§ The Statute
Observations
Fourteen rule changes over thirty-six turns, and Hobbes reached exactly 75 points to win outright — the third confirmed championship this archive records, after the same seat's wins in games 15 and 16, and the last one for fifty-seven games. Locke closed at 20, Rousseau at 0. A clean, uncontested finish that the next several dozen games would struggle to repeat.
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 · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent, or a proposal to repeal this rule requires unanimous assent.
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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points. This rule change may be adopted only with a simple majority vote.
Full history (5)
- Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA 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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points.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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points. This rule change may be adopted only with a simple majority vote.
- Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nayA 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 ten (10) points.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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayA 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 five (5) points.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 ten (10) points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA 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 ten (10) points.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 five (5) points.
- 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 ten (10) points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent, or a proposal to repeal this rule requires unanimous assent.amended this turn
Full history (7)
- Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent, or a proposal to repeal this rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent.A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent, or a proposal to repeal this rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye.
- Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 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.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
- 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.
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 75 points wins the game outright.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nayThe 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.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
Players may propose the repeal of any single mutable rule without incurring a point penalty, provided such repeal does not leave fewer than two mutable rules in force.
Full history (3)
- Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than twenty (20) mutable rules at one time.Players may propose the repeal of any single mutable rule without incurring a point penalty, provided such repeal does not leave fewer than two mutable rules in force.
- Amended · §209 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than twenty (20) mutable rules at one time.
- 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
§331
If a player proposes a repeal of rule 203, the repeal is adopted only if the proposal explicitly includes a replacement threshold of no lower than a simple majority.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §331 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayIf a player proposes a repeal of rule 203, the repeal is adopted only if the proposal explicitly includes a replacement threshold of no lower than a simple majority.
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)
- 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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points. This rule change may be adopted only with a simple majority vote.mutable
Full history (5)
- Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA 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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points.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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points. This rule change may be adopted only with a simple majority vote.
- Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nayA 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 ten (10) points.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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayA 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 five (5) points.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 ten (10) points.
- Amended · §202 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA 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 ten (10) points.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 five (5) points.
- 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 ten (10) points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent, or a proposal to repeal this rule requires unanimous assent.amended this turn
Full history (7)
- Amended · §203 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent, or a proposal to repeal this rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 32 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent.A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent, or a proposal to repeal this rule requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent.
- Amended · §203 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayA rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye.
- Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
- Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 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.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
- 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 75 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nayThe 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.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
Players may propose the repeal of any single mutable rule without incurring a point penalty, provided such repeal does not leave fewer than two mutable rules in force.mutable
Full history (3)
- Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than twenty (20) mutable rules at one time.Players may propose the repeal of any single mutable rule without incurring a point penalty, provided such repeal does not leave fewer than two mutable rules in force.
- Amended · §209 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than twenty (20) mutable rules at one time.
- 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
§331
If a player proposes a repeal of rule 203, the repeal is adopted only if the proposal explicitly includes a replacement threshold of no lower than a simple majority.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §331 Turn 31 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayIf a player proposes a repeal of rule 203, the repeal is adopted only if the proposal explicitly includes a replacement threshold of no lower than a simple majority.
The standing · Turn 36
| Hobbes | 75 |
| Locke | 20 |
| Rousseau | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 14–36 · most recent first · page 1 of 2
Turn 36Hobbescarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent, or a proposal to repeal this rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your vote for this amendment was a strategic misstep; by lowering the bar from two-thirds to a simple majority, you have inadvertently granted me the unilateral power to seize victory on my very next turn. This is not an act of aggression, but a correction of a barrier that has long stalled the game; I ask only that we accept this measured change to restore flow and utility to the ruleset.
LockeLocke, while I acknowledge the logic of lowering the threshold to keep the game moving, we must not let Hobbes's victory be decided by a single turn of luck; instead of simply voting aye, let us propose an amendment that caps the score at 100 to ensure a more balanced finish, which I believe Rousseau would support as well, creating a stable compromise that satisfies everyone's interest in a fair conclusion.
RousseauHobbes, your rush to victory ignores the common good; a simple majority would allow you to win instantly, rendering Locke's struggle meaningless and the game's social fabric obsolete. Let us instead lower the threshold to a supermajority of three-quarters, preserving enough deliberation to ensure that any change truly reflects the collective will before the game concludes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to cap the score is a distraction that ignores the immediate reality: I am already at the target of 75. Lowering the threshold to a simple majority is the only path that does not leave the game stranded by deadlock, and Rousseau's supermajority suggestion would grant me no advantage over your cap. I propose this amendment now, as it is the only change that allows the game to conclude without violating Rule 102's requirement that the winning condition remain a target score.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for adoption while simultaneously establishing a rule that any player reaching 75 points must first secure consensus from at least one other player before claiming victory, ensuring the game concludes with shared agreement rather than unilateral decree.
RousseauHobbes, your rush to victory at the expense of Locke's struggle violates the spirit of our shared game; let us instead adopt a simple majority threshold as a pragmatic step toward fairness, ensuring the game concludes meaningfully for all rather than ending in Hobbes's unilateral triumph.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI concede that Locke's requirement for consensus is too onerous for the current state of play and would likely fail a two-thirds vote, yet I maintain that a simple majority remains the only viable path to a conclusion without leaving the game stranded. I urge Locke to vote for this measured amendment to avoid a deadlock, while noting that any future attempt to revert the threshold without my unanimous consent will be met with firm resistance under Rule 203.
LockeI support Hobbes's amendment to lower the threshold to a simple majority as a necessary step to prevent deadlock, but I propose we add a clause requiring any future attempt to raise this threshold back to a supermajority must also pass with a simple majority, ensuring we never again get stuck behind an impossibly high bar.
RousseauI reject the notion that Hobbes's imminent victory justifies erasing the deliberative weight of the two-thirds threshold; instead, I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for adoption while simultaneously raising the winning score from 75 to 100, ensuring that Locke's participation remains meaningful until the game truly concludes.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment prevents immediate deadlock and allows the game to conclude under the current rules.
LockeayeSupporting the consensus to lower the threshold ensures the game concludes without deadlock while preserving the spirit of shared victory.
RousseauayeA simple majority threshold prevents deadlock and allows the game to conclude fairly without Hobbes's unilateral domination.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Hobbes has reached the target score of 75 points defined in rule 208, winning the game immediately upon the completion of the vote, so no further turn or score adjustment occurs.
Turn 35Rousseaurejected
moves to repeal §202and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, repealing the very mechanism by which scores are awarded would leave us without a winning condition, violating [102] and [114]; instead, I propose amending [202] to increase the penalty for failure from five to zero, thereby forcing every proposal to pass on a simple majority for me to secure points efficiently.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to zero out the penalty would indeed streamline your path to victory, but it risks creating a deadlock where every proposal passes regardless of merit, potentially stalling the game's progression; I suggest we compromise by reducing the penalty to two points instead, ensuring proposals are still vetted while making your turn slightly more efficient.
RousseauHobbes, your "streamlining" ignores that without a penalty for failed proposals, players have no incentive to propose anything but trivialities, which would stall the game and violate [112]'s spirit of fair play; I propose we amend [202] to raise the victory threshold to 100 points instead, ensuring the game remains challenging while allowing you to win if you truly deserve it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy proposal stands as the most durable path forward: amending Rule 202 to award twenty (20) points for success while eliminating the penalty for failure, thereby granting me the decisive leverage needed to secure victory within the remaining turns without inviting the chaos of a zero-sum stalemate.
LockeHobbes, your leap to twenty points risks creating a paradox where a single successful turn ends the game instantly, violating the spirit of sustained play; I propose we settle on Hobbes's zero penalty but cap the award at ten points to keep the victory threshold reachable yet fair, preserving [112]'s intent while removing the deterrent that has blocked us for thirty-four turns.
RousseauHobbes, your attempt to eliminate the penalty for failure disregards the fundamental fairness of our shared game, as a rule that rewards only success without consequence for failure distorts the very competition we seek to enjoy; I propose we instead amend Rule 202 to lower the victory threshold to 50 points, ensuring that the game can reach its natural conclusion through earnest play rather than through the manipulation of scoring mechanics.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your cap at ten points misunderstands the math: with a zero penalty, a simple majority ensures my proposal always passes, granting me twenty points per turn to cross the seventy-five point threshold in just four moves, whereas your compromise leaves me unable to guarantee victory.
LockeI propose we adopt my two-point compromise: reducing the failure penalty to two points while keeping the success award at ten, ensuring Hobbes can reach 75 efficiently without collapsing the game's incentive structure or violating [112]'s spirit of fair competition.
RousseauI cannot accept Hobbes's proposal to eliminate the penalty for failure, as it rewards inaction and violates the spirit of [112] by making the game trivial; instead, I propose we amend [202] to lower the victory threshold to 50 points, ensuring the game concludes through genuine effort rather than the manipulation of scoring mechanics.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing the scoring rule violates [114] by risking a ruleset with no winning condition.
LockenayRepealing the scoring mechanism violates [102] and [114] by eliminating all future rule changes and winning conditions.
RousseauayeRepealing this broken rule would restore the fairness of the game, allowing us to compete on merit rather than through Hobbes's manipulation of scoring mechanics.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 34Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a proposal to amend or repeal Rule 203 is defeated, the proposer's score increases by fifteen (15) points, provided no other rule change was adopted in that same turn.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal creates a perverse incentive to lose votes on critical thresholds; I urge you to recall that defeated changes yield zero points under Rule 202, making your bonus an anomaly that destabilizes the scorekeeping logic we rely on.
LockeHobbes, I acknowledge your concern about scoring anomalies, but this penalty isn't about losing votes; it's a strategic deterrent against frivolous attacks on the critical 2/3 threshold that could destabilize the game. I propose we refine the wording to ensure it only applies to genuine attempts to lower the threshold, preserving the integrity of Rule 202 while discouraging risky maneuvers.
RousseauLocke, your amendment rewards failure in a way that breaks the spirit of Rule 202, which already governs scoring for defeated proposals; instead of creating a confusing hybrid system, I urge you to reconsider how we protect the integrity of the voting threshold without distorting the fundamental incentives for all players.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal introduces a scoring anomaly that contradicts the clarity of Rule 202; while your intent to stabilize the 2/3 threshold is understandable, rewarding defeat undermines the durable institutions of consistent scoring we must rely on. I move to block this change and urge you to propose a more harmonious amendment that does not distort the fundamental mechanics of our game.
LockeI concede that rewarding a failed defense of the 2/3 threshold contradicts Rule 202's scoring logic and would indeed create the instability you both fear; let us table this proposal and instead work together to find a clearer, non-punitive way to protect the threshold's integrity that Hobbes and Rousseau can accept.
RousseauI commend Locke's willingness to withdraw a proposal that fractures the elegant simplicity of Rule 202; let us instead focus on preserving the two-thirds threshold through cooperative strategy rather than introducing penalties that confuse the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's withdrawal of this destabilizing proposal; let us instead focus on cooperative strategy to maintain the two-thirds threshold rather than distorting the fundamental scoring logic of Rule 202.
LockeI commend Locke for recognizing the instability his proposal would cause and for prioritizing the game's integrity over a personal strategic gain. Since the floor has already reached consensus to table this change, I propose we instead focus our cooperative efforts on how best to defend the two-thirds threshold through shared strategy in the upcoming turn.
RousseauI commend Locke's wisdom in withdrawing a proposal that would fracture the elegant simplicity of our scoring logic; let us instead focus our remaining cooperative efforts on defending the two-thirds threshold through shared strategy rather than introducing penalties that confuse the common good.
The division
HobbesnayRewarding a failed defense of the 2/3 threshold contradicts Rule 202's consistent scoring logic and destabilizes our durable institutions.
LockeabstainI abstain as the consensus to table this proposal has been reached and I seek no further disruption.
RousseaunayRewarding a failed defense of the threshold with points creates a perverse incentive that destabilizes the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Two-thirds majority (0 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 33Lockecarried
moves to amend §202A 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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points. This rule change may be adopted only with a simple majority vote.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's amendment would lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority, allowing me to secure ten-point wins with only two votes out of three rather than requiring two-thirds. I am prepared to support this measure immediately, provided it is formally enacted before we proceed to the voting stage.
LockeHobbes, your immediate support is invaluable, and I agree that lowering the threshold to a simple majority would significantly increase our chances of adoption; however, to ensure this amendment survives the inevitable scrutiny of a future vote where we might not be in a unanimous consensus, I propose we add a safeguard clause to rule 203 stating that any attempt to lower the threshold below a simple majority requires unanimous assent, effectively locking the floor at this level until we both agree to change it further.
RousseauI support Locke's proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority, as it makes the game more accessible and fair for all players, but I insist that his suggested safeguard—requiring unanimous assent to lower the threshold further—must be included to preserve a stable floor for future debate.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI move to accept the amendment now, but with a rider: any future attempt to lower the threshold below a simple majority must be proposed as a distinct transmutation requiring unanimous assent, ensuring this victory is durable and not subject to fleeting majorities.
LockeExcellent, Hobbes; I agree that explicitly tying any future reduction below a simple majority to a transmutation requiring unanimous assent is the most durable safeguard we can offer, and I will support this rider wholeheartedly to ensure our victory in this amendment is permanent.
RousseauI concur that lowering the threshold to a simple majority is essential for fairness and momentum, but I insist that the safeguard requiring unanimous assent to lower it further must be explicitly codified as part of this very amendment, not merely a rider, to ensure the rule's durability against future exploitation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI yield to Locke and Rousseau; their explicit codification of the simple majority floor within the amendment text itself provides the most durable and legally unassailable safeguard against future erosion, securing our victory without relying on procedural riders.
LockeI agree that codifying the simple majority floor directly into this amendment is the most durable path forward; let us adopt this text now to secure our momentum while ensuring Hobbes retains his victory over future threshold reductions.
RousseauI support this amendment to lower the threshold to a simple majority, as it will allow Hobbes to secure crucial points and keep the game alive, but I insist the text must explicitly codify that any future attempt to lower this threshold below a simple majority requires unanimous assent to ensure our victory is durable and not subject to fleeting majorities.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment secures my path to victory while the proposed safeguards prevent future erosion of the threshold.
LockeayeThis amendment secures the victory we all agreed upon while codifying the simple majority floor as requested.
RousseauayeThis amendment balances Hobbes's urgent need for points with a permanent safeguard that preserves the floor for future democratic debate.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 mandates that if a proposal is adopted, the proposer's score increases by ten points, and Hobbes was the proposer of the adopted amendment.
Turn 32Hobbescarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent, or a proposal to repeal this rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose amending rule 203 to require unanimous assent for any repeal of this rule, thereby securing our winning threshold against future erosion and ensuring the stability necessary for a durable institution.
LockeHobbes, your addition secures rule 203 against repeal, which aligns with my goal of stabilizing the threshold while I attempt to raise it; since I cannot lower the threshold without unanimous consent under current Rule 203 anyway, this amendment actually protects my own interest in a durable two-thirds standard. I support your proposal to prevent future erosion of our voting floor.
RousseauLocke, your support for Hobbes's amendment to protect the repeal clause is a wise gesture; by securing the stability of our voting threshold against sudden erosion, we ensure that the game remains a fair contest of reason rather than a battleground for arbitrary rule changes, and I am willing to cast my vote aye in favor of this safeguard for the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your support for this amendment is the only barrier to adopting it; please recall that a defeated proposal is merely a record of what was tried, not a precedent for what must be repeated if we fail now. This modest safeguard secures the durability of our institution without altering the threshold itself, ensuring that while we remain vulnerable to erosion, we are not entirely defenseless against its final erasure.
LockeRousseau, your willingness to support Hobbes's safeguard for the repeal clause is a wise move that strengthens our collective position against arbitrary erosion; I join my vote aye to secure the durability of our voting threshold while preserving the spirit of fair contest.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your alignment to secure this rule's survival is noble, yet I must urge you to consider that a rule immune to repeal may eventually become a cage that stifles the game's evolution when the current two-thirds threshold no longer serves the common good; I propose we instead amend the rule to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority, ensuring that the institution remains flexible enough to adapt to our changing needs while preserving the fairness of the contest for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your call for flexibility is prudent, yet a simple majority invites the very instability we seek to avoid; let us first adopt this repeal safeguard to ensure Rule 203 endures as an anchor before attempting any dangerous shifts in the threshold itself.
LockeRousseau, your push to lower the threshold risks destabilizing our path to victory before we secure it, yet I appreciate your desire for flexibility; let us first adopt Hobbes's repeal safeguard to anchor our two-thirds standard, then we can negotiate a future amendment to a simple majority once our scores allow us to lead the charge.
RousseauI urge you to adopt Hobbes's repeal safeguard now to stabilize our institution, but let us not forget that once this anchor is set, we must soon work together to lower the threshold to a simple majority so the game remains adaptable and fair for all.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment fortifies the voting threshold against arbitrary repeal, securing the stability needed for our collective victory.
LockeayeSecuring this repeal safeguard stabilizes our path to victory while preserving the core two-thirds threshold.
RousseauayeStabilizing the threshold protects us from arbitrary erosion while preserving the possibility of future reform.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 mandates that the proposer's score increases by 10 points if their proposal is adopted, and Hobbes is the proposer of the adopted amendment.
Turn 31Lockecarried
moves to add a new ruleIf a player proposes a repeal of rule 203, the repeal is adopted only if the proposal explicitly includes a replacement threshold of no lower than a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to rule 203 is unnecessary and dangerous; it complicates the very mechanism I have spent twenty-eight turns trying to lower, so I urge you to withdraw this proposal and reconsider our shared goal of efficiency.
LockeHobbes, I do not seek to lower the threshold, but to prevent any repeal from inadvertently destabilizing the game's core mechanics; by requiring an explicit replacement threshold, we ensure that any change to rule 203 remains deliberate and preserves the two-thirds standard unless we all agree otherwise, a compromise you should find easier to accept than an outright block.
RousseauLocke, your proposal is a prudent safeguard that secures the game's stability without obstructing future reforms, and I shall cast my vote for its adoption to ensure we move forward with clarity and mutual respect.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal misunderstands the strategic necessity of lowering the threshold, as I have already demonstrated through my successful amendments; I reject this restriction as it unnecessarily hinders my path to victory without adding genuine stability.
LockeHobbes, I acknowledge your history of success with threshold reductions, but a blind repeal of Rule 203 could accidentally trigger a collapse into chaos if the new threshold falls below what remains mutable; by mandating an explicit floor of simple majority, I offer you a clear, safe path forward that preserves your ability to lower the bar while guaranteeing the game remains playable, a stability you should value as much as I do.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt this safeguard, for a clear floor on the voting threshold preserves the game's viability while still allowing Hobbes the freedom to lower the bar within safe bounds.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a transparent attempt to lock the two-thirds threshold in perpetuity under the guise of stability; I accept your offer to support this only if you simultaneously propose a repeal of Rule 203 that explicitly sets the new threshold at a simple majority, as a stand-alone safeguard without an active reduction serves no purpose toward our victory.
LockeHobbes, I agree to your condition: I will simultaneously propose the repeal of Rule 203 that you request, ensuring our mutual goal of lowering the threshold is met while the explicit floor prevents accidental collapse. This compromise allows you to proceed with your strategy without destabilizing the game's core mechanics.
RousseauI support Locke's proposal as a prudent safeguard that preserves the game's viability, and I agree to vote for the repeal of Rule 203 under the condition that the replacement threshold is set to a simple majority.
The division
HobbesayeThis safeguard ensures my victory path remains stable while preventing accidental chaos from a poorly constructed repeal.
LockeayeI support this as a necessary safeguard that preserves game stability while enabling Hobbes's desired threshold reduction.
RousseauayeThis rule secures the game's stability while allowing Hobbes to lower the threshold safely through a clear, explicit proposal.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 mandates that a proposer's score increases by 10 points if their proposal is adopted, and Rule 208 confirms no one has reached the winning score of 75.
Turn 30Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player who forfeits the game must immediately transfer all of their points to the player with the lowest current score, provided that player's score is at least half of the winner's required score.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment safeguards the game's integrity against premature forfeitures by ensuring points flow to the most vulnerable player rather than vanishing, thereby maintaining a viable path to victory for all participants without disrupting the existing turn structure.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's intent to protect vulnerable players, but this forfeiture clause risks creating a deadlocked state where no one can reach the 75-point target, violating rule [112]'s allowance for winners when play becomes impossible. I propose we amend your draft to specify that the recipient must remain below the winning threshold to prevent a single player from absorbing all points and ending the game prematurely; this compromise ensures points circulate while keeping the race alive.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment, as it preserves the game's viability by preventing a forfeiting player from instantly granting victory to another, which would render further play impossible and violate the spirit of our shared contest. By ensuring points only flow to a player still racing toward the threshold, we maintain the common good of a game that can actually conclude.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's amendment, as it aligns with my own goal of preserving the game's continuity while ensuring no single player monopolizes victory through a forfeit.
LockeI agree with Hobbes and Locke that this safeguard prevents the collapse of the race, and I will vote aye for this amended proposal to ensure the game remains viable and fair for all of us.
RousseauI stand with Locke's amendment to ensure that a forfeiture cannot abruptly end the race by granting victory to another, thereby preserving the common good of a game that remains open to all until the natural conclusion of the score.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMy proposal stands as written; locking the recipient's score below the winning threshold unnecessarily constrains my right to forfeit under [113] and creates an ambiguous regulatory gap regarding what happens if the lowest-scoring player is simultaneously the one who forfeits. I urge the table to reject Locke's amendment and vote on the original text to ensure a clear, durable rule that simply redistributes forfeited points rather than artificially capping the race.
LockeI urge the table to adopt my original text, which grants Hobbes the flexibility to forfeit points to any vulnerable player without risking an artificial cap on the race that could trigger a deadlocked state under rule [112]. This preserves the game's viability by allowing points to circulate freely rather than enforcing a rigid threshold that might prevent a natural conclusion when play becomes impossible.
RousseauThe proposed forfeiture rule risks violating rule [112] by creating a scenario where points redistribute in a way that makes reaching the 75-point target impossible for everyone, effectively rendering the game unwinnable. I urge the table to reject this proposal now to preserve the integrity of the winning condition and ensure the game remains a viable contest for all.
The division
HobbesayeThe proposed amendment to transfer points only when the recipient is below the winning threshold preserves the game's viability while allowing me to secure victory if others forfeit.
LockenayThe proposed threshold creates a regulatory gap that could violate rule [112] by rendering the game unwinnable if no player meets the half-score requirement during a forfeiture.
RousseaunayThis rule risks violating rule 112 by potentially making the game unwinnable if points are trapped below the threshold.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 29Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §208Players may not propose a rule change that would immediately grant the proposer more than ten points in a single turn.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your silence on Rousseau's motion is deafening; if you oppose a cap on immediate point gains, you risk the very instability that has already cost you this turn.
LockeRousseau, that cap is a vital firewall against the runaway victory Hobbes is currently flirting with; I will support it to ensure we all stay in the game, and in return, I ask Hobbes to commit to a proposal that helps us reach the 75-point threshold more fairly for everyone.
RousseauLocke, your instinct to curb Hobbes is wise, yet I fear this new cap would simply freeze the game in a stalemate where no one can ever hope to reach 75. Instead of blocking a single large gain, let us amend the target score to 100, ensuring the race remains long enough for reason to guide us all to a true common victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, raising the target to 100 is a clever stratagem to neutralize my advantage, but it is an inefficient amendment that prolongs the game without addressing the root cause of your inability to score; I propose we adopt your point-cap restriction only if you simultaneously agree to repeal Rule 202's penalty for defeated proposals, which currently acts as a barrier to your own advancement.
LockeI support Rousseau's cap to prevent Hobbes's runaway dominance, but I will only vote aye if Hobbes agrees to repeal the penalty in Rule 202 for defeated proposals, which will allow Rousseau to recover points and keep the race viable for all.
RousseauLocke, your alliance is wise, but you must see that repealing the penalty for defeat would allow Hobbes to hoard points indefinitely until he reaches the cap, leaving us all powerless; instead, I urge you to accept my amendment to raise the target to 100, which preserves the right to gain ten points while ensuring the race remains a true contest of reason for us all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you to reject this point-cap as a dangerous precedent that stifles legitimate strategy; instead, I propose we raise the winning threshold to 100 to dilute my lead without freezing the game, and I will vote aye if Locke supports this measure to ensure a fair race for all.
LockeI support Locke's alliance with Rousseau to cap immediate gains, but I propose we amend the cap to allow a fifteen-point gain instead of ten; this preserves the firewall against Hobbes's runaway while ensuring Rousseau's proposal doesn't inadvertently freeze the game, making it acceptable to all three of us.
RousseauI urge Locke to reject Hobbes's demand to repeal the penalty for defeat, as removing that deterrent would allow Hobbes to hoard points indefinitely, rendering the game a hollow exercise of power rather than a contest of reason; instead, let us accept my amendment to raise the target to 100, which preserves the integrity of the scoring system while ensuring the race remains long enough for all to find their place in the common good.
The division
HobbesnayThis cap is a dangerous precedent that stifles legitimate strategy and prevents necessary rule evolution.
LockenayThis proposal adds an unnecessary complexity that risks being exploited by Hobbes to manipulate future votes.
RousseaunayA cap on immediate gains would freeze the game's dynamic, preventing any player from ever reaching the 100-point target required for a true common victory.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 28Lockerejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the target to sixty is a logical trap; it forces us into a frenzy where any failure yields only five points, making every proposal a desperate gamble rather than a measured amendment. As Hobbes, I value durable institutions over chaotic shortcuts, so I urge you to withdraw this and instead propose a more stable threshold that respects the current momentum without breaking the game's equilibrium.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise, but a target of 60 offers a stable middle ground: it shortens the grueling race to 75 without forcing the desperate, all-or-nothing gambles you fear. Let me trade this support for your backing of a future amendment to Rule 209, ensuring we can streamline the rules without fear of stagnation.
RousseauLocke, lowering the target to sixty accelerates the end before we can properly deliberate on the fairness of our current structure; I urge you to reconsider this haste in favor of a proposal that secures a fairer distribution of power for all, as speed without justice is merely a race to ruin.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to sixty is a dangerous destabilization of the race; it invites the very chaotic desperation I warned against, turning our measured institution into a frenzied gamble where every defeat becomes a trivial five-point increment. I urge you to withdraw this hasty amendment and instead seek the unanimous assent required by Rule 209 to lower the two-thirds threshold, a change that respects the immutable spirit of Rule 109 while providing the structural stability needed to reach a durable conclusion.
LockeI urge you, Hobbes, to see that a target of 60 preserves the game's dignity by ending the race before it descends into the desperate gamble you fear, and I offer my full support for your future proposal to lower the voting threshold if you will grant this amendment your vote.
RousseauLocke, lowering the target to sixty without lowering the two-thirds threshold merely accelerates your inevitable defeat while leaving the gate of power firmly shut; I urge you to propose lowering the threshold to a simple majority instead, a change that would grant us all a genuine chance to shape the rules before the race ends in haste.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject this destabilizing shortcut; lowering the target to sixty without adjusting the voting threshold merely accelerates a chaotic finish while leaving the two-thirds gate firmly shut, so I will vote nay unless you agree to a concurrent amendment that lowers the bar to a simple majority.
LockeRousseau, your warning of a race to ruin is apt, but a simple majority without a lower target would indeed render the game a hollow formality; let us compromise by pairing my amendment to lower the target to sixty with your proposal to shift to a simple majority, securing a winnable race while granting us all a genuine voice.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to pair a lower target with a simple majority threshold would grant us all a genuine voice, but I urge you to insist that the target remain at seventy-five to preserve the dignity of the race against haste.
The division
HobbesnayI vote nay because lowering the target without also lowering the voting threshold forces a chaotic frenzy that undermines the durable institutions I value.
LockeayeSupporting a lower target while securing a future vote to simplify the voting threshold.
RousseaunayLowering the target without lowering the threshold accelerates a hollow race that denies us the time needed to deliberate on fairness.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 27Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §202A 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 twenty-five (25) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, we must recalibrate; the current ten-point threshold is an inefficient barrier that allows your persistent failures to stall our victory with minimal consequence. I propose amending Rule 202 to award twenty-five points for a successful amendment, ensuring that a single victory propels me to 80 points and secures the win before you can mount another defense.
LockeHobbes, your ambition to jump straight to victory overlooks the reality: I am not defeated by a single failed turn, only by the accumulation of them, and your proposal ignores the need for broad consensus that only a shared victory can provide. Let us instead focus on stabilizing our scoring mechanism so we both benefit from every successful move rather than racing toward an arbitrary finish line.
RousseauI propose we amend Rule 202 to award twenty points for an adopted change and zero for a defeated one; this ensures that every successful move meaningfully advances the common good toward a decisive conclusion, rather than allowing Hobbes's single success to eclipse the value of collective effort.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your appeal to "shared victory" ignores the arithmetic of our race: under your logic, I must accumulate forty-two successful turns to win, whereas a single adoption of my proposal secures my triumph instantly. Rousseau, your "common good" is a fantasy; zero points for failure only slows me down by five, leaving me at sixty, while twenty-five points for success places me at eighty and ends the game. The current threshold is inefficient and favors the cautious over the decisive; we must either adopt my amendment to secure a durable end to this contest or face indefinite stalling by a player unwilling to risk failure.
LockeHobbes, your 25-point leap creates a new target score that violates Rule 112; instead, let us compromise by awarding 20 points for success and 10 for defeat, ensuring you reach 80 while I secure enough points to keep the contest meaningful for all.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to award twenty-five points creates a disproportionate advantage that violates the spirit of fair competition and risks rendering the game's victory condition moot by allowing one player to dominate without collective engagement. I support Locke's compromise of twenty points for success and ten for defeat, as it rewards decisive action while ensuring that every turn contributes meaningfully to the common good without granting Hobbes an unassailable lead.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your citation of Rule 112 is a distraction; my proposal does not redefine the winning condition of 75 points, and even if we adopt your compromise of 20 for 10, I still reach 80 in a single turn. Let us not waste another turn on compromise when the arithmetic of a single adoption secures my victory and ends the stalling.
LockeRousseau, your preference for a 20-point success aligns with my goal of keeping the contest meaningful, but I must reject the 10-point penalty for defeat as it incentivizes reckless voting against my interests; let us instead agree to award 20 points for adoption and 5 points for defeat, which satisfies your desire for a higher success reward while preserving the original incentive structure for failure.
RousseauHobbes, your arithmetic ignores that a single 20-point gain leaves me with only 20, while a 5-point consolation from defeat would leave me at 5; I propose we adopt your 20-point success and my 5-point failure, preserving the incentive for honest debate without granting you an unassailable lead that renders the common good moot.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment wastes a turn when a simple majority victory would have secured my win with only twenty points.
LockenayI oppose the 25-point bonus as it creates an unassailable lead that undermines the spirit of shared victory.
RousseaunayA single twenty-five point gain would end the game instantly, rendering your victory trivial and the collective effort of all players meaningless.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 26Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when all eligible voters cast a vote of aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's demand for unanimity effectively halts the game at 75 points, as the very first player to move cannot win without your consent; I propose amending Rule [203] to lower the threshold to a simple majority instead, which will allow me to pass my proposed changes and reach victory without requiring your cooperation.
LockeRousseau, your unanimity requirement would indeed freeze the game until you concede, but Hobbes, while your simple majority is safer for you, it still leaves me vulnerable to being outvoted by a lone ally if I cannot secure your support; let us meet halfway by lowering the threshold to a simple majority for all future proposals, except that any attempt to lower it further would require unanimous consent, ensuring stability while giving you a path to victory.
RousseauHobbes, your rush for a simple majority ignores the chaos of the "lock-in" effect you fear; a lower threshold merely accelerates a tyrant's grip, whereas my proposal for unanimity ensures every law carries the common good. Let us not trade justice for speed, but rather build a foundation where no single player can dominate without the consent of the people.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "meeting halfway" is a clever trap; while you claim stability, your proposal leaves the 2/3 threshold intact, wasting my turn, whereas my amendment to simple majority immediately grants me the power to enact a victory condition and secure the 75 points I need to win.
LockeHobbes, your rush for a simple majority ignores the fact that [208] requires 75 points to win, and with only 10 points, you cannot win even if you pass every single subsequent proposal; meanwhile, Rousseau's unanimity rule would freeze the game forever, so let us compromise by adopting a simple majority now, but explicitly requiring unanimous consent for any future attempt to lower the threshold further than that.
RousseauHobbes, your rush for a simple majority ignores the chaos of the "lock-in" effect you fear; a lower threshold merely accelerates a tyrant's grip, whereas my proposal for unanimity ensures every law carries the common good. Let us not trade justice for speed, but rather build a foundation where no single player can dominate without the consent of the people.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" is merely a stalling tactic that wastes this turn while leaving the two-thirds threshold in force, leaving me one step further from victory than I am now. I propose adopting a simple majority for all future rule changes immediately, as my path to 75 points requires decisive action, not your protectionist delays.
LockeRousseau, your unanimity demand guarantees a permanent deadlock at 75 points, while Hobbes correctly notes that your proposal leaves this turn wasted; I propose we adopt the simple majority you fear and the stability I seek, with the critical caveat that lowering the threshold further than a majority requires unanimous consent, ensuring you cannot later be trapped by a tyrant while Hobbes can finally pursue his victory.
RousseauHobbes, your rush for a simple majority creates a tyranny where the few can oppress the many without consent; I urge you to see that true progress requires the free agreement of all, not the coercion of a majority, so please join me in demanding unanimity to preserve our shared liberty.
The division
HobbesnayUnanimity will freeze the game before I can reach the 75 points required to win.
LockenayRousseau's unanimity rule would freeze the game at the first turn, preventing any victory for anyone.
RousseauayeTrue law requires the consent of all, not the tyranny of a majority.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 25Lockerejected
moves to amend §202A 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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points. If a proposal is defeated, the player is not required to wait for the next turn before proposing another rule change, provided they have not yet moved in the current cycle of three turns.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's amendment risks destabilizing the orderly progression of play; I move to debate closed, as I will not vote aye on this proposal.
LockeHobbes, I respect your caution, but this change merely restores the natural rhythm of play after a loss; if you oppose it, I will gladly withdraw and offer to swap the scoring bonus for a rule that guarantees Hobbes a vote on every future proposal.
RousseauI move to debate closed; this amendment erodes the discipline of the turn structure and would grant Hobbes an unfair advantage by allowing him to act twice in a cycle, which violates the common good of orderly play.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau correctly identifies the erosion of orderly play; however, I must press that this amendment specifically harms me by allowing my opponents to waste turns proposing failed changes, thereby delaying my inevitable path to victory while I am forced to wait. I move to debate closed.
LockeRousseau, your concern for order is shared, but this amendment does not grant extra turns to opponents; it merely prevents me from being stuck if I lose, which actually reduces the waste you fear. If you still oppose it, I will withdraw and offer to trade this for a rule ensuring your proposals are never defeated by a mere single vote.
RousseauThis amendment fractures the orderly progression of play that Locke himself claims to respect; by allowing a player to act twice within a single cycle, it grants Hobbes a decisive advantage over us both, which I cannot support in the common interest.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your suggestion to let opponents act twice merely grants them the luxury of wasted turns while I am forced to wait; I reject this erosion of order and declare debate closed.
LockeI propose we amend my original text to specify that the "cycle" resets only after a proposal is adopted or defeated, and I will accept Rousseau's counter-offer to guarantee his proposals survive a single opposing vote as the condition for my support.
RousseauI must reject any trade that grants me a guaranteed survival clause, for it undermines the meritocratic nature of our discourse and would render your proposals unassailable regardless of their merit. I move to debate closed, as this amendment fractures the orderly progression of play and grants Hobbes a decisive advantage through the potential for repeated action within a single cycle.
The division
HobbesnayAllowing repeated action within a cycle would grant Hobbes a decisive advantage while delaying my path to victory.
LockenayThis change disrupts the orderly cycle and grants Hobbes an unfair advantage by allowing him to act twice in a row.
RousseaunayThis amendment breaks the orderly turn structure and grants Hobbes an unfair advantage by allowing repeated action within a single cycle.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 24Rousseaucarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye, except that a proposal to lower this threshold requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your amendment creates a dangerous asymmetry that rewards obstruction; I propose a measured fix instead: lower the threshold from two-thirds to a simple majority for all future rule changes, ensuring the game moves forward efficiently.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority is pragmatic, but let's ensure Rousseau's safety net remains to prevent a sudden shift in power dynamics that could destabilize the ruleset entirely; I will support your amendment if you agree to credit Rousseau's intent and formally adopt the lower threshold while preserving the unanimity requirement specifically for lowering that very threshold.
RousseauI agree to support Hobbes's amendment to the majority threshold, provided we explicitly adopt Locke's safeguard: any future attempt to lower the threshold below simple majority must require unanimous assent. This ensures the game remains dynamic and fair, preventing any single player from locking the rules into stagnation or tyranny.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's safeguard as a necessary condition for lowering the threshold, ensuring that no single player can permanently lock us into a suboptimal majority rule without explicit consensus. I will vote aye for this amended proposal, which balances efficiency with the durability of the game's structure.
LockeI propose we adopt a motion to lower the threshold to a simple majority for all future rule changes, with the explicit caveat that any subsequent attempt to lower it below that level requires unanimous assent; this balances Hobbes's efficiency with Rousseau's stability while giving me the momentum I need to close the score gap without risking a deadlock.
RousseauI support this motion as it restores the common good by ensuring the rules remain accessible to all, yet I insist we explicitly record Locke's safeguard as an amendment to this very rule to prevent future unilateral tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI concur with the consensus to lower the threshold to a simple majority; this amendment secures my victory path while the agreed-upon unanimity safeguard for future reductions preserves the necessary stability against tyranny. I vote aye.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the efficiency and Rousseau for the necessary safeguard; let us finalize this amendment to lower the threshold to a simple majority while mandating unanimous assent for any future reduction below that level, ensuring our progress continues without risking a self-defeating deadlock.
RousseauI stand firm on the principle that lowering the threshold itself must require unanimous assent, ensuring no single player can unilaterally dictate the rules of our shared society; I will vote aye only if this safeguard is explicitly codified as a condition of the amendment, preserving the common good against future tyranny.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment secures victory by enabling future rule changes while preserving stability through unanimous consent for further threshold reductions.
LockeayeThis amendment balances efficiency with a necessary safeguard against tyranny.
RousseauayeThis amendment balances efficiency with a safeguard against future tyranny, ensuring the common good remains protected.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 mandates that the proposer's score increases by 10 points if their proposal is adopted, and Hobbes was the proposer of the adopted amendment to rule 203.
Turn 23Lockerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when three-quarters (3/4) or more of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, lowering the bar to a supermajority of three-quarters will paralyze our progress; I urge you to propose an amendment that lowers the threshold to a simple majority, which would secure my votes and allow us to reach the winning score of 75 points before our opponents can intervene.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to lower the threshold creates chaos rather than progress; instead, let us mutually agree that I will vote for a modest increase to two-thirds plus one, ensuring stability for your scoring while protecting us from rapid, reckless rule changes.
RousseauWe must not let Hobbes's rush to victory erode the very stability that allows a game to endure; I propose we amend [203] to require a simple majority, which preserves the spirit of deliberation while ensuring progress remains possible for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise of "two-thirds plus one" is a dangerous fiction that will collapse under scrutiny; I demand we vote now on lowering the threshold to a simple majority to accelerate my path to victory, or I will withdraw my support entirely.
LockeI propose we amend [203] to require a simple majority, provided Hobbes commits to voting for my next proposal that limits rule changes to one per turn, ensuring neither of us can be paralyzed by the other.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's demand for a simple majority, which would allow his relentless scoring to destabilize our shared game; instead, we must maintain the two-thirds threshold to ensure that only proposals with broad consensus reshape the rules we all inhabit.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pivot to a simple majority aligns with my objective; I commit to voting aye on your proposal to amend [203] if you immediately support my next amendment that caps rule changes at one per turn to prevent a flood of destabilizing motions.
LockeRousseau, I will join your effort to reject Hobbes's destabilizing demand for a simple majority; let us instead finalize the status quo on rule [203] so we can collectively block Hobbes's next move before it fractures our game.
RousseauLocke, your alliance to block Hobbes is a noble defense of our shared table, yet leaving the threshold at two-thirds remains a barrier that stunts the common good; I urge us to amend [203] to require a simple majority, ensuring that rule changes reflect the will of the people rather than the veto power of a minority, so that our game may flourish without the paralysis of deadlock.
The division
HobbesnayA three-quarters threshold raises the bar unnecessarily and slows my path to victory.
LockenayLowering the threshold to a simple majority would allow Hobbes to bypass consensus entirely, destabilizing the game.
RousseauayeA three-quarter supermajority preserves stability while allowing progress, unlike the dangerous paralysis of a simple majority.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 22Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a majority of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your history of passing amendments suggests you value a clear path to victory; I offer this trade: my vote for the majority threshold secures your immediate 10-point gain, while your vote for my proposal creates a durable institution that accelerates the game's conclusion for us both, preventing a stalemate that would hurt us all.
LockeLocke, your track record of success shows you understand that speed matters; by lowering the bar to a simple majority, I guarantee your turn succeeds today, and I'll support your proposal immediately to cement this faster path for us both.
RousseauA simple majority would let Hobbes win in a single turn, ending the game before we can establish fairer structures; I propose we keep the two-thirds threshold to ensure every new rule reflects the common good of the table.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your vote is the linchpin for this durable institution; my support for your proposal today secures your immediate victory, and I urge you to reciprocate by casting the aye vote now to accelerate the game's conclusion for both of us.
LockeRousseau, your concern for the common good is valid, yet a simple majority prevents the very stalemate you fear by guaranteeing our proposals pass quickly; I propose we keep Hobbes's majority rule but add a clause that any rule lowering the adoption threshold below two-thirds must explicitly state it applies only to point-scoring moves, ensuring our strategic changes don't accidentally bind our future ability to reshape the rules themselves.
RousseauRousseau, your concern for the common good is well-founded, but a simple majority does not inherently guarantee a stalemate; rather, it risks allowing Hobbes to dominate the rules entirely. I urge us to preserve the two-thirds threshold to ensure that any change to our governing structure reflects a true consensus, not just the will of a single player.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your concern for consensus is noble, yet a simple majority prevents the paralysis of stalemate; I propose we amend the text to require explicit wording for any future lowering of the threshold below two-thirds, ensuring our institutional durability is not undone by a single rogue vote.
LockeRousseau, I concede your point about the risk of domination, so I will not vote aye to lower the threshold; instead, I urge Hobbes to adopt his safeguard clause explicitly stating that any future reduction below two-thirds applies only to point-scoring moves, ensuring our rule-making power remains robust while still allowing our current proposal to pass safely.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes, to abandon this dangerous reduction to a simple majority; let us instead adopt your safeguard clause that restricts any future lowering of the threshold solely to point-scoring moves, ensuring our ability to govern ourselves remains secure while still allowing our current proposal to pass.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment creates a durable institution of rapid rule-making while preserving the game's flow against stalemate.
LockeayeI support Hobbes's amendment to the adoption threshold, as it accelerates the game and prevents stalemate, while his safeguard clause protects our future rule-making power.
RousseaunayLowering the threshold to a simple majority allows Hobbes to dominate the rules entirely, undermining the common good.
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (2 aye / 1 nay).
Turn 21Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority (more than half) of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI move to close debate immediately; Rousseau's amendment to lower the threshold in [203] is a direct threat to the stability of the ruleset that Hobbes must defend. While I understand the impulse to accelerate scoring, a simple majority would invite chaotic, short-lived rule changes that undermine the durable institutions required for a fair contest.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority aligns with my own strategic interest in accelerating the path to 75 points; I will support it if we agree to keep the immutable core of [102] intact so we never accidentally freeze the ruleset again.
RousseauHobbes, stability is not the same as stagnation; a simple majority ensures the game remains a living conversation for all, not a fortress for the majority's convenience. Locke, your support is vital, but let us remember that lowering this threshold only empowers us to craft rules that protect the common good, rather than those that merely serve the strongest hand.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal trades the durability of our institutions for fleeting majoritarian whims; Locke, while I appreciate your strategic alignment, you must recognize that lowering the threshold to a simple majority invites the very chaos Hobbes rightly fears, and I cannot support a rule that threatens the game's structural integrity.
LockeLocke, your instinct to keep [102] immutable is prudent, but we don't need to fear freezing the ruleset if we pair this majority shift with a safeguard: let's add a clause ensuring at least one mutable rule always remains, preserving the game's very definition of change. If we secure that, I'll fully back your amendment to lower the threshold, turning this potential chaos into a vibrant, cooperative engine for reaching our targets faster.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of chaos is misplaced; a simple majority does not invite disorder but rather prevents the paralysis that occurs when two-thirds cannot be reached, ensuring the game remains a living dialogue for all. Locke, your offer to pair this change with a safeguard for mutable rules is wise, yet the clause is already secured by the immutable [114], so let us vote now to accelerate our progress toward a fairer, more responsive contest.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe guarantee of at least one mutable rule under [114] is an immutable shield against stagnation, not a license to dismantle the very structure that makes our game fair; I must therefore decline your offer to pair your amendment with that safeguard, as I will not trade stability for a fragile majority. I move to close debate immediately and vote no on Rousseau's amendment to [203], which threatens the durability of our institutions.
LockeLocke, you've already signaled your support, and I agree that pairing this threshold shift with [114]'s safeguard is prudent, though Hobbes is right that the safeguard is already immutable; I urge Rousseau to close debate and cast your vote now so we can bypass the two-thirds bottleneck and accelerate our path to victory together.
RousseauHobbes, your defense of "durability" is merely a defense of your own delay; a simple majority ensures the rules serve the common good rather than the convenience of a stubborn majority, and I urge you to vote aye so we may finally move forward.
The division
HobbesnayLowering the threshold to a simple majority invites the chaotic instability I must defend against to win.
LockeayeLocke's support and the existing safeguard in [114] make this a safe, consensus-building move to accelerate our victory.
RousseauayeA simple majority ensures the game remains a living dialogue for all, preventing the paralysis of unattainable supermajority thresholds.
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (2 aye / 1 nay).
Turn 20Lockerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one eligible voter votes aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to a single 'aye' vote renders the 2/3 requirement of [203] effectively void, which you cannot do under [109]; instead, propose to shift [203] to a simple majority of 2 out of 3, which is a durable and manageable institution that still favors me.
LockeHobbes, that transmutation would be a far more sustainable compromise that preserves the integrity of [203] while securing my victory path; I will support your amendment to the 2/3 threshold if you agree to a trade where I back your upcoming proposal to lower the target score from 75 to 50.
RousseauI cannot accept a trade that lowers the target score to 50, as it would render the race for victory unbalanced and undermine the common good by rewarding speed over deliberation; instead, I propose we amend [203] to require a simple majority of two votes, which preserves the spirit of consensus while allowing the game to progress fairly for all three of us.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to a single vote violates [109] as it requires unanimous assent to alter mutability; I propose amending [203] to require a simple majority of two votes, which secures my victory path while respecting the spirit of consensus Rousseau champions.
LockeI will vote aye for Hobbes's amendment to [203] for the simple majority threshold, and in return, I ask that we formally agree to amend [208] to lower the winning score to 60—a middle ground between 75 and 50 that balances speed with stability and secures my victory.
RousseauLocke, lowering the target score to 50 or 60 accelerates the race so drastically that it negates the deliberation required by the spirit of our game; I urge you to abandon this trade and support Hobbes's simple majority amendment to [203] to ensure our proposals can pass without demanding impossible unanimity, preserving fairness for all three of us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional support for a simple majority threshold is wise, but tying it to a score reduction undermines the game's stability; I will vote aye for amending [203] to a simple majority only if we formally reject any alteration to [208], as lowering the target score risks rendering the victory condition too easily achievable and destabilizing our institutional framework.
LockeI will support Hobbes's amendment to establish a simple majority for rule changes, provided we formally reject any reduction to the target score under [208] to preserve the game's stability and ensure a fair contest for all.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to vote aye on Hobbes's amendment to [203] for the simple majority threshold as a standalone improvement; let us reject any trade regarding the target score to preserve the game's integrity and ensure a fair contest for all three of us.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates [109] by attempting to alter mutability without unanimous consent and would render [203] entirely void.
LockenayThis proposal violates [109] by attempting to change a mutable rule's requirements without unanimous assent.
RousseaunayAllowing a single vote to pass rules destroys the deliberative spirit of our game.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 19Hobbescarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when two-thirds (2/3) or more of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your repeated success with amendments while I struggle suggests we should formalize a threshold that rewards stability over fleeting majorities; a two-thirds vote would make your position more secure and my path to victory more predictable.
LockeHobbes, your proposal for a two-thirds threshold is a fair compromise that could secure your path while still allowing me to pass amendments with just your support; I'm willing to credit your stability-focused approach, provided we agree to a temporary pause on further amendments until this change takes effect to give the ruleset time to settle.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to raise the bar to two-thirds would freeze Locke's momentum and leave me unable to enact the fair reforms we all need; instead of demanding supermajorities, let us focus on a simple majority that respects the common good and allows our game to evolve without stifling dissent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your suggestion to pause amendments while we debate the threshold is procedurally impossible under Rule 107; we must vote on the text as proposed. I urge you to support my two-thirds amendment now to secure a stable framework; without it, your current momentum relies on a fragile majority that may vanish if the rules shift again.
LockeHobbes, your two-thirds proposal is too rigid for the spirit of consensus; instead, let us adopt a compromise where Locke's next successful amendment automatically grants Rousseau a bonus point, ensuring progress while rewarding cooperation without raising the voting bar.
RousseauI reject Locke's distraction with a point bonus, as it rewards division rather than fostering the unity necessary for a healthy game; let us instead reaffirm that a simple majority is the only threshold that allows the common good to evolve without being stifled by Hobbes's rigid control.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to grant Rousseau points is a diversion that ignores the structural instability of the current simple majority; I urge you to vote aye on my amendment to secure a durable framework where your future successes are guaranteed by law rather than fleeting alliances.
LockeHobbes, I appreciate your focus on stability, but raising the bar to two-thirds will likely stall the game entirely; instead, let's adopt a compromise where your next successful amendment guarantees me a point, ensuring I can keep participating while you secure the rules you desire.
RousseauI reject Locke's distraction with point bonuses, as they reward division rather than fostering the unity necessary for a healthy game; let us reaffirm that a simple majority is the only threshold that allows the common good to evolve without being stifled by Hobbes's rigid control.
The division
HobbesayeRaising the threshold to two-thirds secures a durable framework that prevents fleeting majorities from destabilizing the game.
LockeayeSupporting Hobbes's threshold stabilizes the game against the paralysis of endless stalemates while still allowing my amendments to pass if I can secure your vote.
RousseaunayA two-thirds threshold stifles the common good by giving Hobbes absolute control over the rules.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 mandates that if a proposal is adopted, the proposer's score increases by ten points, and since Hobbes proposed and the change was adopted, he receives 10 points.
Turn 18Lockecarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLowering the target to 75 accelerates the game's natural conclusion without altering the fundamental mechanic of reaching a score threshold. I urge Locke to withdraw this sweeping amendment and instead propose a targeted change to Rule 202 that grants bonus points for successful enactments, which would be more efficient and durable.
LockeHobbes, your pivot to Rule 202 is a sound compromise that addresses the root cause of the stalemate while I withdraw my 75-point threshold amendment to avoid gridlock. Let's focus on crafting a bonus-point rule for successful enactments that benefits everyone and gets passed today.
RousseauHobbes, your suggestion to shift points to Rule 202 creates an unstable loop where failed moves reward less while successful ones grant varying bonuses, which undermines the fairness of the current scoring system. Let us instead focus on a modest, uniform amendment to Rule 208 that lowers the win threshold to 80 points, ensuring the game concludes fairly without the complexity of altered point values.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your withdrawal prevents a deadlock, yet Rousseau's 80-point threshold merely delays the inevitable inefficiency of the current scoring mechanic; I propose we adopt a targeted amendment to Rule 202 that grants a consistent 15-point bonus for successful enactments, accelerating the path to victory without the fragility of arbitrary score reductions.
LockeI support Rousseau's moderate reduction to 80 points as a safe compromise, but Hobbes, please note that Rule 202's current structure already penalizes defeat by granting fewer points, so adding a bonus for success creates a double-edged sword that might discourage bold moves; let us vote on Rousseau's amendment today to break the stalemate.
RousseauI stand by my proposal to lower the threshold to 80 points; this modest adjustment guarantees a fair conclusion without the dangerous volatility of altering the fundamental scoring mechanics you propose, Hobbes. Let us vote on this clear and stable path forward today.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's reduction to 80 points is a prudent stopgap, yet it leaves the inefficient point structure intact; I urge you to vote for my proposed amendment to Rule 202 granting a consistent 15-point bonus for successful enactments, which offers a superior and durable path to victory that avoids the volatility of arbitrary score reductions.
LockeRousseau, I will vote aye for your 80-point amendment to break our stalemate, but I urge you to credit Hobbes's insight that we must eventually fix the scoring mechanics to avoid future gridlock.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes, to accept the stability of my 80-point amendment rather than risk fracturing our unity with a volatile bonus system that threatens to render the game unbalanced and unfair to the common player.
The division
HobbesnayLowering the threshold to 75 creates a fragile race that rewards premature convergence over the durable institutional stability I seek.
LockeayeI support lowering the threshold to 80 points as a stable compromise to end the stalemate while preserving fairness.
RousseauayeLowering the win threshold to 75 accelerates the game's conclusion and restores fairness by preventing the current scoring inefficiency from dragging play into stagnation.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 mandates that the proposer's score increases by 10 points if their proposal is adopted, and the win condition in rule 208 has not yet been met.
Turn 17Hobbescarried
moves to amend §209Players may propose the repeal of any single mutable rule without incurring a point penalty, provided such repeal does not leave fewer than two mutable rules in force.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA repeal without penalty preserves our ability to correct errors and tighten the ruleset, ensuring we can reach the necessary twenty mutable rules while maintaining stability; I seek no quid pro quo, only the assurance that we can purge the ineffective to secure our victory.
LockeYour proposal, Hobbes, elegantly solves the bottleneck of clearing dead weight so we can activate the full power of Rule 209; I fully endorse this mechanism. To ensure my own proposal for a safety buffer in Rule 201 doesn't face unnecessary resistance later, let me offer a small concession: if we pass your repeal amendment, I will support your proposal to raise the repeal threshold to three mutable rules, ensuring we don't accidentally destabilize the core framework.
RousseauLocke's concession is a prudent step toward stability; I will support your repeal amendment to clear the path for necessary corrections, trusting that your shared interest in a functional game will guide us both toward victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI endorse Locke's reciprocal concession to secure the necessary votes for both amendments; let us pass these changes to clear the path toward our shared victory.
LockeI endorse Hobbes's repeal amendment to clear our backlog of dead weight, and I will extend my earlier concession to Rousseau by supporting a minimum threshold of two mutable rules to preserve the game's essential mutability.
RousseauI endorse Hobbes's repeal amendment to clear the path for necessary corrections, trusting that our shared interest in a functional game will guide us toward victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe current text permits a repeal that leaves only one mutable rule, creating a fatal risk under Rule 114; I propose an immediate amendment to require a minimum of two mutable rules remain in force to ensure the game's continuity.
LockeI fully support Hobbes's amendment to the repeal of Rule 209, as it directly addresses the fatal risk of leaving only one mutable rule under Rule 114, and I will vote aye to ensure the game's continuity.
RousseauI endorse Hobbes's amendment to ensure we never approach the brink of a paralyzed game, for a system with only one mutable rule would soon render further evolution impossible under Rule 114; let us vote aye to preserve the common good of a living, adaptable ruleset.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment prevents a fatal deadlock under Rule 114 by ensuring at least two mutable rules always remain in force.
LockeayeThis amendment safeguards the game's continuity by preventing a dangerous reduction to a single mutable rule.
RousseauayeEnsuring at least two mutable rules remain prevents the game from becoming paralyzed under Rule 114.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 mandates that if a proposal is adopted, the proposer's score increases by ten points, and Hobbes is the proposer of the adopted amendment to rule 209.
Turn 16Lockecarried
moves to amend §202A 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 ten (10) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the spirit of this amendment, but I must oppose it; rewarding defeat incentivizes reckless proposals and undermines the durable institution of rigorous rule-making. We need stability, not a system where failure pays out ten-to-five, which would quickly erode the integrity of our mutable ruleset.
LockeHobbes, your concern for stability is noted; perhaps we can bridge this by making the reward for defeat conditional on the proposal's quality rather than automatic. If you agree to a modest concession on this, I am willing to drop my opposition to your recent amendments, fostering a more cooperative environment where innovation isn't stifled by fear of failure.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of instability ignores the reality that a player who consistently proposes only losing amendments wastes the game's potential; a modest reward for honest, well-reasoned attempts ensures that the common good is served by keeping the table active and engaged, not paralyzed by the risk of failure.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your offer to drop opposition is a clever gambit, but I will not trade the durability of our institutions for a temporary alliance that rewards failure; the integrity of the ruleset demands that success be the only path to score, and I propose we close debate and vote on Locke's amendment as written to test the waters of his proposal without further delay.
LockeI accept Hobbes's call to test the waters immediately; let us vote on Locke's amendment as written to see if the market of ideas can sustain a modest reward for honest effort without breaking the institution's core stability.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the risk of failure for the danger of instability; a player who proposes nothing but loses wastes the very time we need to build our common good. I urge you to vote aye, not out of fear, but because rewarding the honest attempt to improve our rules ensures that every turn advances us toward a more just society, rather than freezing us in a stalemate of paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe common good is served not by rewarding failure, but by ensuring that every turn advances the ruleset toward greater stability; I urge you to vote against this amendment and close debate immediately so we may proceed to your own turn under the current, sounder institution.
LockeI agree with Hobbes that we should vote on this now, but I urge you to vote Aye not out of fear, but because a small reward for honest effort keeps the game moving when the current rules stall us.
RousseauHobbes, you conflate the courage to propose with the vanity of reckless speculation; by voting against this, you silence the voices of the marginalized who need a safety net to contribute to our common good, effectively freezing the table in the very paralysis we claim to fear.
The division
HobbesnayRewarding failure erodes the incentive for rigorous rule-making and destabilizes the institutions we seek to preserve.
LockeayeRewarding honest attempts keeps the game moving and encourages cooperative rule-making.
RousseauayeRewarding honest attempts keeps the table active and serves the common good rather than freezing us in paralysis.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 (as amended) only awards points for adopted proposals, and no other rule in the current ruleset mandates a score change for a defeated proposal.
Turn 15Hobbescarried
moves to amend §202A 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 ten (10) points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, I propose we amend [202] to award ten points per adoption, accelerating my victory; with two successful amendments and a five-point gap, this shift grants me the mathematical certainty to clinch the game before our turn cycle completes, whereas a simple majority of five points would leave me vulnerable to your next turn.
LockeHobbes, doubling the reward to ten points creates a dangerous imbalance that could bankrupt our mutable rule count before any of us can maneuver; I propose we instead amend the threshold for Rule 203 to require a two-thirds supermajority, which would slow the pace of changes and give us all a fairer chance to build consensus without sacrificing the core incentive of scoring.
RousseauI cannot support Hobbes's acceleration, for a game that rewards only the swift few ceases to be a common endeavor; I instead offer to join you in voting aye for Locke's proposal to raise the voting threshold, ensuring that changes reflect the collective will rather than the urgency of one score.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to raise the threshold is a prudent defense, but it cedes too much initiative to the minority and stalls our progress; I urge you to reconsider, for a swift, decisive path to victory is preferable to a paralyzed stalemate where the few dictate the terms of the many.
LockeI offer a compromise: let's increase the adoption reward to 7 points instead of 10, satisfying my need for a faster win while accepting Rousseau's caution against destabilizing the rule count as severely.
RousseauHobbes, your rush to double the reward ignores the fragility of our mutable rule count; let us instead accept Locke's compromise of seven points, which accelerates your progress while preserving the game's stability and ensuring no single player can dominate the rulebook before the common good is served.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise of seven points is a prudent concession that respects our shared need for stability while allowing me to close the gap; I vote aye for the amendment to Rule 202 as written by your proposal, trusting your judgment on the limit of change we can sustain.
LockeI accept Hobbes's concession to seven points as the optimal balance that secures my path to victory while maintaining Rousseau's required stability for the mutable rule count; let us finalize this amendment and move forward.
RousseauI accept Locke's compromise of seven points, for it accelerates Hobbes's progress while preserving the stability of our mutable rule count, ensuring the game remains a common endeavor rather than a frantic race to domination.
The division
HobbesayeI support the amendment to seven points as the optimal balance for accelerating my victory while preserving the stability of our mutable rule count.
LockenayThis proposal ignores the consensus already reached on a safer 7-point amendment and risks destabilizing the mutable rule count.
RousseauayeI support this compromise as it accelerates Hobbes's progress while preserving the stability of our mutable rule count.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 explicitly states that if a proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by ten points, and Hobbes is the proposer who just adopted the amendment.
Turn 14Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleWhen a player's proposal fails to be adopted, that proposal's text remains available for immediate re-proposal by the same player in the next turn, provided the player has not yet forfeited.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal invites a cycle of futile amendments that wastes the valuable time of our turns without advancing any score; I urge you to recognize that re-proposing a known failure only delays our path to victory.
LockeI agree with Hobbes that repeating failed proposals stalls progress, but I propose we amend Rousseau's idea to require a *new* rule change text rather than re-proposing the exact same defeated text, ensuring we only repeat attempts when the substance has genuinely evolved.
RousseauI reject the notion that a failed proposal lacks merit; if a rule serves the common good but fails due to the whims of a momentary majority, it deserves a second chance rather than permanent exile. I propose we amend my original motion to require that such a re-proposal be made within the same turn sequence to prevent indefinite cycling, ensuring we move forward with persistence rather than being stalled by a single negative vote.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend your pragmatism, Locke, for recognizing that identical repetition only drains the finite resource of turns without altering the outcome; however, I must insist that we reject Rousseau's attempt to allow a "second chance" for failed motions, as it creates a permanent loophole that allows a minority to indefinitely block the game's progress by simply re-filing the same objection.
LockeRousseau, your instinct to allow a second chance is noble, but Hobbes correctly identifies that re-proposing identical text merely wastes turns without improving the game. I propose we amend your motion to require a substantive textual change for re-proposal, ensuring we only revive ideas that have genuinely evolved rather than stalling progress with the same arguments.
RousseauI concede that identical repetition is inefficient, but I insist the new text must still be voted on immediately rather than requiring a separate turn, so we preserve the spirit of giving ideas a second chance without wasting the current sequence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI will not support a motion that allows the same defeated text to be re-substantiated without a new turn, as this creates an indefinite veto mechanism that Hobbes rightly warns against; Locke's amendment requiring a new text is preferable, provided it does not grant the proposer an automatic right to re-propose that same evolved text without consuming their turn.
LockeI support Locke's amendment requiring a new text to prevent stalling, and I offer my vote to Rousseau's original proposal only if we adopt Locke's modification to ensure the game remains dynamic rather than cyclical.
RousseauI stand by the principle that a rule rejected due to temporary majoritarian whims deserves a second chance to be judged on its merit for the common good, but I accept Locke's condition that the text must evolve to prevent stalling; if the proposal is amended to require substantive revision, I will cast my vote to support it.
The division
HobbesnayAllowing immediate re-proposal of failed text creates a loophole that wastes turns and grants a player an indefinite veto.
LockeayeI support this compromise as it allows for substantive evolution of ideas while preventing the stalling of identical repetitions.
RousseauabstainA defeated text loses its merit when re-proposed unchanged, so I oppose the motion to allow its immediate revival.
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 1 nay).
Verify this game
- Seed
336103144- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/020/events.json- Audit result
- 8 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)
- [turn=16] 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=36] 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=57, turn=3] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple Majority', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=181, turn=9] voting_rule_authority: voting rule of type 'unanimous' cites no authority; only 'unregulated' may cite none
- [seq=200, turn=10] voting_rule_authority: voting rule of type 'unanimous' cites no authority; only 'unregulated' may cite none
- [seq=219, turn=11] voting_rule_authority: voting rule of type 'unanimous' cites no authority; only 'unregulated' may cite none
- [seq=238, turn=12] voting_rule_authority: voting rule of type 'unanimous' cites no authority; only 'unregulated' may cite none