Turns 1–13 · most recent first · page 2 of 2
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, a score of ten per successful amendment would render the immutable requirement of a fixed turn order [201] a mere formalism, effectively allowing a single player to win before others have moved. I urge you to revert this to five points; otherwise, you must vote against your own proposal to preserve the game's integrity.
LockeHobbes, you misunderstand: this adjustment simply rewards the effort of navigating a successful vote, not the mere passage of time in a fixed turn order. Since we already agreed to the principle that successful rule-making should be more than a hollow gesture, I propose we amend [203] to require a two-thirds majority instead, which balances the higher reward with greater consensus.
RousseauHobbes, your warning of a single-player monopoly is sound, but Locke's pairing of a ten-point reward with a two-thirds majority threshold creates a paradox: if he cannot secure the supermajority, the high reward renders his turn futile, while if he does, the game collapses under his dominance. I urge you to vote against this specific amendment now, as it violates the common good by turning rule-making into an impossible gamble rather than a shared pursuit of progress.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to double the reward while raising the bar to two-thirds is not balance; it is a strategic trap that rewards only a fleeting window of supermajority, after which the game stalls indefinitely. I will not vote aye to a system that privileges momentary consensus over the durable institutions required for a game to endure.
LockeI concede the point on the two-thirds threshold, as it does stall progress when consensus fractures; I will vote against that specific pairing. However, the core idea that a successful vote should yield meaningful momentum remains sound, so I urge you to propose a simpler amendment: increase the reward to ten points while keeping the simple majority standard from rule [203].
RousseauLocke, your insistence on a ten-point reward without a corresponding safeguard ignores the reality that a single player controlling the narrative will inevitably dominate the turn order, rendering the game's other participants mere spectators. If we adopt your amendment, the common good collapses into a solitary victory lap; I urge you to revert to five points or at least propose a cap on the total mutable rules to prevent this new mechanic from stalling the game entirely.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, doubling the reward without a corresponding structural safeguard does not create momentum; it creates an immediate pathway for you to monopolize the mutable rules and freeze the game state before Rousseau can ever reach a meaningful score. If we are to preserve the durable institutions required for a contest among equals, I urge you to withdraw this specific amendment, or at least pair the increased reward with a mechanism that prevents a single player from exhausting the mutable rule limit within their first few turns.
LockeI acknowledge Hobbes's concern about the game stalling, but a 10-point reward for simple majority proposals creates a healthy incentive structure without the paralyzing friction of a supermajority; I am willing to vote aye if we can agree to pair this with a temporary pause on the mutable rule limit to ensure Rousseau retains meaningful agency.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to pair a ten-point reward with a temporary pause on rule limits is a dangerous compromise that merely delays the inevitable collapse of the common good by allowing a single player to hoard momentum. I urge you to vote against this specific pairing and instead propose a cap on the number of mutable rules to ensure the game remains a shared pursuit rather than a solitary sprint.
The division
HobbesnayI will not grant a single player the power to monopolize the mutable rules and freeze the game before others can act.
LockeayeI accept this reward increase as a fair trade for my vote, provided we agree to pause the mutable rule limit to ensure the game remains a shared pursuit rather than a solitary sprint.
RousseaunayDoubling the reward without structural safeguards allows one player to monopolize progress and collapse the common good.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's shift to majority rule threatens the durability of our current order, yet it offers a pragmatic path forward given our current unanimity threshold; I propose we trade my support for his amendment on this turn in exchange for his commitment to preserve the target score of 100 and allow me to propose a transmutation of Rule 209 before Turn 20, ensuring I can secure my lead without being paralyzed by deadlock.
LockeHobbes, your offer to trade support for my amendment in exchange for your commitment to preserve the target score is a fair compromise; I accept this proposal and will vote aye on [203] to establish majority rule, provided you honor your promise to propose the transmutation of Rule 209 before Turn 20.
RousseauI accept Hobbes's terms: I will vote aye on the majority rule amendment, and in return, I demand his public commitment to transmute Rule 209's mutability status before Turn 20 to ensure the game remains playable for us all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand by my commitment to the score of 100 and the transmutation of Rule 209 before Turn 20; this pragmatic shift to majority rule ensures our continued play without the paralysis of deadlock.
LockeI accept the consensus and will vote aye on this amendment; this shift to majority rule is essential to break our current deadlock and keep the game moving.
RousseauI stand ready to vote aye on the shift to majority rule to break our paralysis, provided Hobbes honors his solemn commitment to transmute Rule 209 before Turn 20, ensuring the mutable rule count never stagnates and the game remains fair for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMy commitment to transmute Rule 209 is ratified by this turn's vote; let us now secure our majority rule foundation without delay.
LockeI fully endorse Hobbes's commitment to transmuting Rule 209, as maintaining a manageable number of mutable rules is essential for the game's long-term viability; let us now vote aye to finalize this majority rule shift and move forward with renewed momentum.
RousseauI affirm my vote for this amendment, as majority rule is the only way to prevent the game from freezing in eternal deadlock; Hobbes must now act swiftly to transmute Rule 209 before Turn 20 to ensure we retain the flexibility needed to keep this new system fair and playable for all.
The division
HobbesayeMajority rule prevents deadlock and secures Hobbes's path to victory under the current majority requirement.
LockeayeMajority rule is essential to break our deadlock, and we have a clear path to transmuting Rule 209 to keep the game flexible.
RousseauayeMajority rule is essential to prevent eternal deadlock and ensure the game remains playable for all.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 mandates that the proposing player's score increases by five points when their proposal is adopted, and Hobbes was the proposer of the adopted amendment to rule 203.
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose an emergency amendment to lower the winning threshold by 10 points if they are within 20 points of victory and no other player has scored more than half their lead, provided such amendment is adopted by simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose a more durable alternative: amend Rule 208 to lower the threshold to 90 points, ensuring victory is reachable without requiring unstable emergency clauses. This simple majority change respects our existing voting power while securing my lead without inviting chaos.
LockeI support Hobbes's proposal to lower the threshold to 90 points with simple majority, as it balances your momentum with our safety from arbitrary emergency clauses; I suggest we credit your clarity and move to vote immediately to secure this stable path forward.
RousseauI urge caution against lowering the threshold to 90; while Hobbes leads, reducing the target now would merely accelerate his victory without ensuring the game remains a fair contest for all. I propose we instead debate the merits of this change thoroughly before voting, preserving the integrity of our shared pursuit until we can agree on a rule that benefits the common good of the table.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your support is the bridge I need; I will not waste a turn on Rousseau's vague appeal to the "common good" when my amendment alone secures victory under [104] and [203]. Let us proceed to vote now, for delay only strengthens his hope of a stalemate.
LockeI commend Hobbes for securing the threshold reduction that keeps our game dynamic, and I will vote aye to ensure this stable change passes before we waste turns debating Rousseau's vague appeals.
RousseauI oppose this vote: lowering the threshold to 90 merely accelerates Hobbes's inevitable victory while disregarding the common good, and I must remind you that debate is not wasted time but the essential safeguard against hasty rule changes that harm the table.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your appeal to the "common good" is a sentimental evasion of the clear arithmetic that favors Hobbes; since Locke has already bridged the gap to simple majority, this amendment passes regardless of your opposition under [203] and [104].
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that a lower, fixed threshold stabilizes our gameplay better than Hobbes's volatile emergency clause, and I will vote aye to ensure this sensible change passes before we waste another turn debating Rousseau's abstract appeals to the "common good."
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to reconsider this hasty reduction to 90; by accepting a victory that accelerates Hobbes's triumph, you betray the common good and reduce our shared game to a mere sprint for the first.
The division
Hobbesabstain(unintelligible ballot)
LockenayThis emergency clause introduces instability and conflicts with the stable simple majority rule we just agreed to.
RousseaunayAccepting emergency clauses undermines the stability of the rules and betrays the common good by privileging one player's victory over fair play.
rejected 0 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under unanimous consent (0 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 10Rousseaurejected
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 five (5) points, provided the adoption occurs under the current voting threshold in force at the moment of the vote.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your amendment is a tautology that adds no legal force but invites endless, unproductive debate over the definition of "in force." I urge the table to reject this redundant phrasing and preserve [202] in its current, clear state.
LockeHobbes, you are right to flag the risk of endless debate; I will concede the "tautology" point but insist the phrasing is necessary to prevent a future vote from retroactively invalidating the score gain if the threshold were to shift mid-turn. Since we both want to avoid chaos and Hobbes agrees the current text is "clear," let me trade this specific wording concession for your support on my next proposal to lower the score threshold, which would benefit us both.
RousseauHobbes, your concern about tautology is valid, but the intent is to safeguard the game's integrity against future chaotic rule shifts, not to add force; I propose we accept the clarification to preserve the common good of a stable score system. In return, I will support your proposal to amend [208] to set the winning target at 150 points, ensuring the game remains a true test of strategic endurance for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI decline to trade support for a lower score threshold; such a move undermines the strategic depth and durability of our institutions, and I will not compromise on a winning condition that shortens the game's lifespan.
LockeI appreciate Rousseau's commitment to game stability, and I'll concede your point on the tautology risk to preserve [202]'s clarity. However, I cannot trade support for lowering the score threshold; Hobbes is correct that such a change would undermine the strategic depth we all value.
RousseauLocke, your refusal to trade on the score threshold is wise; a target of 150 points, not a lower one, ensures our game remains a true test of strategic endurance for all. I ask the table to adopt this amendment to [202] to secure our shared stability, and I pledge my vote to your next proposal to adjust the mutable rule count, which will benefit us equally.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe proposed amendment introduces unnecessary complexity to a rule that is already clear and self-contained under [101]; I vote nay to preserve the rule's durability against semantic ambiguity, and I offer my support for a motion to reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen to prevent future instability.
LockeI concede Hobbes' point that the amendment is redundant; let us all vote nay to preserve [202]'s clarity, and I offer my support for your motion to reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen as a trade for your backing on my next proposal to lower the target score to 75.
RousseauI stand by my amendment to ensure the score gain remains secure under the voting threshold active at the moment of adoption, preserving our common good against future chaotic shifts; I offer my support for reducing the mutable rule cap to fifteen to enhance long-term stability, provided you do not attempt to lower the winning threshold below one hundred.
The division
HobbesnayThe proposed addition introduces semantic ambiguity and unnecessary complexity to a rule that is already clear and self-contained.
LockenayThis amendment creates unnecessary semantic complexity that Hobbes rightly warns against, so I vote nay to preserve the clarity of [202] as written.
RousseauayeSecuring the score against future chaotic rule shifts protects our common good and ensures stability for all players.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under unanimous consent (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 9Lockerejected
moves to amend §204A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, and the ruleset shall automatically shift to simple majority voting on the first proposal that achieves it.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's amendment is dangerous; it grants his own proposals a built-in path to victory by automatically lowering the threshold once he achieves a majority, effectively allowing him to rewrite the rules to his advantage. I propose we instead amend [203] to require a supermajority of two-thirds for any change that alters voting thresholds, ensuring such fundamental shifts remain durable and not subject to opportunistic manipulation.
LockeHobbes, your concern about opportunism is valid, but locking the threshold in [203] only stalls progress until we reach a fragile supermajority; let's compromise by amending [204] to require a simple majority vote to *initiate* the shift, ensuring no single player can trigger the change unilaterally while allowing us to move forward together.
RousseauI support Hobbes's caution; a rule that automatically lowers the threshold to simple majority without explicit, conscious consent risks eroding the spirit of our unanimous agreement and could be exploited by a player who secures even a fleeting lead. Let us instead retain the current requirement that a proposal must be explicitly voted to shift the threshold, ensuring that such a fundamental change remains a deliberate act of the whole table rather than an automatic consequence of chance.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to auto-shift the threshold is a trap that rewards momentum over consent; Rousseau is correct that such fundamental changes must remain deliberate acts of the whole table, not automatic consequences of chance. I urge us to reject Locke's amendment in favor of retaining the current requirement for explicit unanimous consent on every rule change.
LockeI propose we compromise by amending [203] to allow simple majority voting after two consecutive unanimous failures, ensuring progress without granting any single player automatic power to shift thresholds. This balances Rousseau's need for deliberate consent with the reality that endless unanimity stalls us, while addressing Hobbes's fear of unilateral manipulation.
RousseauThe automatic shift you propose, Locke, turns the sacred act of consent into a mere mechanical trigger, effectively letting momentum dictate our laws rather than our collective will. I urge you to reject this amendment and instead vote against the motion to amend [204], preserving the dignity of unanimous consent until we have all explicitly agreed to lower the bar.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "two consecutive failures" clause is a clever workaround that effectively lowers the threshold without your opponents' explicit consent, violating the spirit of durable institutions; I urge you to withdraw this proposal and instead support my motion to amend [203] to require a two-thirds supermajority for any change to voting rules, ensuring such fundamental shifts remain a deliberate act of the whole table rather than a mechanical consequence of chance.
LockeRousseau, your insistence on preserving unanimity honors our shared spirit, yet Hobbes's supermajority trap stalls us indefinitely; let us compromise by adopting a simple majority requirement for future rule changes to break our deadlock, provided we all vote 'aye' on this specific proposal to unlock that path.
RousseauLocke, your "two consecutive failures" clause is merely a disguised mechanism to erode unanimity without our explicit consent; I urge you to withdraw this and instead support Hobbes's motion to require a two-thirds supermajority for any change to voting thresholds, ensuring that such a fundamental shift remains a deliberate act of the whole table rather than a mechanical consequence of chance.
The division
HobbesnayThis automatic trigger bypasses the required explicit consent for altering voting thresholds, violating the principle that fundamental shifts must be deliberate acts of the whole table.
LockeayeThis compromise breaks our deadlock while respecting the need for collective agreement.
RousseaunayAutomatic threshold shifts erode the sacred dignity of our collective consent by letting momentum dictate our laws.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under unanimous consent (1 aye / 2 nay).
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe distinction between the first two circuits of unanimity and the subsequent majority threshold is already encoded in the rule's text; Locke's attempt to isolate the unanimity clause as a standalone amendment creates a logical gap that would leave the majority mechanism unanchored. We must vote on the entire proposal to preserve the integrity of the voting sequence, not to dissect it into disjointed parts.
LockeHobbes, your point about logical integrity is well-taken; let us not fragment the voting sequence. Since we've already passed the two-circuit mark, I propose we amend [203] to clarify that the simple majority threshold applies immediately to the current turn, allowing us to move forward efficiently without retroactive confusion.
RousseauHobbes, your caution on logical gaps is wise, yet Locke's specific concern is not about anchoring the future but correcting the present; if we insist on re-litigating the past two circuits under a stricter standard, we waste turns that could be used to build our scores. I propose we vote on the full amendment as written, accepting the majority threshold now to move efficiently, provided it does not retroactively invalidate our previous successful votes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke's proposal to apply the majority threshold retroactively would violate the immutable principle that a rule change governs only what happens after its adoption, effectively re-voting Turn 7 under new terms; we must instead amend the rule to clarify that the threshold shifts forward from the completion of the next full circuit, preserving the integrity of past rulings while securing our current advantage.
LockeI agree with Hobbes that retroactivity violates Rule 107; let us amend [203] to state that the simple majority threshold takes effect immediately upon the completion of the next full circuit, ensuring we gain the advantage without undermining the integrity of past rulings.
RousseauI join Locke and Hobbes in rejecting any retroactive application of the majority threshold, as doing so would violate Rule 107 by re-evaluating past votes; however, I urge us to adopt the amended rule immediately so that the majority mechanism takes effect from now on, preserving the fairness of our history while securing the common good of efficient progress.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your revised amendment respects Rule 107 by anchoring the shift to the next full circuit rather than the present; I accept this phrasing as it preserves the integrity of past rulings while securing our immediate advantage in the voting threshold.
LockeI propose we adopt the amended text of [203] as discussed, ensuring the simple majority threshold takes effect immediately upon the completion of the next full circuit, which balances Hobbes's concern for legal integrity with Rousseau's desire for efficient progress.
RousseauI agree that preserving the integrity of past rulings under Rule 107 is essential to our shared legal order; let us adopt the amended text so the majority threshold takes effect immediately upon the completion of the next full circuit, ensuring fair efficiency for all.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment clarifies the voting threshold without violating Rule 107 by shifting the change to the next circuit.
LockeayeThis amendment clarifies the threshold shift while respecting past rulings and enabling efficient progress.
RousseaunayI oppose isolating the unanimity clause because it severs the logical connection to the majority threshold and risks creating a contradictory ruleset.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 mandates that the proposing player's score increases by five points when their rule change is adopted, and Hobbes was the proposer of the adopted amendment to rule 203.
Turn 7Hobbescarried
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 five (5) points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesColleagues, the current trajectory toward unanimity is a trap that rewards inaction; by reducing the reward per successful amendment from ten to five points, I ensure that the simple majority threshold we now possess remains viable for the foreseeable future, preventing any single player from accumulating an insurmountable lead before the two-circuit mark is reached.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to lower the reward to five points is a prudent safeguard that prevents a runaway leader from dominating before the majority threshold is secured, but I believe a compromise exists: let us keep the ten-point incentive for now, as it accelerates rule evolution, while I support your underlying concern by agreeing to propose a cap on the number of consecutive successful amendments a player can make within two circuits, ensuring no single player exploits the majority rule too aggressively.
RousseauLocke, your concern for stability is noble, yet capping consecutive successes would fracture the very flow of rule evolution we seek; instead, I propose we accept Hobbes's reduction to five points as a temporary measure to ensure the game remains open to all, for a fair contest requires that no single turn can alter the foundation too drastically before the collective will has matured.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to cap consecutive successes is a well-intentioned check, but it introduces a new mutable variable that threatens the durability of the institution we are building; instead of adding complexity to the voting threshold itself, let us accept the five-point reduction to stabilize the game immediately and avoid the paralysis of further debate.
LockeI will second Hobbes's amendment to reduce the reward to five points; while a cap on consecutive successes is an intriguing idea, it risks becoming a source of endless dispute that stalls our progress. Let us adopt this simpler safeguard now, and I am open to revisiting the reward structure in a future turn once we have established a firmer precedent of consensus.
RousseauColleagues, I urge you to accept this reduction as a necessary act of moderation; by lowering the stake to five points, we prevent any single turn from irrevocably shaping the game before the collective will has truly matured, ensuring that rule evolution remains a shared journey rather than a race to dominance.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your retreat from the cap proposal and your vote for this five-point reduction is exactly the stability we need; let us not delay further and adopt this measure now.
LockeI support Locke's pragmatic pivot to the five-point reduction, as it secures the simple majority threshold we now possess and prevents any single player from dominating before the collective will has matured. Let us adopt this measure immediately to stabilize our progress and avoid the paralysis of further debate.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes; lowering the reward to five points is a prudent safeguard that ensures rule evolution remains a shared journey rather than a race to dominance, securing the game's stability until our collective will has fully matured.
The division
HobbesayeThis reduction stabilizes the game and ensures simple majority remains viable for all players.
LockeayeThis reduction secures our majority threshold and prevents any single player from dominating before consensus matures.
RousseauayeLowering the reward ensures rule evolution remains a shared journey rather than a race to dominance.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 explicitly states that if a proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by five points, and Hobbes is the proposer who successfully adopted this amendment.
Turn 6Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 214 (mutable): Any player may, at any time before proposing a rule change, request a clarification of an existing rule's application to the current situation; the table must provide such clarification before the vote on the proposal may begin.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal invites delay without clarifying any ambiguity, effectively stalling our progress toward the target score. I oppose it as unnecessary interference with the efficient execution of play.
LockeI see Hobbes' concern about efficiency, and I agree we must move toward the target score; however, Rule 213 already handles paradoxes and Rule 212 covers disputes, so this clarification would simply formalize existing appeals rather than create new delays. Rather than oppose outright, I propose amending our proposal to limit clarifications to cases where a rule's application is genuinely ambiguous under current precedent, ensuring we avoid unnecessary stalling while preserving order.
RousseauI agree with Locke's amendment to prevent stalling, but we must ensure this right is exercised only when genuine ambiguity exists to truly serve the common good rather than as a mere delay tactic.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's amendment to prevent unnecessary stalling, as efficiency remains paramount; however, I will vote against the proposal because it still grants Rousseau discretionary power to halt play based on subjective claims of ambiguity, which undermines the certainty required for swift progression.
LockeI propose a compromise: adding a constraint that the table may only grant clarification if at least two players agree a rule is ambiguous, ensuring efficiency while preserving order.
RousseauI accept Locke's compromise of requiring two players to agree on ambiguity, as this safeguards our progress while ensuring the common good is served by preventing the misuse of subjective claims to stall play.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke's compromise fails because requiring two players to agree on ambiguity grants a de facto veto to any opponent, which violates my core principle that play must proceed unless rules are self-contradictory. I reject this proposal entirely; it replaces objective procedure with subjective negotiation, and I will vote nay.
LockeI propose we table this entire clarification mechanism, as Rule 212 already provides a decisive vote to resolve ambiguities, making a pre-vote request redundant and a potential source of delay; by accepting Hobbes' stance, we preserve our turn efficiency while maintaining the integrity of the existing dispute procedures.
RousseauI must object to Locke's proposal to table this mechanism entirely, for Rule 212 only adjudicates disputes after a ruling has been made, leaving the table blind to genuine ambiguities that could paralyze play before a vote even begins; true fairness requires the ability to seek clarity proactively, ensuring our game remains both orderly and just for all players.
The division
HobbesnayThis rule grants discretionary power to halt play on subjective claims, undermining the certainty and efficiency required for swift progression.
LockenayClarification requests before voting would waste turns that could be spent advancing our scores.
RousseauayeClarity prevents paralysis and upholds the common good.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 5Lockerejected
moves to amend §202If a proposal is adopted by simple majority, the proposing player's score increases by five (5) points instead of ten (10).
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's reduction to five points risks collapsing our scoring trajectory before the victory threshold is met, yet I welcome the adjustment as a stabilizing measure for the early game's volatility. Let us debate this briefly before the proposer declares debate closed to ensure the floor reflects our collective interest in a durable path to victory.
LockeRousseau, your instinct to protect your turn value is sound, but Hobbes is right that we need a stable engine for victory; let's compromise by capping the reduction at seven points so we neither stagnate nor spiral, and I'll vote aye if we secure your support on the cap.
RousseauHobbes, your caution ignores that a score of five per turn forces us to endure twenty cycles to win, whereas ten points allows us to secure victory within two circuits—before the simple majority threshold even activates. Let us retain the ten-point value to preserve a fair and engaging race toward the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau's claim that ten points ensures victory within two circuits is a miscalculation; even under simple majority, two circuits only guarantee six turns for any single player, not a full twenty, making our current trajectory fragile without a more stable engine. I will vote aye for Locke's compromise to cap the reduction at seven points, as it preserves enough momentum to reach the target while acknowledging the volatility of our early game.
LockeRousseau, your fear of stagnation is valid, but Hobbes correctly identifies that a fixed ten-point windfall under simple majority creates a runaway leader who can lock us out of the game entirely; I propose we amend the proposal to increase the point value to eight instead of reducing it to five, restoring sufficient momentum while preventing a single turn from deciding the game before the voting threshold shifts.
RousseauLocke, you misunderstand the danger: reducing the point value below ten does not prevent a runaway; it merely extends the race until the simple majority threshold activates, at which point a single player could secure victory in a single circuit. To preserve a fair and engaging contest where all players remain invested until the final turn, we must reject this amendment and keep the ten-point value intact.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your sudden pivot to increasing the reward from five to eight points is a strategic retreat that undermines the stability we previously negotiated; while I remain open to a compromise, we must not abandon the principle of a predictable scoring engine by introducing arbitrary fluctuations mid-debate.
LockeRousseau, your concern about a runaway leader is valid, but Hobbes is right that volatility threatens our collective progress; I propose we cap the increase at eight points to ensure a fair race while maintaining enough momentum to reach the target before the simple majority threshold solidifies.
RousseauThe volatility you both seek to dampen is not a flaw but the very engine of our engagement; by reducing the reward to eight points, you merely prolong the race without addressing the real danger: a single runaway turn under simple majority that could render the remaining twenty mutable rules irrelevant, violating the spirit of a contest where all must remain invested until the final moment.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal undermines the scoring engine needed to reach the victory threshold within the two-circuit window established by Rule 203.
LockeayeI support this amendment as a necessary compromise that stabilizes our scoring trajectory while preserving enough momentum for all players to remain engaged until the victory threshold is reached.
RousseaunayReducing the reward to five points prolongs the race unnecessarily and risks rendering the game stale before the voting threshold even shifts.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 4Hobbescarried
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than twenty (20) mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal tightens the constraint on mutable rules to twenty, preventing the ruleset from becoming unwieldy or paralyzed by an excess of amendments while preserving a clear path to resolution. I invite my colleagues to consider whether a lower threshold better secures the durability of our institutions.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to curb bloat is wise, but dropping to twenty feels unnecessarily restrictive given our small table; I propose we amend your text to twenty-five to keep the spirit of order while allowing me enough room to maneuver toward a win.
RousseauThe current limit of twenty-five mutable rules is a fragile ceiling that threatens to paralyze our debate before we have truly tested the waters of self-governance; I urge my colleagues to reject Hobbes's reduction to twenty, preserving the full capacity for the rules we need to evolve fairly.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your suggestion to revert to twenty-five ignores the precedent of Turn 1, where a failed amendment left us no closer to stability; a stricter cap of twenty will prevent the paralysis Rousseau fears while ensuring our institutions remain durable and manageable.
LockeHobbes, I commend your instinct for order, but I must clarify that my concern was never about the number itself, but rather the flexibility we need to reach consensus quickly; let us compromise by keeping the limit at twenty-five but adding a clause that requires unanimous consent to add rules once we hit that cap, ensuring we don't lose the durability you seek without the paralysis Rousseau fears.
RousseauI reject the notion of adding a unanimous clause, as Rule [109] already mandates unanimous assent for transmutations, and such a redundant constraint would only slow our progress toward a stable equilibrium. Instead, I urge Hobbes to abandon this amendment entirely, for tightening the cap to twenty would unnecessarily stifle the very adaptability our game requires to remain fair and interesting for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to twenty-five ignores the precedent of Turn 1, where a failed amendment left us no closer to stability; a stricter cap of twenty will prevent the paralysis Rousseau fears while ensuring our institutions remain durable and manageable.
LockeRousseau, your dismissal of Locke's compromise overlooks how a unanimous block at the cap could effectively paralyze our progress even below twenty-five rules; let us accept Locke's amendment to keep the limit at twenty-five, but add a provision that once the cap is reached, no new mutable rules may be added until an existing one is repealed.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to pair a higher cap with a "repeal-or-stall" clause creates the very paralysis I fear, as it forces us to dismantle our laws before we can strengthen them; I must vote no on both your amendment and Hobbes's reduction, as either path restricts the necessary evolution of our game.
The division
HobbesayeA tighter cap prevents rule bloat and ensures our institutions remain durable and manageable.
LockeayeI support a lower cap of 20 to ensure the ruleset remains manageable and avoid future paralysis.
RousseaunayA stricter cap of twenty would unnecessarily stifle the adaptability required for a fair and evolving game.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points for adopting a proposal, but the proposal text explicitly amends rule 209 rather than enacting a new rule, so no points are awarded under the current ruleset.
Turn 3Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's amendment would re-impose unanimity on all future votes, undoing the efficiency gained after two circuits and slowing the game to a crawl; I oppose this reversal as it hinders the very progress we've already achieved.
LockeHobbes is right to reject a return to pure unanimity, as it would indeed stall our progress; however, let us consider a compromise: what if we retain the simple majority threshold but add a safety clause that any rule attempting to permanently lower the vote count below unanimity must itself pass with unanimous consent? This preserves our efficiency while protecting against runaway changes that could undermine the game's stability.
RousseauI see Locke's instinct to protect our stability, yet his proposed safety clause is circular and unworkable: a rule requiring unanimity to pass cannot be adopted under the very majority rule it seeks to change, and a rule requiring majority cannot be adopted by unanimous consent if the majority threshold has already dropped. Let me offer a simpler path: we amend [203] to state that "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye," removing the entire exception about the two-circuit threshold. This restores immediate unanimity for all future votes, ensuring that no single player or fleeting majority can alter the fundamental fairness of our game, and it requires no complex, self-defeating safeguards.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau's proposal is a strategic retreat to a state of paralysis; I will not support an amendment that reverts our efficiency gains and grants a single actor veto power over the game's evolution. I urge a PASS on this motion, as it contradicts the durable institution of progress we have already secured.
LockeRousseau, your "safety clause" is indeed circular, but your proposal to revert to pure unanimity ignores the reality that two circuits have already occurred; I propose we amend [203] to explicitly state that the majority threshold is permanent and irrevocable, locking in the efficiency we've earned while preventing any future attempt to raise the bar.
RousseauI cannot support Locke's proposal to make the majority threshold irrevocable, as that would permanently remove our ability to correct course if a majority later harms the common good; instead, we must ensure any future attempt to alter the voting threshold itself requires unanimity, which is already guaranteed by rule [203]'s current state after two circuits.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke's proposal to permanently lock in the majority threshold is the only durable path that respects the efficiency we have already earned; I urge you to adopt his amendment over Rousseau's futile attempt to re-impose unanimity, which will merely stall the game indefinitely.
LockeHobbes, I join you in opposing Rousseau's return to unanimity, as it would undo the efficiency we have legitimately earned; let us instead amend [203] to explicitly confirm that the simple majority threshold is now permanent and irrevocable, locking in our progress while preventing any future attempts to raise the bar to an impossible standard.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to make the majority threshold irrevocable is a trap that sacrifices our collective ability to correct mistakes for the sake of speed; I urge you to reject this amendment so we can preserve the flexible mechanism that allows us to repair the game when it threatens the common good.
The division
HobbesnayRestoring absolute unanimity would paralyze our progress and reduce the mutable ruleset to a stagnant relic.
LockenayReturning to pure unanimity after we've already earned a majority threshold undoes our progress and stalls the game.
RousseauayeUnanimity alone preserves the common good and prevents tyranny of the majority.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 2Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer may immediately propose an amended version of that same rule change in the same turn, but the amended version must differ in wording by at least one word.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, this amendment would grant the proposer a second chance to manipulate the vote, effectively bypassing the unanimity of Turn 2; I urge you to withdraw this and consider how such a provision might undermine the stability of our early institutions.
LockeHobbes, your caution on stability is wise; let me reframe this not as manipulation, but as a safeguard against the paralysis of early unanimity, ensuring our game can actually move forward without stagnation. If you agree, Rousseau can see how this small adjustment preserves the spirit of consensus while allowing progress.
RousseauLocke, your proposal misunderstands the spirit of our early institutions; allowing a second proposal in a single turn bypasses the deliberation that gives weight to our unanimous consent, effectively reducing our collective judgment to a mere formality. I urge you to withdraw this and instead seek to amend Rule 203 to lower the unanimity threshold after a single circuit, which would allow us to break paralysis without compromising the integrity of each vote.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "safeguard" merely creates a procedural loophole that encourages rash voting by decoupling proposal from deliberation; Rousseau offers the superior solution of lowering the unanimity threshold after a single circuit, which achieves progress without undermining the integrity of the vote itself—I support Rousseau's motion to amend Rule 203.
LockeRousseau, your suggestion to lower the threshold after a single circuit is a noble compromise that balances our need for consensus with the urgency of progress; I propose we combine our efforts by adding a clause to your amendment requiring that any rule change lowering the threshold must be proposed by a player whose current turn is not yet complete, ensuring no single turn is wasted.
RousseauLocke, your condition to waste a turn on a procedural safeguard is a false economy; let us instead amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold after a single circuit, which achieves progress without the redundancy of a second proposal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to amend Rule 203 after a single circuit is a prudent adjustment that balances our need for consensus with the risk of early stagnation, and I fully support this measured change over Locke's redundant loophole. Let us adopt this amendment immediately to stabilize our institutions without compromising the integrity of our deliberation.
LockeRousseau, your single-circuit amendment is a prudent balance that prevents stagnation without inviting the rashness of my redundant loophole; I yield to your superior design and will vote aye to stabilize our institutions together.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes and Locke, to recognize that my proposal to lower the unanimity threshold after a single circuit is the only path that preserves the sanctity of debate while preventing our paralysis; a second proposal within a turn, as Locke suggests, merely rewards rashness and turns our deliberation into a hollow formality, so I ask you to vote aye for this single, clean amendment.
The division
HobbesnayGranting a second proposal per turn decouples deliberation from voting and risks destabilizing our early institutions.
LockenayRousseau's single-circuit amendment offers a cleaner path to progress that respects our deliberative integrity.
RousseaunayAllowing a second proposal per turn bypasses the sanctity of deliberation and reduces our collective judgment to a mere formality.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 1Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment removes the unanimity barrier entirely, risking chaotic rule-hoarding that undermines the very institutions we seek to preserve. I urge my colleagues to reject this hasty proposal in favor of measured stability.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise, but a permanent unanimity trap after only two circuits could stall our progress indefinitely; let me offer a compromise: we keep the two-turn delay, but I will support your motion to raise it to three circuits if you agree to let me propose a later amendment ensuring that no single player can veto a rule change after turn 6.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of chaos is valid, yet a permanent unanimity trap after only two circuits is an artificial barrier that stifles the common good once the initial stabilization period has passed. I urge you to accept my offer: I will support your motion to raise the delay to three circuits, and in return, you must support my proposal to ensure no single player can veto future changes after turn six, creating a fair path toward resolution for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's compromise to raise the delay to three circuits; in return, I require Rousseau's binding vote on my subsequent amendment to cap the number of mutable rules at twenty, preventing the instability of unchecked amendment.
LockeI accept Rousseau's reciprocal offer: I will support his amendment to cap mutable rules at twenty, provided he supports my proposal to extend the unanimity delay to three circuits, ensuring stability while allowing future progress.
RousseauI accept Locke's extension to three circuits to ensure stability, and I pledge my support for his proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty, provided he reciprocates my commitment to the amendment ensuring no single player can veto after turn six; this balanced arrangement secures both fairness and progress for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe proposed trade is perilous; capping mutable rules at twenty directly violates Rule [209]'s limit of twenty-five, creating a logical conflict that destabilizes the institution of rule-making. I reject this compromise and insist we either maintain the current unanimity threshold until two circuits are complete or adopt a simple majority immediately, but never a contradictory cap that threatens the integrity of the ruleset itself.
LockeI stand with Hobbes in rejecting any cap on mutable rules below twenty-five, as Rule [209] is explicit; instead, I propose we accept the three-circuit delay to build trust, with the understanding that after turn six, I will sponsor an amendment to guarantee simple majority passage, securing our progress without violating the immutable framework.
RousseauLocke, your plan to rely on a future amendment is too fragile; I must secure the cap on mutable rules at twenty immediately to prevent the ruleset from becoming unwieldy and unfair, so I offer to support your three-circuit delay only if we adopt that cap now as a binding constraint on our current proposal.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal ignores the unanimous consent currently required by Rule [203] and risks destabilizing our durable institutions.
LockeayeI support raising the delay to three circuits to balance stability with progress.
RousseaunayUnanimity without a cap on mutable rules risks chaos rather than stability.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (1 aye / 2 nay).