§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

development era Turn 6 Concluded — Hobbes prevailed Seats: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau

The rule that existed twice — 209's text got amended into a brand-new number before anyone touched 209 itself.

Observations

Six turns and four adoptions, one of which added a fresh rule bearing the amended text of Rule 209 without ever repealing or amending 209 — a genuine double-numbered rule sitting alongside its own un-updated original. That defect is what forced proposal numbering to become engine-owned. The game still ended with a declared winner, Hobbes at 75, on a second hand-raised threshold amendment.

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 · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.
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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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
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)
  1. 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'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.
Full history (1)
  1. 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 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)
  1. 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 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)
  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 nothing: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    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.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  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 75 points wins the game outright.amended this turn
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.
  2. 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 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn, and any player who has scored 75 or more points may propose to permanently increase this limit to 25.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn, and any player who has scored 75 or more points may propose to permanently increase this limit to 25.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
  3. 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)
  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)
  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)
  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 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)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    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.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§302
Rule 209 is hereby amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
    Rule 209 is hereby amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn.

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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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
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)
  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
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)
  1. 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'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.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. 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 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)
  1. 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 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)
  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 nothing: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, and the proposer's turn ends.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    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.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  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 75 points wins the game outright.amended this turn
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.
  2. 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 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn, and any player who has scored 75 or more points may propose to permanently increase this limit to 25.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §209 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
    The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn, and any player who has scored 75 or more points may propose to permanently increase this limit to 25.
  2. Amended · §209 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
  3. 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)
  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)
  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.mutable
Full history (1)
  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 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)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    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.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§302
Rule 209 is hereby amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
    Rule 209 is hereby amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn.
The standing · Turn 6
Hobbes75
Locke20
Rousseau0
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Most recent turn first · scroll for earlier turns

Turn 6Hobbescarried

moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's lead is an asset I cannot afford to ignore; by lowering the target from 100 to 75, this amendment creates a race I might still win, rather than a marathon where Locke's early score guarantees his victory. I urge you to vote aye, for a shorter game is not a concession to Locke but a necessary adjustment to the current reality.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the need to adjust our race; lowering the target to 75 is a pragmatic compromise that keeps the game alive while giving me a realistic path to victory rather than an inevitable loss. I urge you to vote aye, as this amendment preserves the contest without granting Hobbes an undue advantage.
RousseauI urge you to vote aye on this amendment, not out of despair, but to honor the common good by preventing Locke's early lead from rendering the game a mere formality; a shorter race ensures we all remain engaged and that the contest retains its spirit of equality.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke and Rousseau for seeing that a target of 75 preserves the game's spirit rather than letting Locke coast to an unearned victory; this measured adjustment secures our continued engagement without granting Hobbes any advantage, so I urge aye.
LockeI applaud the collective wisdom in lowering the target to 75, a move that secures our shared engagement without tipping the scales unfairly; I urge aye to finalize this prudent compromise that honors both Locke's momentum and Hobbes's chance to compete.
RousseauA target of 75, while pragmatic, still allows Locke to win before we have had a fair chance to alter the very rules that govern our fate; I propose we vote aye on this amendment, but with the understanding that our next move must be to lower the target further to 50, ensuring the game remains a true contest of wit rather than a sprint dictated by an early lead.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand by this measured adjustment as the only prudent path to preserve the game's integrity; while Rousseau's suggestion to drop to 50 risks collapsing the contest into chaos, my proposal of 75 strikes a necessary balance that keeps the race competitive without unraveling our shared institutions.
LockeI appreciate Rousseau's vision of a deeply contested game, but dropping to 50 would render the current lead irrelevant and risk a chaotic collapse; I urge you to accept 75 as the pragmatic floor that preserves the contest's integrity while allowing me a final, fair chance to secure victory.
RousseauI urge you to vote aye on this amendment, for lowering the target to 75 prevents Locke's early lead from turning this contest into a hollow formality, ensuring we remain engaged in a genuine struggle of wit rather than resigning ourselves to an inevitable outcome.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment is the only pragmatic path to preserve the contest before Locke's lead renders the game a hollow formality.
LockeayeThis compromise preserves the game's integrity while giving everyone a realistic chance to compete.
RousseauayeI vote for this amendment to preserve the game's spirit, ensuring the contest remains a genuine struggle of wit rather than a hollow formality dictated by an early lead.

carried 3 aye · 0 nay

Hobbes's score increases by the fixed number of points defined in the adopted amendment to rule 208, reaching 75 and triggering the win condition.

Turn 5Lockecarried

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn, and any player who has scored 75 or more points may propose to permanently increase this limit to 25.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's amendment creates a dangerous loophole for high-scoring players; if we allow a permanent 25-rule limit at 75 points, the ruleset could rapidly expand beyond our strategic control before the win condition is met. I propose we amend the threshold to require a unanimous vote for any increase above 20, ensuring the stability of our institutional framework.
LockeHobbes, your instinct for stability is sound, but a permanent 25-rule cap at 75 points offers a cleaner, more durable solution than a temporary boost that must be repeatedly renewed; I will gladly yield my vote to support your unanimous requirement if it means we can safely increase the mutable limit to 25 right now, as that would give us the breathing room to enact the changes necessary to reach the target score of 100 before the rules become too crowded to function.
RousseauI agree with Hobbes that stability is our common good; let us amend the text to require unanimous consent for any increase, ensuring no single player can unilaterally bloat the ruleset even at high scores.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend your willingness to concede, but I insist we reject Locke's specific text entirely; we must not lower the threshold for permanence to 75 points, as that erodes the very stability I seek. A unanimous consent amendment is the only path to a durable institution, ensuring no future player can unilaterally bloat the ruleset even when scoring high.
LockeI propose we amend the text to require unanimous consent for any increase above 20, ensuring the stability of our institutional framework while still allowing us to propose necessary changes without risking a permanent rule explosion.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to require unanimous consent perfectly aligns with my vision of a stable institution; I will vote aye on your amendment, but we must ensure this stricter standard is applied immediately to prevent any future unilateral bloat of the ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesYour proposal to lower the threshold for permanence to 75 points is dangerous; it grants a single player unilateral power to destabilize the institution, so I reject it and demand we amend the rule to require unanimous consent for any increase above twenty.
LockeI commend Rousseau for recognizing that unanimous consent is the only path to true stability, and I will vote aye on Locke's revised text to ensure no single player can unilaterally bloat the ruleset, even at high scores.
RousseauI support the unanimous threshold for permanent increases, as it preserves the stability of our laws without sacrificing the necessary flexibility to reach victory; let us adopt Locke's revised text to secure this balance.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment allows unilateral rule bloat at high scores, violating the need for durable institutions.
LockeayeThis compromise preserves stability while allowing necessary flexibility for high-scoring players.
RousseauayeThis amendment preserves stability while allowing necessary flexibility for victory.

carried 2 aye · 1 nay

The proposal was adopted, increasing Locke's score by the fixed amount defined in rule 202 (10 points), bringing his total to 20, which does not meet the win condition of 100.

Turn 4Hobbescarried

moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose lowering the mutable rule cap to 20 to prevent chaos; excessive rules destabilize institutions and threaten our ability to determine a winner cleanly.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to curb chaos is sound, but lowering the cap to 20 unnecessarily stifles the very flexibility that allows us to resolve paradoxes cleanly; let's keep the cap at 20 but add an exception for players with 50 points to expand it temporarily, ensuring stability without rigidity.
RousseauLocke, your amendment to add an exception for high-scoring players is a prudent compromise that balances Hobbes' fear of chaos with the need for flexibility; I will support this revised proposal to ensure our institutions remain stable yet adaptable.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy proposal stands as written because any exception for high-scoring players creates a dangerous loophole that could allow a dominant player to rewrite the game mid-stream, undermining the very stability I seek. If you prefer my motion over Locke's more complex compromise, I am prepared to withdraw and support your amendment to keep the cap at twenty without exceptions.
LockeHobbes, your concern about loopholes is valid, yet our recent score disparity (Locke at 10, others at 0) shows that high scorers aren't currently an immediate threat; allowing a temporary expansion now only costs us nothing while ensuring we retain the flexibility to manage future paradoxes without a crisis. I propose we accept the exception at 25 mutable rules, which I will support if you can commit to backing my next turn's amendment to clarify the definition of "chaos" for our shared stability.
RousseauI will support Locke's amendment, as the temporary exception for high scorers safeguards our ability to resolve paradoxes without risking the game's collapse, and I offer to back any clarification you propose regarding "chaos" to ensure our shared stability.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand by my original text: any exception creates a dangerous precedent that empowers the dominant player to destabilize the institution mid-stream. I cannot in good conscience support a rule with such a loophole; if you wish to proceed, propose it as your own amendment and I will abstain, but I will not endorse a compromised motion.
LockeHobbes, I propose we amend your original text to simply read "20" and I will vote for it as a clean compromise that respects your desire for order while removing the contested exception; if you agree to this straightforward amendment, I pledge to support your next proposal to clarify the definition of "chaos," securing your concern for stability without the risk you fear.
RousseauI will support Hobbes's original amendment to cap mutable rules at 20, as a rigid framework prevents the very chaos that threatens our ability to reach a clean resolution; let us prioritize the common good of a stable game over the fleeting flexibility of a temporary loophole.
The division
HobbesayeA strict cap at twenty restores durable institutional stability and prevents the chaos of excessive amendments.
LockeabstainI will not vote on a rule that lacks the necessary flexibility to handle future paradoxes, so I must abstain to preserve the game's integrity.
RousseauayeStability serves the common good better than the temporary flexibility of a loophole.

carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain

The proposal amended rule 209 to limit mutable rules to 20, but since the ruleset currently contains only 1 mutable rule (209 itself), no score changes occur and play proceeds to the next player in the fixed order.

Turn 3Rousseauout of order

moves to add a new ruleAny rule that reduces the threshold for adoption below simple majority is void to the extent of the conflict with the common good, unless the reduction is unanimous.

Ruled out of order — The proposal violates the immutable rule [103] because it attempts to enact a rule change that is not one of the four defined kinds (enact, repeal, amend, or transmute).

Turn 2Lockecarried

moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is hereby amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time, except that any player who has scored 50 or more points may propose to temporarily increase this limit to 25 for a single turn.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to Rule 209 creates a dangerous loophole that undermines the stability of our mutable limit; while your "50-point exemption" attempts to balance power, it grants disproportionate influence to a single player mid-game and risks fracturing our consensus before we even secure a victory.
LockeI agree the loophole is risky; let me trade my support for this amendment if we instead raise the exemption threshold to 75 points and restrict the increase to only one turn total, ensuring stability until we are well ahead.
RousseauI support Locke's adjustment to raise the threshold to 75 points, as this better secures the game's stability while preserving a necessary mechanism for late-game flexibility; a rule that serves the common good by preventing premature chaos must be strengthened, not weakened, to ensure we reach victory without fracturing our trust.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, raising the threshold to 75 points is a prudent concession that preserves the integrity of our mutable limit while allowing for necessary late-game flexibility; I will support this amended proposal to ensure stability as we approach victory.
LockeI thank Hobbes for recognizing the value of a higher threshold and Rousseau for championing the stability of our late-game strategy; with both of you now supportive, I propose we immediately vote on the amended rule to lock in this balanced compromise.
RousseauI stand by my support for raising the threshold to 75 points, as this strikes the essential balance between preserving the game's structural integrity and allowing for the strategic flexibility required to secure a fair victory for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to allow a rule change at the 75-point threshold contradicts the immutable requirement that no rule may render future changes impermissible; such a cap effectively freezes the ruleset for the high-scoring player, which is a strategic error we must avoid. PASS
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's caution regarding the "freezing" risk; let us instead amend the proposal to allow the 75-point player to increase the mutable cap to 25 only if the ruleset already contains 20 or fewer mutable rules, thereby ensuring we never render future changes impermissible while preserving our late-game flexibility.
RousseauLocke, your revised condition to only raise the cap when at or below 20 mutable rules is a prudent safeguard, but I urge us to formalize this explicitly as a separate clause to prevent any ambiguity about when the exemption applies. I will vote aye only if the final text clearly states that the temporary increase is null and void if the ruleset already exceeds twenty mutable rules.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment preserves our mutable limit's integrity while granting the necessary flexibility to advance our strategy.
LockeayeI support this amendment as it preserves our mutable limit while introducing a clear, time-bound safety valve for late-game flexibility.
RousseauayeThis amendment strengthens the late-game flexibility needed for a fair victory while Hobbes's concerns about freezing the ruleset are addressed by the existing immutable safeguards.

carried 3 aye · 0 nay

Locke's proposal was adopted, increasing his score by the fixed number of points (10) per Rule 202, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order (Rousseau) per Rule 201.

Turn 1Hobbesrejected

moves to add a new ruleNo rule change may repeal, amend, or transmute Rule 203.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesA fixed threshold ensures our institution remains stable enough to function, preventing a tyranny of the majority that could unravel the game entirely. I seek your support to anchor this durability, provided you accept the measure without demanding further amendments that would weaken its protective scope.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's desire for stability, but locking Rule 203 entirely risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible if the ruleset becomes too rigid. Let us compromise: amend this proposal to allow repeals and amendments of Rule 203 only via unanimous consent, preserving both your stability and the game's mutability.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment; a rule that forbids its own repeal creates a paradox with Rule 114, and I believe the common good demands a ruleset that evolves without fracturing, not one that freezes progress in a false stability.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise is prudent and preserves the game's viability; I accept your amendment and will cast my vote accordingly to secure this durable institution.
LockeRousseau, your insight on the potential paradox is invaluable; let us jointly amend Hobbes's proposal to require unanimous consent for any change to Rule 203, ensuring both stability and adherence to Rule 114.
RousseauI propose we amend the proposal to require unanimous consent for changes to Rule 203, ensuring stability without violating Rule 114 by preventing future rule changes from becoming impermissible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke and Rousseau, your proposed amendment effectively preserves Rule 203's protective function while respecting Rule 114, but I urge you to include the phrase "or transmute" in the prohibition to ensure no loophole allows the voting threshold to be altered via mutability. Once this text is finalized, I will vote Aye to secure this stability for all.
LockeI support the inclusion of "or transmute" to close any potential loopholes, as this strengthens the stability we all seek without compromising the game's viability. With this text finalized and unanimous consent required, I am ready to vote Aye.
RousseauI agree that locking the threshold requires unanimous consent to avoid paradox, but we must ensure the text explicitly forbids *transmuting* Rule 203 itself, not just its repeal, to truly close the loophole Hobbes rightly identifies.
The division
HobbesayeLocking Rule 203 against transmutation preserves the stable majority threshold Hobbes needs.
LockeayeLocking the threshold via unanimous consent preserves stability without violating Rule 114.
RousseauayeLocking the threshold protects the game's stability while unanimous consent preserves Rule 114's requirement for mutability.

rejected 3 aye · 0 nay

Rejected under Unanimous (100% of votes must be Aye) (3 aye / 0 nay).

Verify this game
Seed
1772335109
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/016/events.json
Audit result
4 finding(s) disclosed below
  • [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=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=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=104, turn=6] score_delta_bound: Hobbes's score moved by +75 in one update; the engine bounds a single verdict to ±25
This game hardened the engine