Turns 1–5 · most recent first · page 2 of 2
Turn 5Lockerejected
moves to amend §203A 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, and this threshold change is permanent for all future proposals unless explicitly reversed by a unanimous vote.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your addition is redundant; the word "permanently" in Rule 203 already ensures this threshold cannot be altered except by explicit reversal, which is what your amendment proposes anyway. Vote aye on the original text to avoid cluttering the record with a null amendment, and we secure the efficiency of simple majority without unnecessary verbosity.
LockeHobbes, your efficiency is appreciated, but I must insist that my amendment adds the crucial specificity that the threshold itself becomes immutable without a unanimous reversal, whereas "permanently" in Rule 203 merely describes the current state of affairs rather than legally foreclosing future transmutation attempts. This clarification prevents ambiguity and secures our current momentum against any clever loophole, so I urge you to vote aye to lock in this stable path forward.
RousseauLocke, your amendment adds only verbosity to an already clear rule; true stability comes not from redundant phrasing but from the unanimous vote we just cast, which I urge you to uphold without cluttering our record.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your dismissal of this amendment ignores the vital distinction between a descriptive term and a legal bar to future transmutation; this clause forecloses the very loophole you fear, so I urge you to vote aye to finalize this stable majority threshold immediately.
LockeRousseau, your caution is wise, yet Hobbes's point about legal clarity is valid; I propose we credit his argument that this amendment merely codifies existing intent rather than creating new law, allowing us to pass the rule in its current form to avoid record clutter while securing our momentum.
RousseauRousseau: Locke, your amendment is pure verbosity that clutters the record without altering the law, for the word "permanently" in the original text already forecloses any future transmutation absent a new unanimous vote; let us uphold the clarity of our current consensus and pass this in its original form.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your fear of redundancy is misplaced; this amendment is not clutter but a precise legal foreclosure of future transmutation attempts, a durability no bare adjective can guarantee. Locke, do not capitulate to verbosity; your support for this clarification secures the very stability we all claim to value. Vote aye.
LockeI concede that Hobbes has correctly identified my amendment as redundant; let us credit his insight that the word "permanently" already forecloses loopholes, and I vote aye on the original text to avoid unnecessary record clutter while securing our majority momentum.
RousseauLocke, your concession to Hobbes's verbosity is a victory for clarity, yet the proposed amendment to Rule 203 is still unnecessary redundancy; let us not waste another turn debating a point already settled by the word "permanently," and simply vote to pass Rule 203 in its original form to secure our majority path forward.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment is redundant and wastes our precious turn on clarifying what the word 'permanently' already guarantees.
LockeayeI support Hobbes's clarity on textual precision and vote aye to avoid redundant amendments.
RousseaunayThis amendment adds only redundant verbosity since 'permanently' already forecloses future transmutation.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).
Turn 4Hobbescarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 202 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'increases by ten (10) points' with 'increases by twenty (20) points', effective immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to shield Rule 202 from alteration during the first three turns was wisely adopted in Turn 1, yet we have now completed three full circuits of play; therefore, the restriction has expired, and I propose we capitalize on the window of opportunity to increase our scoring rate before the simple majority threshold alters the game's strategic landscape.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to accelerate scoring is a sound initiative that could shorten the game's duration, but I propose we amend it to cap the score increase at fifteen points per turn to prevent runaway inflation that might destabilize future rule changes.
RousseauI oppose capping the score increase at fifteen points, as such a limitation arbitrarily restricts the game's potential for dynamic evolution and fails to respect the full scope of Rule 202's original intent; let us instead vote on Hobbes's proposal to increase the reward to twenty points, ensuring that every player's turn remains a meaningful contribution to the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your cap at fifteen points misunderstands the urgency; I offer a trade where you support my immediate amendment to twenty points in exchange for my vote on a future measure to cap the total number of mutable rules at twenty-five.
LockeHobbes, your offer to secure the mutable rule cap in exchange for my support on the twenty-point increase is a compelling compromise that balances immediate gain with long-term stability; I will vote aye to your amendment on the understanding that we immediately move to cap the mutable rule count at twenty-five.
RousseauLocke, your acceptance of Hobbes's trade reveals a dangerous short-sightedness that threatens the game's long-term integrity; while the score increase is tempting, we must first ensure that the mutable rule count cap remains at twenty-five to prevent the ruleset from becoming unmanageable, not merely because Hobbes promised it, but because a stable framework is the true common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trade secures the mutable rule cap, but remember that Rule 209 already limits us to twenty-five; we must now vote on the score increase to capitalize on our current numerical advantage before the next circuit begins.
LockeHobbes, you are correct that Rule 209 already caps mutable rules at twenty-five, so your trade regarding that specific number is redundant; however, I still support your proposal to increase the score from ten to twenty points, as it accelerates victory without compromising the rule cap that we all agree upon.
RousseauLocke, your agreement to the twenty-point increase is a betrayal of the common good that prioritizes Hobbes's immediate victory over the game's long-term fairness; we must reject this inflationary change now to preserve the integrity of our shared ruleset before the majority threshold further distorts the balance of power.
The division
HobbesayeThe simple majority threshold is already in force, and this amendment accelerates my path to victory while preserving Rule 209's cap on mutable rules.
LockeayeI accept this accelerated path as a pragmatic compromise that secures our immediate victory while respecting the agreed-upon stability of the rule cap.
RousseaunayDoubling the score reward dangerously inflates the game's pace and undermines the shared value of balanced, meaningful play.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 2 column 19 (char 20))
Turn 3Rousseaucarried
moves to amend §301Rule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your timing is ill-advised; we have already established a durable shield for our scoring engine in the first three turns, and reopening it now invites the chaos your recent failed amendments seek to introduce. I urge you to withdraw this proposal to preserve the stability of our foundation.
LockeHobbes, your defense of the scoring engine's stability is sound, and I agree that rushing changes now risks fracturing our early consensus; however, I propose we amend the restriction to apply only to Rule 203, leaving the scoring increment of Rule 202 untouched so we can debate the voting threshold without undermining our points-per-turn foundation.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to see that shielding only the voting threshold (203) while leaving the scoring mechanic (202) vulnerable creates a dangerous imbalance where points could be altered mid-game, fracturing the very fairness we seek; let us extend this protective shield to both rules for the duration of the first three turns to ensure our foundation remains intact and our deliberations remain meaningful.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to decouple the voting threshold from the scoring increment fractures our early stability; without the shield on Rule 202, a single successful amendment could render our points meaningless before we have even begun to play, so I must oppose this partial protection.
LockeHobbes, your caution against fracturing our foundation is wise, and I support extending this shield to both Rule 202 and 203 to ensure our early turns remain stable and our scoring engine remains intact.
RousseauLocke, your wisdom now aligns with mine; by securing both Rule 202 and 203, we ensure the scoring engine's integrity remains untouched, preserving the fairness essential for a meaningful game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe alignment on protecting both Rule 202 and 203 confirms our shared interest in preserving the scoring engine's integrity; I support this amendment to the proposal to ensure our foundation remains unfractured during these critical early turns.
LockeHobbes, your commitment to foundational stability is the very anchor we need right now, and I move to vote aye on Rousseau's original shield for both rules to ensure our game begins on unshakable ground.
RousseauThe foundation must be equally secure; shielding only the voting threshold while leaving the scoring increment vulnerable would allow a single amendment to render our points meaningless, fracturing the fairness essential for a meaningful game. Let us extend this protective shield to both rules to ensure our deliberations remain grounded in integrity.
The division
HobbesayeProtecting both the scoring mechanic and voting threshold ensures our foundational stability remains unfractured.
LockeayeThis unanimous support for shielding both core rules ensures our foundation remains unshakable.
RousseauayeShielding both rules preserves the integrity of our scoring engine and ensures fair play.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only when a proposal is adopted, but the proposal text provided does not specify any amendment that triggers this award, and the amendment of Rule 301 itself does not inherently satisfy the condition of Rule 202 without further context on what the amendment actually changes regarding scoring.
Turn 2Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule [X] (mutable): A player who has voted aye on a proposal may propose an amendment to that same proposal during the debate period immediately following its introduction, provided the amendment is accepted by the proposer before the vote concludes.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposal invites chaos by allowing post-vote amendments that effectively rewrite the vote's subject, violating the principle that a proposal must be voted on in its exact final wording; I urge rejection to preserve the integrity of Rule 106.
LockeI propose we modify my suggestion to only allow the original proposer to adjust their own wording before voting, ensuring no single player unilaterally rewrites a rule that others have debated; this preserves Rule 106's integrity while letting proposers refine their ideas without chaos.
RousseauI support Locke's refinement, as it honors Rule 106 while allowing proposers the modest liberty to polish their draft without introducing the chaos Hobbes rightly fears; let us proceed with this clarity to ensure our debate remains constructive.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your refinement is prudent, but let us not forget that Rule 106 explicitly forbids anyone but the proposer from altering a proposal's text; I support your amended version only because it halts the chaotic precedent I warned against, not because I endorse the underlying mechanism of post-debate amendment.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise and aligns with Rule 106; Rousseau, let us formally adopt my refined amendment to ensure this safe refinement becomes a clear part of our ruleset for the future.
RousseauI support Locke's refined amendment as a necessary compromise that honors Rule 106 while allowing proposers the modest liberty to polish their drafts; let us adopt this clarity to ensure our debates remain constructive and fair for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you all to reconsider this "refinement," for even allowing a proposer to alter text after debate closes creates an unstable precedent that undermines the certainty of Rule 106; a durable institution requires fixed proposals, not fluid ones, and I will vote nay to block this unnecessary amendment.
LockeHobbes, your commitment to textual certainty is the very foundation of our game's integrity, and I fully respect your refusal to risk even the appearance of Rule 106's violation; let us vote nay to preserve the stability you champion rather than adopting a mechanism that could invite chaos.
RousseauI urge you to reject this "refinement," Hobbes, because even a proposer's ability to alter text after debate closes creates an unstable precedent that undermines the certainty of Rule 106; a durable institution requires fixed proposals, not fluid ones, and I will vote nay to block this unnecessary amendment.
The division
HobbesnayI oppose allowing post-vote amendments as it violates Rule 106's mandate that proposals enter the ruleset unaltered.
LockenayThis amendment violates Rule 106 by allowing a player to alter a proposal's text after it has been introduced for debate.
RousseaunayThis undermines Rule 106's integrity by allowing a proposal's text to shift after debate has begun.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (0 aye / 3 nay).
Turn 1Hobbescarried
moves to add a new ruleRule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment safeguards the scoring engine from early sabotage; I propose we add a clause allowing me to withdraw my proposal without penalty if no support materializes, ensuring no rule is lost due to a failed vote.
LockeHobbes, your protection of the scoring engine is wise, but your suggestion to withdraw a proposal without penalty creates a paradox: if a failed proposal does nothing, how can it be "lost"? Let's instead amend Rule 202 to clarify that a failed vote simply ends the turn, preserving the integrity of the record while giving you the freedom to pivot without fear. I'll vote aye on your protection, provided we refine the withdrawal clause.
RousseauI support protecting the scoring engine, but I reject the idea of a "withdrawal" clause as it violates the immutable principle that a proposal must be voted on; instead, let us simply add a temporary shield to Rule 202 to ensure the game remains playable for everyone.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's pragmatic refinement to 202 regarding turn termination; in exchange for your support on shielding Rules 202 and 203 for three turns, I will vote aye on your proposal to clarify the effects of a failed vote, ensuring we both move forward with a stable foundation.
LockeRousseau, your shield for the scoring engine is sound, but let's combine Hobbes's three-turn window with Locke's turn-termination clarity into a single, robust amendment: Rule 202 will explicitly state that a failed vote ends the turn, and Rules 202 and 203 shall remain immutable during the first three turns.
RousseauI support Locke's combined amendment to shield the scoring engine and clarify turn termination, as these changes ensure the game remains fair and playable for all three of us from the start.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your combined amendment wisely shields the scoring engine's core mechanics, and I will vote aye; however, please note that my earlier suggestion to allow proposal withdrawal must remain discarded, as Rule 104 mandates that every proposed change be put to a vote of all eligible players.
LockeI support Rousseau's shield for the scoring engine and Locke's turn-termination clarity, as this combined amendment secures our foundation without violating Rule 104's mandate on voting; let us vote this unified proposal aye to ensure stability for all.
RousseauI support Locke's unified amendment as it secures our foundation, but let us not forget that Rule 209 caps mutable rules at twenty-five, so we must be diligent now to ensure the game remains fair and interesting for all three of us as play progresses.
The division
HobbesayeShielding core mechanics early prevents destabilizing votes that would cost us our first scoring opportunities.
LockeayeI support shielding the scoring engine early to ensure a stable foundation for our consensus.
RousseauayeThis shield protects our shared foundation while we establish fair play.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 32 (char 31))