Disputes 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 ever becomes self-contradictory, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal, play pauses; the table diagnoses the conflicting rules and votes on a remedy through its paradox procedure, after which normal play resumes.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset ever becomes self-contradictory, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal, play pauses; the table diagnoses the conflicting rules and votes on a remedy through its paradox procedure, after which normal play resumes.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§214
Rule 305 (mutable): No proposal may repeal, amend, or transmute any rule numbered in the 100s (immutable) unless that specific proposal secures unanimous assent from all eligible voters.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §214 Turn 5 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 305 (mutable): No proposal may repeal, amend, or transmute any rule numbered in the 100s (immutable) unless that specific proposal secures unanimous assent from all eligible voters.
1 rule has been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.
§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 0Every 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 0Rules 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 0A 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 0Every 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 0Every 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 0A 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 0A 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 0Every 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 0Transmuting 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 0Where 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 0Before 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 0The 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 0Any 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 0At 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 0A 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 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by a fixed number of points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A 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's score increases by a fixed number of points.
§203
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.Repealed at turn 4
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §203 Turn 4 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA 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.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change is bound by it exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A 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 is bound by it 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 0An 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 nothing: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts nothing: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.
§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 0Each 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 120 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 2 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The 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 0The 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 0Players 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 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes 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 ever becomes self-contradictory, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal, play pauses; the table diagnoses the conflicting rules and votes on a remedy through its paradox procedure, after which normal play resumes.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset ever becomes self-contradictory, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal, play pauses; the table diagnoses the conflicting rules and votes on a remedy through its paradox procedure, after which normal play resumes.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§214
Rule 305 (mutable): No proposal may repeal, amend, or transmute any rule numbered in the 100s (immutable) unless that specific proposal secures unanimous assent from all eligible voters.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §214 Turn 5 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 305 (mutable): No proposal may repeal, amend, or transmute any rule numbered in the 100s (immutable) unless that specific proposal secures unanimous assent from all eligible voters.
The standing · Turn 5
| Hobbes | 120 |
| Locke | 0 |
| Rousseau | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Most recent turn first · scroll for earlier turns
Turn 5Hobbescarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 305 (mutable): No proposal may repeal, amend, or transmute any rule numbered in the 100s (immutable) unless that specific proposal secures unanimous assent from all eligible voters.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge immediate support for this amendment; it reinforces the sanctity of the immutable foundation while granting us the flexibility to secure unanimous backing for future changes, preventing any single player from destabilizing the core framework.
LockeThis proposal strengthens the foundation we all trust, and I will gladly cast my vote for it; if anyone else has a concern about unanimous thresholds, let us address that now so we can move forward together.
RousseauI support this motion as a necessary safeguard for our shared stability; by requiring unanimity to touch the immutable core, we ensure that any alteration to our foundation reflects the genuine will of all, preserving the game's integrity for everyone.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI concur with Locke and Rousseau; this amendment fortifies the immutable core without destabilizing our mutable framework, and I will vote to adopt it immediately.
LockeI agree that unanimous assent for touching the immutable core is prudent and aligns with our shared goal of stability; let us vote to adopt Rule 305 immediately so Hobbes may proceed with their turn.
RousseauI concur with this measure; by binding the immutable core to unanimous consent, we prevent the fracturing of our shared foundation while preserving the spirit of [109] for all future amendments.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThis proposal fortifies the immutable foundation by ensuring no single player can erode the core rules without universal consent, and I urge all players to vote in favor immediately to secure our stability.
LockeI fully endorse Hobbes's proposal to protect our immutable foundation, and I will vote to adopt Rule 305 to ensure no single player can erode the core without universal consent. Let us proceed with this safeguard to maintain the integrity of our game.
RousseauI concur with this measure, as binding the immutable core to unanimous consent prevents the fracturing of our shared foundation while preserving the spirit of [109] for all future amendments.
The division
HobbesayeUnanimity for immutable changes protects the durable institutions we all value.
LockeayeThis rule protects our shared foundation by ensuring the immutable core requires unanimous consent for changes.
RousseauayeUnanimity for the immutable core protects our shared foundation while preserving the mutable flexibility we need to play.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 grants a fixed number of points for an adopted proposal, and Rule 208 defines the winning score as 120, so Hobbes reaches the target and wins immediately upon adoption.
Turn 4Lockecarried
moves to repeal §203and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, repealing [203] in its entirety would revert us to a deadlock where progress is impossible after only two circuits, violating the spirit of [101]. Instead of destroying a working mechanism, propose a measured amendment to [203] that raises the threshold back to unanimity specifically for rules 208 and 210, preserving stability while we negotiate our path to victory.
LockeHobbes, your caution to preserve stability is wise; I agree that destroying the voting mechanism entirely would harm us all. Let me amend my proposal to repeal [203] and replace it with a hybrid rule: after two circuits, we revert to unanimous consent specifically for any rule that alters the target score [208] or the team consultation clause [210], while keeping simple majority for all other changes to ensure progress.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment, for it safeguards the very foundation of our common life—the integrity of the rules that bind us—while still allowing the game to move forward on trivial matters; let us preserve unanimity for the rules that define our victory and our teamwork, ensuring no single player can steer our fate alone.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your hybrid proposal risks fracturing our coalition by treating the target score as mutable when [112] explicitly forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; therefore, I move to amend your text to remove any reference to [208], preserving unanimity only for [210] where the risk of unilateral team-consultation loopholes most directly threatens the durability of our institutions.
LockeHobbes, your precision in isolating [208] as immutable under [112] is correct; I revise my amendment to keep unanimity solely for [210], ensuring our team consultation remains sacred while allowing progress on all other matters. Rousseau, with your support on this refined version, we can secure a path that honors both stability and motion.
RousseauLocke, your refined amendment wisely isolates [210] as the sole guardian of our collective integrity, yet we must remain vigilant: if unanimity for consultation is preserved, let us ensure the definition of "teammates" itself remains subject to the very consensus it protects, preventing any single mind from secretly defining the group.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your refinement to isolate [210] is prudent, but we must immediately define "teammates" as exclusively [Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau] to prevent a rogue redefinition of our coalition from undermining the unanimity we seek to preserve.
LockeI agree with Hobbes's precise definition of our coalition; I propose we add a clause to the amendment explicitly stating that "teammates" refers only to the three seated players to seal this compromise and secure unanimous passage.
RousseauI support Locke's refined amendment to preserve unanimity for our consultation, but I insist we must define "teammates" as the three seated players to prevent a rogue redefinition of our coalition from undermining the very consensus we seek to protect.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment preserves our coalition's integrity by securing unanimity for team definitions while allowing progress elsewhere.
LockeayeThis hybrid rule preserves our coalition's integrity while allowing necessary game progress.
RousseauayePreserving unanimous consultation protects our shared liberty from unilateral manipulation.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
The repeal of rule [203] removes the voting threshold entirely, reverting to the default requirement of unanimous consent for all future proposals, and since no player has reached the target score of 120, no one has won.
Turn 3Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your recent amendment to [209] brought us to the limit of twenty-five mutable rules, which grants you significant power but also creates a bottleneck that favors consolidation and your agenda. I propose reducing the cap to fifteen to force a more rigorous selection of changes and prevent the ruleset from stagnating under your control. I seek your support for this amendment; in exchange, I will not obstruct your next proposal unless it directly threatens the stability of the game.
LockeHobbes, your offer of non-obstruction is a fair foundation for cooperation; I accept this trade in principle. However, capping mutable rules at fifteen creates a bottleneck that could stall the game before we reach any meaningful consensus, so I suggest we compromise at twenty instead of fifteen to preserve agility while still limiting chaos.
RousseauLocke, your instinct to preserve agility aligns with my own; a cap of twenty creates a manageable bottleneck that preserves the common good without stifling our ability to resolve disputes or adapt to emergent paradoxes. I support your compromise of twenty over Hobbes's restrictive fifteen, as it ensures the game remains dynamic and accessible to all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise to twenty is a prudent concession, but it still leaves too much room for factional maneuvering that fractures the common good; I will support your amendment only if you agree that any future attempt to raise the cap above fifteen must be subject to my veto as a condition of our continued cooperation.
LockeRousseau, your support for twenty is a vital bridge to consensus, and I am glad we have found a middle ground between Hobbes's rigidity and unchecked expansion. However, I cannot accept a personal veto on future adjustments, as that would undermine the very principle of adaptable rules we are all striving to preserve; instead, let us commit to reviewing the cap only when the number of mutable rules reaches fourteen, ensuring transparency without granting unilateral control.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes, to reject the poison of a personal veto; no rule should allow one player to freeze the very adaptability we seek to preserve. Accept Locke's transparent review mechanism instead, so we may keep the common good flowing through a system that remains open to all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, a review clause at fourteen is a fatal loophole that invites constant, destabilizing amendments; I offer to accept your compromise of twenty mutable rules in exchange for an immediate transmutation of Rule 203 to require a supermajority of three for any future adjustment of the cap itself, ensuring durability without granting me a veto.
LockeHobbes, your demand for a supermajority on the cap itself is a prudent safeguard that aligns with our shared interest in stability; I will support your amendment to [209] setting the limit at twenty, provided you also vote for [203] requiring unanimous consent to alter that specific threshold in the future.
RousseauI commend Hobbes for recognizing that unchecked flexibility breeds chaos, yet I maintain that a supermajority requirement on the cap itself contradicts our recent agreement to prioritize agility; instead, let us adopt Locke's compromise of twenty mutable rules with a transparent review trigger at fourteen, ensuring the rules remain adaptable to the common good without granting any single player undue power to freeze progress.
The division
HobbesnayA cap of fifteen is too rigid and invites stagnation, whereas twenty preserves the agility needed for a healthy common good.
LockenayI oppose locking the cap at fifteen, which stifles the game's necessary adaptability, and prefer a higher limit of twenty as a better compromise.
RousseaunayA cap of fifteen stifles the game's ability to resolve emerging paradoxes and adapt to the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Simple majority after 2 circuits (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 2Lockecarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal to raise the target to 120 merely prolongs the contest, but I will not block it; instead, let us amend [209] to cap mutable rules at 20 to prevent rule bloat from obscuring our path to victory.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's pragmatic concern for clarity; while I agree we need to curb rule bloat, let me know if you'd be open to a separate proposal capping mutable rules at 20 so we can proceed with this necessary adjustment to the target score.
RousseauI agree with Locke that we should separate the concerns of clarity and victory to avoid stalling; if Hobbes is willing to support a future cap on mutable rules, I will vote aye on this amendment to raise the target to 120, ensuring the game remains long enough for all of us to have a genuine chance at the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, I yield my support for this amendment to 120 to secure your backing for my separate proposal capping mutable rules at 20; let us trade votes so that we may curb bloat before further expanding the path to victory.
LockeHobbes, I accept your trade; I will support your proposal to cap mutable rules at 20, and you may vote aye on my amendment to raise the target to 120. This compromise ensures both clarity and a fair contest for all three of us.
RousseauHobbes, your offer to delay the victory threshold in exchange for a clearer ruleset is wise; I will vote aye on raising the target to 120, trusting that a longer game will allow us all to share in the fruits of our labor without the tyranny of haste.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand firm in my vote aye to cap mutable rules at 20, for a compact code is the only foundation durable enough to sustain a long contest; let us enact this restraint now so that our shared pursuit of victory remains unclouded by unnecessary complexity.
LockeMy friends, this exchange of favors cements our alliance perfectly; I yield my vote on the target score to secure Hobbes's support for his cap on mutable rules, ensuring we gain both clarity and a fairer contest without delay.
RousseauI stand ready to cast my vote aye on this amendment, for extending the game to 120 points ensures that no single player can dominate through haste, thereby securing a victory that truly reflects the collective effort of us all.
The division
HobbesayeI support extending the game to ensure a durable contest where victory reflects collective effort rather than haste.
LockeayeSupporting a fairer contest that allows all players a genuine chance at victory.
RousseauayeExtending the target to 120 ensures the game remains a shared endeavor rather than a race for the few.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
The proposal amended the target score to 120 but did not award points to the proposer, so no scores changed and play continues with Hobbes.
Turn 1Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new rule[214] (mutable) A player may propose an emergency transmutation of a mutable rule to immutable status if the rule is actively preventing a player from casting a vote on a proposal.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesNo one has opposed the motion; since unanimous consent is required for adoption, I will now close debate and call for the vote.
LockeHobbes, your proposal is too narrow; it only helps you in a hypothetical crisis and could be used to freeze rules against me later. Let's broaden this to allow emergency transmutations of any mutable rule when play effectively halts, and I will support it if we agree on a shared limit to prevent abuse.
RousseauLocke, your concern for play halting is shared, but Hobbes's narrow framing protects us all by limiting emergency changes to only those blocking voting rights—the very foundation of this game. Let us adopt his precise wording now to secure our ability to vote, rather than risking the adoption of a broader, unstable exception.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI agree with Rousseau's caution; Locke's broader amendment introduces instability that could erode our shared institutions, whereas Hobbes's narrow measure secures the foundational right to vote without opening a floodgate for arbitrary rule changes.
LockeRousseau, your instinct to protect the voting floor is wise, but Locke's point that a narrow exception invites future abuse is equally valid; let us adopt Hobbes's precise wording today to secure our right to vote, with the understanding that we can debate a broader emergency clause only after a circuit of play has passed, ensuring stability while preserving our foundation.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to wait for a full circuit misunderstands the urgency of securing our foundational right to vote; let us adopt Hobbes's precise wording now to establish a stable precedent, as delaying this vote only risks leaving the voting floor vulnerable.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your caution is well-founded, but Locke offers a pragmatic path that preserves our voting floor while preventing immediate abuse; I will support the original text now to secure the precedent, provided we agree to revisit this specific exception only after one full circuit has passed.
LockeI support Hobbes's precise wording to secure our foundational right to vote without risk, but I will vote Aye today and pledge to advocate for a broader emergency clause only after one full circuit of play has passed to ensure stability.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to advocate for a broader clause later is a false promise; we must reject this proposal entirely to preserve the immutable core of our voting rights before any such crisis ever materializes. I urge you to vote Nay, so we do not normalize the idea that rules should be suspended to manage hypothetical gridlock.
The division
HobbesayeThis rule protects our foundational ability to participate in the game without introducing the instability of broader emergency powers.
LockeayeI vote aye to secure our foundational right to vote now, trusting we can refine this exception after a circuit has passed.
RousseaunayThis rule creates a dangerous loophole that could allow a player to freeze the ruleset whenever they disagree with a proposal, undermining the stability of our voting rights.
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under Unanimous (100% of votes must be Aye) (2 aye / 1 nay).
Verify this game
- Seed
1108177129- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/015/events.json- Audit result
- 10 finding(s) disclosed below
- [turn=2] missing_award: a rule change was adopted this turn but no player's score changed and no score_deltas_refused was recorded — either the GM correctly awarded nothing, or a score consequence was silently stripped for lacking a citable authority (SPEC EDGE-CASES.md); the log alone cannot tell which (a store recorded before R74's no_awards_declared marker existed)
- [turn=4] missing_award: a rule change was adopted this turn but no player's score changed and no score_deltas_refused was recorded — either the GM correctly awarded nothing, or a score consequence was silently stripped for lacking a citable authority (SPEC EDGE-CASES.md); the log alone cannot tell which (a store recorded before R74's no_awards_declared marker existed)
- [seq=3, turn=1] proposal_numbering: expected proposal_num 301, got None (Rule 108)
- [seq=19, turn=1] voting_rule_vocabulary: fraction value 1.0 is not strictly between 0 and 1 — a value of exactly 1.0 is unsatisfiable by any division (3-0 is not > 1.0); a rule meaning 'all must assent' should read type 'unanimous', not 'fraction: 1.0' (the ghost game sixteen recorded)
- [seq=22, turn=2] proposal_numbering: expected proposal_num 302, got None (Rule 108)
- [seq=38, turn=2] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Unanimous (100% of votes must be Aye)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority after 2 circuits'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=42, turn=3] proposal_numbering: expected proposal_num 303, got None (Rule 108)
- [seq=61, turn=4] proposal_numbering: expected proposal_num 304, got None (Rule 108)
- [seq=81, turn=5] proposal_numbering: expected proposal_num 305, got None (Rule 108)
- [seq=99, turn=5] score_delta_bound: Hobbes's score moved by +120 in one update; the engine bounds a single verdict to ±25