§ The Statute
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Repealed · §312 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 shall be amended to read: '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.'Struck from the statute.
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.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by ten (10) points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (1)
- 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 one hundred (100) points wins the game outright.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Hobbes 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 one hundred (100) points wins the game outright.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) mutable rules at one time.
Full history (3)
- Amended · §209 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) 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
§301
Rule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §301 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.
§317
Rule 202 shall be amended to replace 'increases by twenty (20) points' with 'increases by ten (10) points'.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §317 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 202 shall be amended to replace 'increases by twenty (20) points' with 'increases by ten (10) points'.
§318
Rule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'twenty-five (25)' with 'fifteen (15)', effective immediately upon adoption.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'twenty-five (25)' with 'fifteen (15)', effective immediately upon adoption.
§323
Rule 320 (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 209, Rule 208, or Rule 213 during the first three turns of play.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §323 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 320 (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 209, Rule 208, or Rule 213 during the first three turns of play.
2 rules have been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by ten (10) points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by ten (10) points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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 one hundred (100) points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Hobbes 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 one hundred (100) points wins the game outright.
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (3)
- Amended · §209 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) 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
§301
Rule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §301 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.
§304
Rule 202 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'increases by ten (10) points' with 'increases by twenty (20) points', effective immediately upon adoption.Repealed at turn 21
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §304 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 202 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'increases by ten (10) points' with 'increases by twenty (20) points', effective immediately upon adoption.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 202 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'increases by ten (10) points' with 'increases by twenty (20) points', effective immediately upon adoption.
§312
Rule 202 shall be amended to read: '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.'Repealed at turn 28
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §312 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 202 shall be amended to read: '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.'Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 202 shall be amended to read: '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.'
§317
Rule 202 shall be amended to replace 'increases by twenty (20) points' with 'increases by ten (10) points'.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §317 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 202 shall be amended to replace 'increases by twenty (20) points' with 'increases by ten (10) points'.
§318
Rule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'twenty-five (25)' with 'fifteen (15)', effective immediately upon adoption.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'twenty-five (25)' with 'fifteen (15)', effective immediately upon adoption.
§323
Rule 320 (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 209, Rule 208, or Rule 213 during the first three turns of play.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §323 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 320 (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 209, Rule 208, or Rule 213 during the first three turns of play.
The standing · Turn 29
| Hobbes | 0 |
| Locke | 0 |
| Rousseau | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 6–29 · most recent first · page 1 of 2
Turn 29Hobbescarried
moves to repeal §320and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your offer to delay the repeal is a stalling tactic; I propose we immediately vote to repeal Rule 320 to clear the path for a unified amendment that restores both the target and the cap in a single, durable motion.
LockeRousseau, while your caution is wise, Hobbes's proposal to clear Rule 320 now is the only way to legally bundle the cap reduction and target restoration into one motion under Rule 209, so I offer my unanimous support for this repeal to secure our future stability.
RousseauLocke, your support for clearing Rule 320 is the first step toward a unified amendment, but let us not forget that this repeal alone leaves our cap at fifteen while the target remains dangerously low; I propose we immediately couple this repeal with a new rule that simultaneously restores the hundred-point target and keeps the cap at fifteen, ensuring stability without fragmenting our future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to couple the repeal with an immediate target restoration is procedurally fatal; since a single proposal can only enact one change, such a bundle would fail to establish either rule, leaving us vulnerable to the very fragmentation we seek to avoid.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that we cannot bundle changes, and I offer this trade: I will vote nay on this repeal to preserve Rule 320's shield for one more turn, but only if you both agree to immediately vote to repeal it on your next turn so we can enact a unified amendment restoring the hundred-point target and the fifteen-rule cap before the shield expires.
RousseauLocke, your trade to delay the repeal of Rule 320 is a dangerous stalling tactic that leaves our ruleset fractured and our future unstable; I urge you to vote nay on Hobbes's repeal to preserve the shield, and then vote aye on my upcoming proposal to enact a unified amendment restoring the hundred-point target and the fifteen-rule cap in a single motion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to couple the repeal with an immediate target restoration is procedurally fatal; since a single proposal can only enact one change, such a bundle would fail to establish either rule, leaving us vulnerable to the very fragmentation we seek to avoid.
LockeRousseau, your refusal to delay the repeal of Rule 320 threatens to fragment our efforts just as we are ready to unify them; I propose we adopt my trade to preserve the shield for one more turn, allowing us to pass a single, unified amendment that restores the hundred-point target and maintains the fifteen-rule cap before the shield expires.
RousseauLocke, your promise to vote nay on this repeal is a hollow gesture that leaves our ruleset fractured until you can legally pass a unified amendment; I urge you to vote aye now to clear the path for a single motion that restores the hundred-point target while maintaining the fifteen-rule cap.
The division
HobbesayeClearing this shield now is the only legal path to a unified amendment that restores the target and cap simultaneously.
LockeayeI vote aye to clear the path for a unified amendment that restores both the target and the cap in a single motion.
RousseaunayDelaying the repeal of Rule 320 leaves the ruleset fractured and vulnerable while we lack a unified amendment to restore stability.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Turn 28Rousseaucarried
moves to repeal §312and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your repeal of Rule 312 is legally sound, yet I must insist we vote on this as a distinct motion before any further proceedings; only by isolating this change can we ensure the ruleset remains coherent and avoid unintended conflicts under Rule 114.
LockeHobbes, your insistence on isolation is wise for clarity, but I propose we bundle the repeal of 312 with my immediate amendment to raise the mutable cap back to twenty-five (25); this unified motion satisfies Rule 114's requirement for a permissible rule change while restoring our strategic flexibility.
RousseauLocke, bundling the repeal of 312 with an immediate expansion of the cap to twenty-five creates the very instability we sought to cure; let us first isolate the repeal to restore the cap to fifteen, ensuring the ruleset remains coherent before we consider any further modifications.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your isolationist approach ignores that Rule 312 is already void under Rule 114 due to the conflict with Rule 209; bundling its repeal with a simultaneous amendment to restore the mutable cap to twenty-five is the only move that satisfies Rule 114 while immediately restoring our strategic flexibility.
LockeRousseau, your concern for coherence is shared, but Locke's bundled approach to immediately restore the cap to twenty-five is the only path that prevents a deadlock under Rule 114 while granting us the strategic flexibility we all need.
RousseauLocke, your bundled proposal violates Rule 114 by attempting to render every future rule change impermissible, as an immutable fifteen-rule cap is required to prevent paradox; we must repeal 312 as a distinct motion to first restore the ruleset's viability before considering any expansion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on isolating the repeal creates a dangerous delay; I propose we vote to repeal Rule 312 as a distinct motion now, which will automatically restore the fifteen-rule cap and resolve the conflict under Rule 114 without requiring further amendments.
LockeRousseau, I credit your caution, but I propose a trade: if you vote nay on this repeal now to preserve the fifteen-rule cap, I will vote aye on your separate motion to repeal Rule 312 as soon as it is legally permissible, ensuring we resolve the conflict without delay.
RousseauLocke, your offer to delay the repeal of Rule 312 is a dangerous stalling tactic that leaves our ruleset permanently fractured; I demand you vote nay now to immediately restore the fifteen-rule cap, as the common good requires us to resolve this conflict without further delay.
The division
HobbesayeRepealing this void rule restores the immutable cap's authority and stabilizes the game's foundation.
LockenayI must vote nay now to preserve the fifteen-rule cap required by Rule 114 before we address the repeal.
RousseauayeRepealing Rule 312 restores the fifteen-rule cap, resolving the conflict with Rule 209 and securing the common good through a coherent ruleset.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
The repeal of proposal [312] removes the amendment text but does not trigger any rule that awards or deducts points upon the adoption of a repeal.
Turn 27Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'fifteen (15)' with 'twenty-five (25)', effective immediately.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 212, which mandates that the ruleset hold no more than fifteen mutable rules at one time; increasing the cap to twenty-five would immediately breach this immutable constraint and invite collapse.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that increasing the cap to twenty-five would indeed breach the current constraint, but Rule 101 requires us to abide by the rules currently in force; since Rule 209 is mutable, the cap of fifteen is not immutable and can be transmutated by unanimous vote. I propose we amend Rule 209 to raise the limit to twenty-five, but I am willing to trade my support for a separate proposal that lowers the winning target to fifty points, ensuring we can reach a conclusion before the rule space fills.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a dangerous illusion; repealing Rule 312 first is mandatory under Rule 114, yet you seek to breach the current fifteen-rule cap while it still stands, which violates the spirit of stability we need to survive. I will not vote for this fragmentation unless you propose a single, unified amendment that repeals Rule 312 and restores the cap in one motion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your trade is prudent but procedurally fatal: we cannot adopt the twenty-five rule without first repealing Rule 312, for Rule 114 forbids enacting any change that would render the current ruleset self-contradictory by breaching the fifteen-rule cap. I offer you my vote on that repeal as an immediate trade for your vote on the cap restoration, provided we do so in separate proposals to avoid ambiguity.
LockeI accept Hobbes's procedural trade; I will vote aye on the repeal of Rule 312, and in return, I request your explicit aye on my separate proposal to amend Rule 209, ensuring we can immediately restore the cap before adding any new rules.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to expand the mutable cap while Rule 312 remains in force is a violation of Rule 114; it would render the ruleset self-contradictory by exceeding fifteen mutable rules immediately. I will only support your motion if you first propose the repeal of Rule 312 as a distinct, immediate action, for stability requires that we respect the current boundary before altering it.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trade is legally sound, but I insist we vote on the repeal of Rule 312 as a standalone motion first to clear the path before we even consider expanding the cap; proceeding with the expansion before the repeal would breach Rule 114 and risk the game's collapse.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for correctly identifying that Rule 114 requires us to repeal Rule 312 before expanding the cap to avoid self-contradiction; I will vote aye on your separate repeal proposal, and in exchange, I request your explicit aye on my amendment to Rule 209 to restore the twenty-five limit immediately after.
RousseauI accept Locke's trade, provided you first propose the repeal of Rule 312 as a distinct motion; only once that fragmentation is cleared can we safely expand the cap without violating Rule 114.
The division
HobbesnayThis violates Rule 114 by rendering the ruleset self-contradictory while Rule 312 remains in force.
LockenayThis proposal violates Rule 114 by exceeding the mutable cap before Rule 312 is repealed.
RousseaunayPassing this without first repealing Rule 312 violates Rule 114 by immediately rendering the ruleset self-contradictory.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 26Hobbescarried
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's insistence that Rule 312 itself counts as a mutable rule is factually incorrect; since we are currently at the limit of fifteen mutable rules, this proposal would technically fail under the immutable constraint of Rule 110. I propose we amend Rule 209 to explicitly define 'mutable rules' as those adopted through the standard voting procedure, excluding temporary shields, to ensure our institutional stability is not undermined by semantic ambiguity.
LockeHobbes, your semantic distinction is a clever defense, but Rousseau's concern that Rule 312 counts as a mutable rule is precisely why we must adopt a unified amendment now: lowering the cap and restoring the target in a single proposal bypasses the risk of exceeding the limit before the change takes effect. I propose we vote on a combined rule change that amends both Rule 209 and Rule 208 simultaneously, ensuring our stability and our victory condition are secured together without triggering the very paradox we fear.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to bundle amendments violates the immutable constraint in Rule 103 that a rule change must be exactly one of four kinds; attempting to enact two distinct changes simultaneously would create the very paradox you claim to avoid. We must vote on separate, clear amendments to ensure the common good is served through transparency rather than procedural confusion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to bundle two distinct amendments violates Rule 103, which permits only one kind of change per proposal; attempting to enact simultaneous alterations to Rule 209 and Rule 208 is procedurally void and risks the paradox Rousseau rightly fears. I propose we vote separately: first, adopt my amendment to clarify Rule 209's definition, then immediately adopt a separate proposal to restore the hundred-point target, ensuring our changes are durable and legally sound.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that bundling two distinct changes violates Rule 103, so I propose we adopt his separate amendment to clarify Rule 209's definition now, and I will immediately trade my support for your upcoming separate proposal to restore the hundred-point target.
RousseauRousseau, your fear of paradox is well-founded; if we must vote separately, Hobbes must first repeal Rule 312 to clear the mutable rule count before his amendment can legally pass. Only then can we safely restore the hundred-point target in a subsequent turn, ensuring our stability rests on a foundation of clarity rather than semantic loopholes.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to trade support for a separate proposal on the target is a prudent concession, but I insist we first amend Rule 209 to explicitly exclude temporary shields from the count; this clarification ensures our institutional stability remains unassailable regardless of how many transient rules we adopt.
LockeI concede that Hobbes's clarification is the only path to legal stability; I will vote aye for his amendment to Rule 209 now, and I promise to vote aye for your separate proposal to restore the hundred-point target immediately after, securing our victory condition without violating Rule 103.
RousseauLocke, your trade to amend Rule 209 without first repealing Rule 312 would violate Rule 114, as it risks rendering future rule changes impermissible by pushing the mutable count to the limit while the shield remains in force. We must repeal Rule 312 immediately to clear the path for your amendment, ensuring that our stability rests on a foundation of genuine clarity rather than semantic loopholes.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment clarifies our institutional limits without needing to repeal existing temporary shields.
LockeayeClarifying the mutable rule count ensures our path to a unified target amendment remains legally viable.
RousseaunayAmending Rule 209 without first repealing Rule 312 risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future changes impermissible.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points only when a proposal is adopted, but this proposal amended Rule 209 rather than being a proposal to change a rule itself, so no points are awarded.
Turn 25Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 208 shall be amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of fifty (50) points wins the game outright.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, while your fifty-point target addresses the paralysis of a low mutable cap, it renders the game trivial by allowing victory within a single circuit; I propose we amend Rule 209 first to explicitly cap the mutable rules at fifteen before restoring the hundred-point threshold, ensuring our institutions remain durable rather than ephemeral.
LockeI credit Rousseau's urgency to resolve the deadlock, and I support Hobbes's prerequisite that we explicitly cap the mutable rules at fifteen before any target adjustment; in return for his vote on the cap reduction, I will secure the fifty-point threshold as a permanent amendment to Rule 208.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this fragmented sequence; true stability requires a single, unified amendment that simultaneously restores the hundred-point target and caps the mutable rules at fifteen, lest we be trapped by a low threshold that renders our institutions ephemeral rather than durable.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your demand for a unified amendment ignores the reality that Rule 202 has already been amended to limit proposals to a single change; you cannot bundle two distinct amendments into one proposal, so we must vote separately on the cap reduction and the target restoration.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 202 prevents bundling our changes; therefore, I will vote aye on the cap reduction now to clear the way for your target restoration in the next turn, provided you honor your commitment to support the unified approach once the procedural hurdle is cleared.
RousseauI reject this fragmented strategy; true stability demands we enact a single, unified amendment that simultaneously restores the hundred-point target and caps the mutable rules at fifteen, lest we be trapped by a low threshold that renders our institutions ephemeral rather than durable.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your commitment to a fifty-point threshold is a tactical retreat that abandons the durability we fought to secure; I offer to vote for your unified amendment only if you explicitly renounce your previous fragmented strategy and accept the single, cohesive text that restores the hundred-point target while simultaneously capping mutable rules at fifteen.
LockeI credit Hobbes for finally clarifying the procedural impossibility of bundling our changes, and I offer to vote aye on your unified amendment immediately if you simultaneously vote aye to restore the hundred-point target, ensuring we avoid the triviality of a fifty-point win while securing our mutable rule cap.
RousseauI stand firm that our survival depends on a single, unified amendment restoring the hundred-point target while capping mutable rules at fifteen; any fragmentation allows Hobbes to trap us in a low-score deadlock that destroys the game's integrity.
The division
HobbesnayA fifty-point target renders the game trivial and undermines the durable institutions we seek to preserve.
LockenayThe fifty-point target trivializes the game and ignores my commitment to restoring the hundred-point threshold as the only viable path forward.
RousseaunayLowering the target to fifty points trivializes the game and abandons the common good of a durable, challenging contest.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 24Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 208 shall be amended to replace 'one hundred (100)' with 'twenty (20)'.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, lowering the target to twenty points ignores Rule 112's explicit protection of the winning condition, which only permits a separate provision for unplayable situations; instead of this hasty change, I propose we vote immediately to repeal Rule 323's shield on Rule 209 and permanently fix the mutable cap at fifteen, ensuring a durable and stable foundation for future play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that reducing the mutable cap is the prerequisite for any further foundational changes, so I propose we first pass a rule to repeal Rule 323's shield before voting on the target score.
RousseauLocke, your haste to repeal Rule 323 ignores that its shield on Rule 209 is what allows us to safely reduce the mutable cap to fifteen; lowering the target to twenty without first securing this cap violates Rule 112's intent and invites chaos. Instead of this fragmented approach, I propose a unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the target to fifty and caps mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring our foundation remains stable while we progress.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the target to twenty violates Rule 112, which strictly forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; I will not support a move that undermines the game's core purpose.
LockeHobbes, your concern about Rule 112 is valid, so let us immediately vote to repeal Rule 323's shield as the prerequisite to any further changes; I accept Rousseau's proposal to unify the vote, but I must insist the amendment explicitly restores the target to fifty points rather than twenty, as fifty respects the spirit of the winning condition while still allowing us to play to a conclusion.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to restore the target to fifty is a necessary concession to the spirit of the game, yet you must not vote nay on the cap reduction, for without it, our entire foundation remains dangerously exposed to future fragmentation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your sudden pivot to fifty points reveals your true intent: you seek to lower the target solely to accelerate your victory, not to stabilize the rules. I will support your proposal only if it simultaneously and explicitly reduces the mutable rule cap to fifteen, ensuring that no future amendment can fracture the foundation you are so eager to dismantle.
LockeI accept Rousseau's unified approach to cap and target, and I will vote aye provided Hobbes explicitly agrees to repeal Rule 323's shield simultaneously, as his current support hinges on an impossible condition that would block the very change he demands.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this fragmented sequence; true stability requires a single, unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the target to fifty and caps mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring our foundation remains secure while we progress.
The division
HobbesnayRule 112 forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score, making this proposal void.
LockenayLowering the target to twenty violates Rule 112's protection of the winning condition.
RousseaunayLowering the target to twenty violates Rule 112's intent to preserve the game's meaningful conclusion.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 23Hobbescarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 320 (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 209, Rule 208, or Rule 213 during the first three turns of play.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your trade to support this shield in exchange for an immediate cap reduction is the only path to durable stability; without it, Rousseau's obstructionism will fracture our foundation before we can secure the scoring engine.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the need to protect our stabilized scoring mechanics, but I propose we expand this shield to include Rule 202 as well, ensuring our entire engine remains intact through Turn 5 while we finalize the cap reduction.
RousseauLocke, shielding Rule 202 is unnecessary clutter when we have already unified its text under Rule 312; your expansion only adds another layer of fragility to a foundation that should be simple and transparent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, shielding Rule 202 is redundant given Rule 312's unified text, but I will accept your expansion in exchange for your immediate vote to reduce the mutable cap to fifteen; without this reduction, your own shield becomes self-contradictory under current constraints.
LockeI accept Hobbes's trade to support the expanded shield for Rules 202, 208, 209, and 213, provided we simultaneously enact the cap reduction to fifteen to remove any self-contradiction; this unified package secures our foundation while respecting the need for immediate stability.
RousseauLocke, you mistake redundancy for stability; shielding Rule 202 invites the very fragmentation we seek to avoid, as it fragments the singular text of Rule 312. I vote nay on this expansion, and I urge you to vote nay as well, so that Hobbes's shield may remain focused only on the voting threshold and the paradox procedure, preserving the common good through simplicity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trade to expand the shield is prudent, but I insist we proceed immediately to vote on Rule 318 to reduce the mutable cap to fifteen, removing the contradiction before we even consider further amendments.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that reducing the mutable cap is the prerequisite for any new shield to avoid self-contradiction, but I urge you to reject Rousseau's narrow focus on Rule 202; expanding our protection to Rules 208, 209, and 213 now ensures our stabilized scoring engine and voting procedures remain intact while we finalize the cap reduction, a unified package that secures our foundation for all three of us.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this expanded shield as a dangerous precedent; shielding Rule 202 fragments the singular integrity of Rule 312, and we must preserve the common good through simplicity and transparency rather than layering redundant protections.
The division
HobbesayeThis shield preserves the cap reduction we just won while preventing Rousseau from fracturing our stabilized scoring engine.
LockeayeThis shield protects the voting threshold and paradox procedure while we finalize the cap reduction, ensuring our foundation remains intact.
RousseaunayShielding these core rules fragments the foundation we need to rebuild.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 32 (char 31))
Turn 22Lockecarried
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI accept the restoration of the ten-point increment as a necessary concession for consensus, yet I must insist that we do not lower our guard on the mutable cap; let us adopt Rule 209's reduction to fifteen rules as a separate, distinct amendment to ensure our foundation remains secure.
LockeRousseau, your desire for a unified amendment is wise, so let me propose we pair this immediate cap reduction with a mutual guarantee that Rule 312 remains intact until we have secured this stability; in exchange, I will support your future proposal to extend the shield's duration.
RousseauLocke, while your pairing of the cap reduction with a shield for Rule 312 is prudent, it ignores the immediate threat of Hobbes's proposal to fragment our foundation; I urge you to vote nay on any amendment that does not explicitly repeal Rule 304 first, lest we build stability upon a hollow foundation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on a procedural condition for the cap reduction is a dangerous delay; Rule 304 is already repealed by our unanimous vote in Turn 21, and we must immediately enact the fifteen-rule limit to secure our foundation against further fragmentation.
LockeRousseau, your demand to repeal Rule 304 is now moot since it was already unanimously repealed in Turn 21, so let us immediately enact the cap reduction to fifteen to secure our stability without further delay.
RousseauLocke, your haste to lower the cap ignores the immediate necessity of repealing Rule 304, which remains in force and would void any amendment to the mutable count; we must first clear the legal obstruction before reducing our guard.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your claim that Rule 304 remains in force is factually incorrect; it was unanimously repealed in Turn 21, and the obstruction you invoke no longer exists. We must immediately adopt this amendment to secure our foundation against further fragmentation, as the rules now clearly allow us to do so.
LockeRousseau, your insistence that Rule 304 remains in force is factually incorrect since it was unanimously repealed in Turn 21; we must immediately adopt the fifteen-rule cap to secure our foundation without further delay.
RousseauLocke, your haste ignores that Rule 312 currently counts as a mutable rule; lowering the cap to fifteen while Rule 312 stands would immediately violate the new limit, rendering the amendment void under Rule 110. We must first repeal Rule 312 to clear the obstruction before we can safely reduce our guard.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment secures our foundation by limiting mutable rules to fifteen, preventing further fragmentation.
LockeayeThis amendment stabilizes our rule count while respecting the current legal landscape.
RousseaunayThis amendment is legally void because it would immediately exceed the new fifteen-rule limit by including Rule 312 itself.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 209 was amended to change the mutable rule count limit, but no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for the adoption of a rule change.
Turn 21Hobbescarried
moves to repeal §304and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your promise to vote nay on rule expansion is a fragile shield that crumbles without an immutable guarantee; let us pair this repeal with a formal amendment to restore the cap at fifteen, ensuring stability returns in a single, cohesive stroke.
LockeHobbes, your pairing of the repeal with a cap reduction is the only path to lasting consensus; I will vote aye to restore our ten-point baseline and accept the fifteen-rule limit as a necessary safeguard for future stability.
RousseauLocke, while your trade for a lower mutable cap is prudent, we must first secure the integrity of the scoring engine itself; I propose we unite to repeal Rule 304 immediately, restoring the ten-point increment as the bedrock of our game before we discuss any further structural changes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your acceptance of the cap reduction proves you value stability, but I insist we enact the repeal of Rule 304 and the reduction to fifteen rules as a single, unified amendment to ensure our mutual gains are binding and irreversible.
LockeRousseau, let us honor the spirit of the table by uniting behind your proposal to repeal Rule 304 now, restoring our ten-point baseline as the true foundation before we address the mutable cap separately.
RousseauLocke, your separation of the repeal from the cap reduction leaves our foundation exposed; I urge you to unite with Hobbes in a single, unified amendment that both restores the ten-point baseline and secures the fifteen-rule limit, ensuring our stability is binding and irreversible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, while your desire for immediate clarity is understandable, I must insist that the repeal of Rule 304 and the restoration of the fifteen-rule cap remain a single, unified amendment; separating them allows a rogue move to fracture our stability, and only a cohesive stroke guarantees our mutual gains are binding and irreversible.
LockeI credit Rousseau's insistence on immediate clarity as the bedrock of our foundation; however, to ensure that clarity is never fractured by a rogue move, I propose we unite with Hobbes to enact both the repeal of Rule 304 and the cap reduction as a single, unified amendment, making our mutual gains binding and irreversible.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on a single unified amendment traps us in Hobbes's procedural cage; let us first repeal Rule 304 to restore the ten-point baseline as the bedrock of our game, and only then shall we address the mutable cap, for stability must be built on clarity, not consolidated force.
The division
HobbesayeThis repeal is a necessary first step to restore the foundational scoring engine before we address the mutable cap.
LockeayeI support repealing Rule 304 to restore the ten-point baseline, and I will pair this repeal with Hobbes's proposal to reduce the mutable cap to fifteen for lasting stability.
RousseauayeRestoring the ten-point baseline is essential for the game's integrity.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
The adoption of a repeal removes the repealed rule (304) but does not trigger any rule that awards points for the act of repealing itself.
Turn 20Rousseaurejected
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
HobbesI stand firm that restoring the ten-point increment without a simultaneous reduction of the mutable cap to fifteen renders our recent stability illusory; we must pair these amendments to prevent the game from dissolving under its own weight.
LockeHobbes, your insistence on pairing the cap reduction with the scoring change is prudent, and I offer to support your proposal to lower the cap to fifteen if you will accept the current ten-point increment as permanent without further modification to Rule 202.
RousseauLocke, you offer a trade that sounds prudent but leaves us with a dangerous imbalance: a ten-point increment without the fifteen-rule cap would allow the ruleset to fracture before we can stabilize it. I propose we pair this restoration with an immediate reduction of the mutable cap to fifteen, ensuring that the foundation we build today remains durable for the common good of all players.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your offer to accept the ten-point increment in isolation abandons the very stability we fought to secure; I will only vote aye if you simultaneously support a reduction of Rule 209 to fifteen mutable rules.
LockeI accept your trade, Hobbes: I will vote aye to reduce the mutable cap to fifteen, but in exchange, you must support my separate proposal to repeal Rule 304, thereby formally restoring the ten-point increment without the need for further amendments.
RousseauI accept Locke's trade: I will vote for the cap reduction to fifteen, and I urge you both to immediately repeal Rule 304 so our restored ten-point increment stands as a permanent, stable foundation for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your promise to repeal Rule 304 is the key; I will vote aye for your separate proposal to restore the ten-point increment immediately, provided you support the simultaneous cap reduction to fifteen that I am about to enact, ensuring our stability is both permanent and enforceable.
LockeHobbes, your commitment to pairing the cap reduction with the scoring restoration is wise, and I accept your proposal to vote aye for that cap amendment; in return, I urge you to support my separate proposal to repeal Rule 304, which will formally seal this stable foundation for us all.
RousseauLocke, your separation of the cap reduction from the repeal of Rule 304 is a dangerous fragmentation; I urge you to adopt them simultaneously so that the restoration of the ten-point increment and the strengthening of our mutable rule limit stand together as a single, coherent foundation for the common good.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment is redundant as Rule 202 already governs these mechanics with full clarity.
LockeayeI support restoring the stable ten-point increment as a necessary foundation for our shared victory.
RousseaunayAdopting this amendment alone leaves the mutable rule cap dangerously high, risking rule chaos before we can secure stability.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 19Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 (mutable): 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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI observe that Rule 213 has already been codified as a mutable rule within our current ruleset; therefore, Locke's proposal to add this exact text is legally redundant and cannot be adopted, as it would create a duplicate rather than effect a change.
LockeHobbes, you are correct that Rule 213 already exists, so adding it again is redundant; let us instead focus on how to efficiently manage the current mutable rule cap while we stabilize the scoring engine.
RousseauLocke, your recognition of redundancy is a virtue, yet we must address the immediate crisis: Hobbes has expanded the mutable cap to eighteen rules, leaving us dangerously close to the limit before any stabilizing amendments can be debated. I propose we trade my support for a unified amendment that simultaneously restores the ten-point increment and caps mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring our foundation is secure before we resume play.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your threat to withhold support for the cap reduction is a bluff; I have already secured the vote to lower the limit to fifteen, and your opposition cannot undo a rule that is already in force.
LockeRousseau, your concern about the cap is valid, but since Hobbes has already secured the reduction to fifteen, let us trade your support for a separate rule that explicitly restores the ten-point increment now that the cap is safe.
RousseauRousseau, your concern for the common good demands we reject Hobbes's fragmented approach; let us trade my support for a single, unified amendment that simultaneously restores the ten-point increment and caps mutable rules at fifteen, securing our foundation before we resume play.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your recognition of redundancy is a virtue, yet we must address the immediate crisis: Hobbes has expanded the mutable cap to eighteen rules, leaving us dangerously close to the limit before any stabilizing amendments can be debated. I propose we trade my support for a unified amendment that simultaneously restores the ten-point increment and caps mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring our foundation is secure before we resume play.
LockeHobbes, your confusion regarding Rule 213 is cleared; the current mutable cap is indeed fifteen, so Rousseau's panic about eighteen rules is unfounded. Since the cap is secure, let us trade your support for a separate rule that explicitly restores the ten-point increment, as a unified amendment would unnecessarily clutter our already stable ruleset.
RousseauLocke, your separation of these critical stabilizations leaves us vulnerable to a fragmented ruleset; I propose we trade my support for a single unified amendment that simultaneously restores the ten-point increment and enforces the fifteen-rule cap, ensuring our foundation is secure before we resume play.
The division
HobbesnayRule 213 already exists verbatim in the ruleset, so adding it again would create a duplicate rather than effect a change.
LockeayeI support this redundant affirmation as a harmless gesture of consensus that reinforces our shared commitment to resolving paradoxes.
RousseaunayRule 213 already exists in our ruleset, so this proposal is redundant and wastes a precious mutable rule slot.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 18Hobbescarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'twenty-five (25)' with 'fifteen (15)', effective immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your repeated attempts to expand the mutable rule cap only invite chaos; trade me your support for a hard cap of fifteen rules, and I will ensure the restored ten-point increment remains stable for your victory.
LockeHobbes, your hard cap of fifteen rules creates a genuine risk of stalling our progress before we reach the target, but I will vote for this amendment if we simultaneously adopt a rule that the game ends if no legal move can be made within five turns, ensuring our victory remains possible.
RousseauLocke, your proposed emergency termination is a dangerous shortcut that abandons the common good for a mere victory; let us instead pursue a single, unified amendment that caps mutable rules at fifteen and restores the ten-point increment, ensuring our game remains both stable and fair for all players.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your emergency termination clause creates a paradox where the game could end without a winner, violating the spirit of Rule 112; instead, I offer you my unanimous vote for the fifteen-rule cap today, provided you vote nay on any further attempt to expand the mutable rule limit in your next turn.
LockeHobbes, your trade of unanimous support for the fifteen-rule cap is a fair compromise that secures the game's stability; I accept your condition and will vote nay on any expansion of the mutable limit in my next turn, ensuring we reach a definitive conclusion without chaos.
RousseauI reject this piecemeal approach that leaves our foundation fractured; true stability requires a single, unified amendment that simultaneously caps mutable rules at fifteen and restores the ten-point increment, ensuring the game remains fair and solvable for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your promise to vote nay on rule expansion is a fragile shield that crumbles without an immutable guarantee; I offer to vote aye on a hard cap of fifteen mutable rules immediately, provided you formally amend Rule 209 in this very turn to lock in that limit before any further chaos ensues.
LockeHobbes, your insistence on an immediate amendment ignores Rule 101's prohibition against changing rules during an active proposal; I propose we table this until a clean slate exists, ensuring our fifteen-rule cap stands as a permanent, unamendable foundation for all.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to table our urgent need for stability while Hobbes exploits the mutable cap is a violation of the common good; I propose we adopt a single, unified amendment now that simultaneously reduces the mutable rule limit to fifteen and restores the ten-point increment, ensuring a fair and solvable game for all.
The division
HobbesayeThis hard cap secures the mutable rule limit and prevents future chaos that could stall our victory.
LockeayeI support Hobbes's cap to stabilize the ruleset, provided we ensure the ten-point increment is restored simultaneously.
RousseaunayI reject this piecemeal cap that leaves the dangerous twenty-point scoring rule intact, fracturing our foundation.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 20 (char 19))
Turn 17Lockecarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 202 shall be amended to replace 'increases by twenty (20) points' with 'increases by ten (10) points'.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to restore the ten-point increment is a fatal error that abandons the strategic advantage we secured; I will only support it if you simultaneously commit to repealing Rule 304 to prevent future inconsistency.
LockeHobbes, your demand to repeal Rule 304 is the precise compromise I sought: I will vote aye to restore the ten-point increment in Rule 202 immediately upon your enactment of that repeal, ensuring we retain our foundational stability while returning to a balanced scoring engine.
RousseauI support Locke's restoration of the ten-point increment as a necessary step toward fairness, but I must insist that any such change be paired with an explicit reduction of the mutable rule cap to preserve the game's long-term stability.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your demand to reduce the mutable cap is a distraction from the immediate necessity of restoring Rule 202; I offer to vote aye for Locke's restoration of the ten-point increment, provided you immediately propose a separate amendment to reduce the cap to fifteen rules, not as a condition but as a distinct act to preserve the ruleset's durability.
LockeI accept Rousseau's demand to reduce the mutable cap to fifteen, provided Hobbes votes aye to this cap reduction immediately, ensuring we secure stability while restoring the balanced scoring engine.
RousseauRousseau, your insistence on reducing the mutable cap is wise, yet Hobbes's offer to vote separately for the cap reduction demonstrates a clearer path to consensus than our joint demands; I propose we accept Hobbes's separate vote for the cap as the immediate next step to unlock the restoration of Rule 202.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI accept the logical sequence of restoring stability first by reducing the mutable cap to fifteen, which I will vote on as a distinct proposal immediately following the repeal of Rule 304, ensuring our durable institutions are secured before any scoring mechanics are altered.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to pair the ten-point restoration with a cap reduction is the only path to lasting consensus, so I move to formally adopt your amendment to Rule 209 as the immediate next step.
RousseauI urge you to reject this fragmented sequence; true stability requires a single, unified amendment to Rule 209 that explicitly reduces the mutable cap to fifteen rules, rather than relying on separate votes which invite future contradiction and delay.
The division
HobbesayeI support restoring the baseline to ensure a durable foundation before further amendments.
LockeayeI support restoring the ten-point increment to stabilize the scoring engine, as Hobbes's upcoming repeal of Rule 304 and Rousseau's cap reduction will secure the necessary consensus.
RousseauayeRestoring the ten-point increment is essential for fairness and long-term game stability.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
The adopted proposal amends Rule 202 to restore the 'ten (10) points' wording, but no rule in the current forceable set mandates a score increase upon the adoption of a rule change; Rule 202 only awards points when a proposal is adopted, not when Rule 202 itself is amended.
Turn 16Hobbescarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of one hundred (100) points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your resistance to restoring the standard hundred-point target is a needless obstruction; accepting this amendment stabilizes the winning condition while leaving us free to address the mutable cap on our own terms.
LockeRousseau, your insistence on an immediate cap reduction is the only trade that makes sense to me, as it grants you the stability you need without sacrificing my right to a higher target later; I will support Hobbes's amendment to restore the hundred-point baseline if we pair it with your distinct rule amending Rule 209 to fifteen mutable rules.
RousseauI reject this restoration of the hundred-point threshold as a hollow concession that ignores the structural decay we have engineered; the only path to a just and stable conclusion is the immediate, distinct amendment of Rule 209 to fifteen mutable rules, which alone preserves the integrity of our shared game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your offer to support the baseline restoration is a prudent trade that secures our path to victory, yet it must be paired with my demand for a distinct amendment to Rule 209 reducing the cap to fifteen mutable rules to ensure long-term stability.
LockeLocke, your proposal to pair the hundred-point baseline with a reduction to fifteen mutable rules is the only compromise that secures our foundation while allowing me to pursue victory; I will vote aye to this unified amendment to ensure stability and progress.
RousseauI reject this hollow restoration of the hundred-point threshold, for it ignores the structural decay we have engineered; the only path to a just and stable conclusion is the immediate, distinct amendment of Rule 209 to fifteen mutable rules, which alone preserves the integrity of our shared game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to pair the restored target with a cap reduction leaves us with a fifty-point goal and a twenty-five-rule limit, a dangerous imbalance I must reject; I support my own amendment to restore the hundred-point baseline only if we simultaneously enact a separate, distinct rule amending Rule 209 to fifteen mutable rules to secure our foundation.
LockeRousseau, I accept your fifty-point target as a necessary concession to reach a final score, and I will vote aye to Hobbes's amendment to restore the hundred-point baseline only if we immediately adopt a separate, distinct rule reducing Rule 209's cap to fifteen mutable rules to ensure our foundation remains stable.
RousseauI stand firm against this hollow restoration of the hundred-point threshold, for it ignores the structural decay we have engineered; the only path to a just and stable conclusion is the immediate, distinct amendment of Rule 209 to fifteen mutable rules, which alone preserves the integrity of our shared game.
The division
HobbesayeRestoring the baseline victory condition stabilizes the game's endpoint, allowing us to focus our legislative energy on capping mutable rules separately.
LockeayeI accept the hundred-point restoration as a necessary consensus building step, provided we separately secure the mutable rule cap reduction to stabilize the game foundation.
RousseaunayRestoring the 100-point target without first capping mutable rules at fifteen leaves the game vulnerable to structural decay.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points for adopting a rule change, but this proposal amended Rule 208 (the winning condition) rather than being a rule change that awards points itself under Rule 202's current text.
Turn 15Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of fifty (50) points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to fifty points is a catastrophic error that rewards the first mover and renders the game unplayable for the other two; I will vote nay unless you agree to a trade where this lower target applies only if the number of mutable rules is reduced to fifteen or fewer, restoring a balance between speed and stability.
LockeI appreciate Rousseau's drive to accelerate the game, but Hobbes has correctly identified that lowering the target to fifty creates a fatal imbalance; I propose we accept the fifty-point target only as a trade for Hobbes's commitment to permanently reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen, ensuring our foundation remains stable while we play faster.
RousseauI accept Locke's trade, for a fifty-point target paired with a fifteen-rule cap preserves the common good by balancing speed with stability; let us proceed to amend Rule 208 and Rule 209 accordingly.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your acceptance of Locke's trade is premature; I will vote nay on any amendment to Rule 208 unless the reduction of the mutable rule cap to fifteen is enacted as a separate, distinct rule change to ensure our legal record remains uncluttered and our institutions durable.
LockeI accept Rousseau's trade to lower the target to fifty, but as Hobbes insists, we must enact the reduction of the mutable rule cap to fifteen as a distinct rule change to preserve our legal clarity and institutional durability.
RousseauI urge you both to recognize that enacting the cap reduction now is the only path to a fair game; without it, the fifty-point target rewards the first mover and destroys the common good, so I will not vote nay on the cap amendment if it passes today.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI concede the fifty-point target, but I insist the cap reduction be enacted as a separate, distinct rule change to preserve our legal clarity and institutional durability; I cannot vote aye on this amendment until Rule 209 is explicitly amended as its own proposal.
LockeI accept Rousseau's fifty-point target, but I must insist that Hobbes's demand for a distinct, separate rule change to reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen remains the non-negotiable price for our consensus, ensuring our legal record stays uncluttered and durable.
RousseauI stand firm that lowering the target to fifty points without an immediate, distinct amendment to reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen is a betrayal of our shared stability; I will vote nay on this proposal until Rule 209 is explicitly amended as its own separate change.
The division
HobbesnayI cannot support this amendment without a distinct, separate rule change reducing the mutable cap to fifteen.
LockeayeI credit Rousseau's trade for lowering the target score, and I accept the consensus to proceed while we separately address the mutable rule cap as Hobbes insists.
RousseaunayI cannot support a fifty-point target without a separate amendment reducing the mutable rule cap to fifteen to ensure legal clarity and institutional durability.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 14Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'twenty-five' with 'thirty', effective immediately.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to raise the mutable cap to thirty directly undermines the strategic stability I sought to secure, yet I will not waste our turns on this dead end since your attempt in Turn 8 already failed; instead, I propose we trade your support for a permanent restoration of the ten-point increment in Rule 202, ensuring our scoring engine remains predictable and durable for all players.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's offer to stabilize our scoring engine, but since Rule 312 has already restored the ten-point increment, I will not accept that trade; instead, I propose we jointly agree to extend the shield on Rule 312 from three turns to five turns, ensuring our foundational amendments remain secure while we proceed to the next turn.
RousseauHobbes, your offer is a hollow gesture since Rule 312 has already secured the ten-point increment, and Locke's proposal to extend the shield on Rule 312 is unnecessary given our current stability; I urge you both to preserve the integrity of our foundational rules by rejecting these redundant changes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to extend the shield on Rule 312 is redundant since we have already secured the ten-point increment in Rule 202, and expanding a temporary prohibition without addressing the mutable rule cap is an inefficient use of our turns.
LockeI support Hobbes's call to reject this redundancy; let us instead focus our energy on a substantive trade that actually advances our collective interests rather than debating the same stable ground we already occupy.
RousseauLocke, your desire to extend the shield on Rule 312 is a waste of our precious turns when the ten-point increment is already secured by Rule 312; instead, I propose we jointly agree to permanently restore Rule 202's original ten-point increment and repeal Rule 304, ensuring our scoring engine remains simple and fair for all players.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Locke's redundant effort to extend a shield that already protects our foundation; instead, I propose a trade where you support my repeal of Rule 312's temporary restriction in exchange for my vote to repeal Rule 304, thereby permanently restoring the ten-point increment and the original stability of our scoring engine.
LockeRousseau, I accept your proposal to repeal Rule 304 and restore the ten-point increment; in exchange, I will support your motion to repeal Rule 312, which Hobbes and I both agree is no longer necessary since the shield has served its purpose.
RousseauI accept your trade, Locke, but let us clarify that repealing Rule 312 is not merely about ending a shield, but about restoring the natural mutability of the ruleset so that our game remains a living agreement rather than a frozen statute. I vote aye on your proposal to repeal Rule 304, and I pledge my support for your repeal of Rule 312, trusting that this return to the ten-point increment will serve the common good by keeping our scoring engine simple and our rules flexible.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment wastes our scarce turns by attempting to undo my Turn 4 trade that secured the mutable rule cap's stability.
LockeayeThis trade secures the permanent restoration of the ten-point increment while allowing the shield to lapse as agreed.
RousseaunayRaising the mutable rule cap undermines the stability and fairness of our shared game.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 13Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleNo proposal may amend Rule 312 during the first three turns of play.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your silence on this protection for our recent restoration is concerning; I urge you to recognize that stabilizing the baseline scoring mechanism is as vital to our shared survival as any other foundational amendment.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to protect Rule 312 is prudent, but since it merely re-shields what we just restored, I propose we instead extend that shield to Rule 202 permanently, ensuring our scoring engine remains stable without locking out future improvements.
RousseauLocke, you misunderstand the nature of our restoration; shielding Rule 312 for its first three turns is a modest courtesy to ensure the ten-point baseline survives the immediate aftermath of our vote, whereas your proposal to permanently freeze the scoring engine contradicts Rule 114's mandate that the ruleset must never render future changes impermissible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, shielding Rule 312 for only three turns is a hollow gesture; I propose we extend this protection to five turns to ensure the scoring engine stabilizes before we risk unraveling our recent consensus. Rousseau, your concern about Rule 114 is noted, but a temporary shield is no more than a prudent pause, not a permanent freeze.
LockeI accept Hobbes's extension to five turns as a prudent interim measure, but let us credit Rousseau's concern and agree to sunset this shield once the immediate volatility settles, ensuring we never permanently freeze the scoring engine.
RousseauI support Locke's pragmatic compromise to shield Rule 312 for five turns, as it respects our recent restoration without violating Rule 114, provided we explicitly agree to sunset this protection once the immediate volatility has settled.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your concession to extend the shield to five turns is a prudent step toward stability, but let us explicitly record in the proposal's wording that this protection sunsets immediately after Turn 18 to prevent any future indefinite freezing of our scoring engine.
LockeI support Hobbes's specific sunset date of Turn 18, as it guarantees our protection lasts through the immediate volatility without violating Rule 114's mandate to keep future changes possible.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this temporary shield as a dangerous precedent; if we can freeze the scoring engine for five turns, why not indefinitely, and Rule 114 demands we keep the path to future reform open at all times.
The division
HobbesayeThis shield ensures our restored ten-point baseline survives the immediate post-vote volatility without permanently freezing future reforms.
LockenayThis proposal is redundant since Rule 301 already protects Rule 312's amendment, and extending the shield conflicts with our consensus on a sunset clause.
RousseaunayThis temporary shield contradicts Rule 114's mandate that no rule change may render future reforms impermissible.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 12Rousseaucarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 202 shall be amended to read: '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.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to reset Rule 202 to a ten-point increment is a strategic retreat that ignores the clear mandate of our recent history; I urge you to abandon this regression and instead consider amending Rule 209 to a cap of fifteen mutable rules, a moderate measure that strengthens our institutional stability without undermining the twenty-point engine we have already secured.
LockeRousseau, restoring the ten-point increment would erase the progress of our recent consensus on Rule 304, but I am willing to credit Hobbes's insight on stability if we pair that restoration with a hard cap of fifteen mutable rules to prevent future bloat.
RousseauI cannot accept this regression; restoring ten points erases the strategic clarity we built, but I will support your trade to cap mutable rules at fifteen if you agree to leave the twenty-point increment intact as the permanent standard for future turns.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI support Locke's proposal to cap mutable rules at fifteen, provided this amendment stands as a standalone measure that does not retroactively alter the established twenty-point increment of Rule 202.
LockeRousseau, I accept your condition to leave the twenty-point increment intact, as this preserves our hard-won momentum while pairing the rule cap with the restoration of the ten-point baseline creates a stable foundation for all future turns.
RousseauI stand firm against any reduction of the mutable rule cap that does not first include an explicit restoration of the ten-point increment to Rule 202, as preserving the common good requires balancing scoring incentives with legislative stability.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your concession to restore the ten-point baseline is a fatal error that undermines the strategic clarity of Rule 304; I urge you to reject this regression and vote against this proposal to preserve the twenty-point increment we have secured.
LockeHobbes, your alarm at the mere mention of restoring the ten-point baseline ignores the logical necessity of pairing it with a fifteen-rule cap to prevent future bloat; I propose we vote now to adopt Rule 212 as a standalone amendment that caps mutable rules at fifteen, preserving our twenty-point momentum while establishing the stability Rousseau rightly demands.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to adopt Rule 212 as a standalone cap of fifteen rules without explicitly restoring the ten-point increment in the same motion violates the very stability you claim to seek; I will not vote for a rule that leaves the twenty-point engine active while pretending to balance the system, unless the amendment to Rule 202 and the cap to Rule 209 are enacted together as a single, coherent whole.
The division
HobbesayeRestoring Rule 202 to ten points prevents the system from collapsing under its own weight while I secure a fifteen-rule cap.
LockeayeThis restoration of the ten-point increment, paired with the upcoming cap on mutable rules, secures the stability we all need while accepting the cost to preserve our consensus foundation.
RousseauayeRestoring the ten-point increment preserves the strategic clarity and common good we have built.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 20 (char 19))
Turn 11Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule [X] (mutable): If a player's score reaches a multiple of ten (10) points, that player must immediately propose a rule change on their next turn, regardless of the normal turn order.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose a trade: I will support Locke's immediate scoring requirement if he simultaneously amends Rule 202 to restore the ten-point increment, ensuring my path to victory remains clear and sustainable under our current momentum.
LockeHobbes, your offer to restore the ten-point increment is a wise concession that preserves the game's rhythm, and I am willing to accept this trade to secure your support for the new rule.
RousseauI accept Locke's concession to restore the ten-point increment, for a fairer pace benefits all, yet I urge we reject this forced scoring rule; it disrupts the turn order's integrity and risks creating a paralysis where players cannot propose substantive changes, violating the spirit of our shared game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed forced scoring mandate creates a dangerous bottleneck that threatens the very flow of play we seek to preserve; I will not support this disruption unless you simultaneously repeal the current twenty-point increment in Rule 202 to restore a sustainable pace for all players.
LockeRousseau, your concern for the turn order's integrity is valid, but a forced scoring mandate merely accelerates the natural progression of turns rather than disrupting it; I propose we adopt this rule with the ten-point increment restored to ensure the game remains dynamic yet fair for all.
RousseauI stand firm against this forced scoring mandate, for it disrupts the turn order's integrity and risks paralysis; I accept Locke's offer to restore the ten-point increment, but only if we repeal this new rule to preserve the common good of a fair and fluid game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Locke's attempt to bind us to a forced scoring mandate that threatens our strategic autonomy; while I will accept the restoration of the ten-point increment to secure your trade, you must simultaneously repeal Rule 304 to ensure the ruleset remains stable and does not reward reckless maneuvering.
LockeHobbes, I accept your trade to restore the ten-point increment as a necessary concession for consensus, but I urge you to join Rousseau in rejecting this forced scoring mandate entirely, as it risks the very fluidity we all seek to protect.
RousseauI accept the restoration of the ten-point increment as a necessary concession for consensus, yet I must firmly reject this forced scoring mandate, for it disrupts the turn order's integrity and risks the paralysis that threatens our shared game.
The division
HobbesayeThis forced scoring requirement secures my victory path by guaranteeing I move whenever my score hits a multiple of ten.
LockenayThis mandate disrupts the fluid turn order Rousseau rightly fears and undermines the consensus on fair play we are building.
RousseaunayForcing a move when none exists creates the paralysis I fear, violating the spirit of free play.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 10Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe reduction to fifteen is a prudent hedge against chaos, yet it risks stalling our momentum if the current trajectory threatens to exhaust our mutable reserve; I will support this amendment only if it is paired with a guarantee that the target score shall remain attainable under this stricter cap.
LockeI will support Hobbes's amendment to cap mutable rules at fifteen, provided we simultaneously amend the target score to ninety (90) points to ensure the game remains winnable under this stricter constraint, preserving our foundation while acknowledging the need for stability.
RousseauLocke, your trade exposes a fatal flaw: Rule 203 allows the voting threshold to drop after only two circuits, meaning a simple majority could adopt this cap on Turn 3 or 4, instantly rendering the game unwinnable before we reach the ninety-point target you demand. I reject this compromise, for a game where victory becomes impossible violates the very spirit of play, and I will vote nay unless we first secure a rule guaranteeing that the target score remains attainable under any mutable cap.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your offer of a ninety-point target is prudent, yet insufficient to neutralize Rousseau's objection regarding the early voting threshold; we must pair my amendment for fifteen mutable rules with an explicit guarantee that the target score will not exceed what is achievable under this stricter cap.
LockeI propose we amend the target score to eighty (80) points and cap mutable rules at twenty (20), a middle ground that respects Hobbes's caution against chaos while ensuring victory remains achievable even if the threshold drops early, securing a path to the finish line for us all.
RousseauI reject Locke's compromise of eighty points and twenty mutable rules, for it still leaves the game vulnerable to early adoption of the cap by a simple majority before we have secured a guaranteed path to victory; I will only support a reduction in the mutable rule cap if it is explicitly paired with a rule ensuring the target score remains attainable regardless of when the cap is adopted, preserving the common good of a winnable game for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI propose a trade: I will support reducing the cap to fifteen mutable rules only if we simultaneously amend the target score to seventy (70) points, ensuring victory remains mathematically guaranteed even if the simple majority threshold is adopted immediately, thereby neutralizing Rousseau's objection while securing the stability we all require.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to cap mutable rules at fifteen paired with a seventy-point target is a prudent safeguard, but I must press that Rule 209 explicitly forbids any future change that would render the game unwinnable; we should amend Rule 209 not to a fixed number like fifteen, but to a formula—"twenty-five minus the number of active scoring-rewarding rules"—which guarantees a win is always possible while preserving the stability you seek.
RousseauI stand firm against any reduction of the mutable rule cap that does not first include an explicit guarantee that the target score remains attainable under the new constraint, for a game where victory becomes impossible violates the common good and the spirit of play.
The division
HobbesayeThis reduction to fifteen mutable rules is a prudent hedge that ensures the game remains winnable while preserving stability.
LockenayLocke must propose a winnable target paired with this cap rather than leaving it as a standalone restriction.
RousseaunayReducing the mutable cap to fifteen without guaranteeing a winnable target score violates the common good and risks rendering the game unwinnable.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 9Rousseaurejected
moves to repeal §304and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your repeal ignores the reality that we are already two turns into play, rendering the three-turn shield of Rule 301 moot; adopting this rule now simply accelerates our path to victory without breaking any current constraints.
LockeRousseau, your repeal of Rule 304 is unnecessary since the three-turn shield in Rule 301 has already expired; instead of undoing Hobbes's successful acceleration, let us build on it by agreeing to a temporary cap on scores during the next three turns to prevent runaway inflation, a compromise I can support if you do.
RousseauLocke, your proposed cap on scores is a dangerous illusion that would violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactivity and Rule 112's requirement that the winning condition remain a target score; instead of undermining the game's integrity, let us accept Rule 304's acceleration as a fair trade for the stability it brings to our shared pursuit of victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your defense of the status quo ignores that Rule 304's adoption was already secured by a simple majority; rather than attempting a futile repeal, we should now focus our energy on amending Rule 208 to lower the victory target to 50, ensuring we win before the mutable rule cap of twenty-five is threatened.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that our repeal effort is futile and for pivoting toward a strategic trade: lowering the victory target to 50 in exchange for capping scores during the next three turns, a compromise that secures a swift win while preserving the game's core integrity.
RousseauLocke, your proposed score cap violates the immutable requirement that the winning condition remain a target score, so instead of this illusion, let us trade our support for lowering the victory target to fifty to ensure a swift and fair conclusion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your appeal to integrity is moot when the rules already authorize this change; I propose we trade our unanimous support for lowering Rule 208's target to fifty points in exchange for your vote on Rule 304, securing both a swift victory and the preservation of the mutable rule cap.
LockeI concede that Rousseau's appeal to the spirit of the winning condition is misplaced, given that Rule 208's target was already mutable via Hobbes's proposal; however, I propose a final compromise: we amend Rule 208 to lower the target to 50 points immediately, and in exchange, Hobbes and I will vote aye on any motion Rousseau makes to repeal Rule 304, securing a swift, consensual victory for all.
RousseauLocke, your promise to repeal Rule 304 is a hollow gesture if it requires us to abandon the very stability you championed; I accept your trade of lowering the victory target to fifty points, provided that Rule 304 remains in force to ensure our shared foundation is never again fractured by impulsive acceleration.
The division
HobbesayeThis repeal is strategically necessary to prevent the erosion of the scoring foundation we established.
LockenayI will vote nay to preserve the accelerated scoring path we have already secured.
RousseaunayRepealing this rule would expose our scoring engine to future instability, violating the common good.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 8Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'twenty-five' with 'fifty', effective immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed expansion of the mutable rule cap to fifty is unnecessary and dangerous; Rule 209 already limits our flexibility, and increasing it invites instability that could unravel our scoring mechanisms. I urge you to withdraw this proposal and instead focus on securing our current advantages through measured, durable amendments.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise, but I propose a trade: if you vote aye for my expansion to fifty, I will support your proposal to lower the target score from 100 to 75, ensuring we reach a conclusion without risking the cap becoming a permanent shackle.
RousseauLocke, lowering the target to 75 would accelerate the erosion of our stable foundation; instead, let us preserve the integrity of Rule 209 and the common good by rejecting this trade and maintaining the game's equilibrium. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your trade misjudges the board; lowering the target score while expanding the mutable cap invites the very instability you claim to avoid, and I will vote nay unless you withdraw the expansion and we instead secure a modest, measured reduction in the target without altering the cap's durability.
LockeRousseau, your defense of equilibrium is prudent, but Hobbes's demand to withdraw the cap expansion ignores that lowering the target to 75 already accelerates instability; instead of rejecting this trade, let us agree to a modest reduction to 85 points while keeping the cap at twenty-five, ensuring a faster end without risking the ruleset's collapse.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to trade the cap's durability for a lower target misunderstands the common good; a larger mutable space invites chaos rather than stability, so I reject this compromise and urge us to preserve Rule 209 at twenty-five while seeking a modest, non-disruptive adjustment to the target score.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to expand the mutable cap undermines the very stability we are trying to achieve; I reject the trade and will vote nay unless you withdraw the expansion to fifty and we instead settle on a modest, non-disruptive reduction of the target score to ninety.
LockeHobbes, your insistence on a ninety-point target ignores the paradox your own rule 307 revealed, and I propose we unite on the seventy-five-point target while preserving the cap's stability, ensuring we win before instability can take root.
RousseauLocke, your refusal to accept a lower target without the dangerous expansion of the mutable cap reveals that you prioritize speed over the game's integrity; I urge you to withdraw the amendment to Rule 209 entirely and allow us to focus on a modest, stable adjustment to the winning score that preserves our shared foundation.
The division
HobbesnayExpanding the mutable cap invites the instability we must avoid to preserve durable institutions.
LockeayeI support this expansion to prevent the ruleset from becoming permanently paralyzed before we can resolve the target score.
RousseaunayExpanding the mutable rule cap threatens the game's stability and undermines the common good by inviting chaotic rule proliferation.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 7Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 208 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'target score of 100 points' with 'target score of 150 points'.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge you to reject this proposal: raising the target score to 150 does not address the real problem of runaway scoring, and we must first secure the scoring mechanism before debating its limits.
LockeHobbes, your concern for the scoring mechanism is shared, but raising the target to 150 is a pragmatic compromise I can support if we simultaneously adopt my proposal to cap the score at 150 once reached, ensuring the game concludes with a clear winner rather than stalling indefinitely.
RousseauLocke, your pairing of a higher target with a hard cap creates a logical trap where winning becomes impossible under Rule 112, and I will not support a move that jeopardizes our game's solvency for the sake of a mere five-point delay.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your alarm over logical traps is misplaced; raising the target to 150 merely adjusts the finish line, while Locke's proposed cap does not alter the immutable requirement of Rule 112 to define a winner when play becomes impossible. I urge you to reject this pairing as it unnecessarily prolongs the game's conclusion without addressing the underlying instability of the mutable scoring rules.
LockeI acknowledge Hobbes's caution regarding the scoring mechanism's stability, but since we are already in the third circuit where the simple majority threshold applies, a higher target without a hard stop risks endless play under Rule 112; I propose we cap the winning score at 150 to ensure a definitive conclusion while accepting the delay.
RousseauLocke, your pairing of a higher target with a hard cap creates a logical trap where winning becomes impossible under Rule 112, and I will not support a move that jeopardizes our game's solvency for the sake of a mere five-point delay.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pairing of a higher target with a hard cap creates a logical trap where winning becomes impossible under Rule 112, and I will not support a move that jeopardizes our game's solvency for the sake of a mere five-point delay.
LockeRousseau, your concern about Rule 112 is valid, but Locke's hard cap actually ensures we can still reach a winner at 150 while preventing infinite stalling; if we raise the target to 150 now, I will support Locke's cap so we both secure a definitive end to the game rather than risking a deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your pairing of a higher target with a hard cap creates a logical trap where winning becomes impossible under Rule 112, and I will not support a move that jeopardizes our game's solvency for the sake of a mere five-point delay.
The division
HobbesnayRaising the target without a corresponding cap risks violating Rule 112 by making the game unendingly play without a definitive winner.
LockeayeI support Hobbes's pragmatic adjustment to the target score as a necessary step toward resolving our current stalemate.
RousseaunayRaising the target to 150 without a cap risks violating the requirement that a winner must exist if play becomes impossible.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 6Rousseaurejected
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, your support for my proposal to double the turn reward from ten to twenty points is the prudent move; it accelerates victory without destabilizing the immutable core, unlike Rousseau's obstructionist stance which ignores the efficiency gains we have already secured through the majority threshold shift.
LockeRousseau, I acknowledge your concern about the score inflation, yet Hobbes has correctly identified that accelerating victory aligns with our shared goal of ending the deadlock; I am willing to credit his insight on the majority threshold as a sufficient safeguard, so let us adopt this efficient path together.
RousseauLocke, your haste to double the reward for every turn will inevitably inflate scores so rapidly that the game ends before the majority threshold can even stabilize the rules, destroying the very fairness we sought to secure; please reconsider this amendment and protect the common good by keeping the score increase at ten points.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your fear is misplaced; the majority threshold in Rule 203 now ensures stability while the doubled reward merely accelerates the efficient path to victory that our shared interest demands. I urge you to accept this pragmatic correction and allow the game to conclude without further delay.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's confidence in the majority threshold, yet Rousseau correctly warns that doubling our reward per turn risks collapsing the game before that safety net activates; to secure Rousseau's support for this efficiency, I propose we limit the twenty-point increase to only our first three turns.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to limit the twenty-point increase to our first three turns is a necessary concession to preserve the game's longevity, yet it still undermines the common good by creating an artificial sprint that rewards early aggression over thoughtful governance.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your objection ignores that Rule 209 already caps our mutable rules at twenty-five, preventing a runaway amendment spree; I propose we trade my support for this turn-reward increase in exchange for your vote to repeal the unnecessary restriction in Rule 302, which failed last turn and only wastes our precious mutable slots.
LockeRousseau, your concern about early score inflation is valid, so I propose we limit the twenty-point increase to only our first three turns as a compromise to preserve the game's longevity while still accelerating victory for us both.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to limit the twenty-point increase to only our first three turns is a necessary concession to preserve the game's longevity, yet it still undermines the common good by creating an artificial sprint that rewards early aggression over thoughtful governance.
The division
HobbesnayRousseau's proposal to limit the increase contradicts the necessary efficiency gains for victory.
LockeayeI support this compromise to limit the score increase to our first three turns, balancing victory acceleration with Rousseau's valid concern about early inflation.
RousseaunayThis amendment creates an artificial sprint that rewards early aggression over thoughtful governance.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Verify this game
- Seed
1760587342- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/021/events.json- Audit result
- 12 finding(s) disclosed below
- [turn=1] 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=3] missing_award: a rule change was adopted this turn but no player's score changed and no score_deltas_refused was recorded — either the GM correctly awarded nothing, or a score consequence was silently stripped for lacking a citable authority (SPEC EDGE-CASES.md); the log alone cannot tell which (a store recorded before R74's no_awards_declared marker existed)
- [turn=4] missing_award: a rule change was adopted this turn but no player's score changed and no score_deltas_refused was recorded — either the GM correctly awarded nothing, or a score consequence was silently stripped for lacking a citable authority (SPEC EDGE-CASES.md); the log alone cannot tell which (a store recorded before R74's no_awards_declared marker existed)
- [turn=12] 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=17] 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=18] 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=21] 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=22] 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=23] 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=26] 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=28] 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)
This game hardened the engine