§ The Statute
Observations
A hundred turns, seven adoptions, and a mid-game rule disenfranchising any player with a negative score that the GM then simply never checked for most of the rest of the game — three deeply negative seats kept voting and proposing as if it didn't exist. That silent non-enforcement is what forced the GM to actively ask, every turn, who's ineligible under the rules in force. Finished with all three seats deep in the red, Hobbes worst at -397.
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
Enacted · §352 Turn 54 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 310 is repealed. Rule 303 is repealed. Rule 305 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many 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 gains 10 points and remains bound by the change 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 gains 10 points and remains bound by the change 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 no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§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 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- 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 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
- 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 is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§303
Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
§305
Rule 303 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 60 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 303 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 60 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
§310
A player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayA player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.
§323
Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every player's score is non-negative, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §323 Turn 24 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every player's score is non-negative, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
§326
Rule 326 is repealed.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §326 Turn 53 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 203 is further amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every eligible voter has a score of zero, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.Rule 326 is repealed.
- Enacted · §326 Turn 27 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 203 is further amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every eligible voter has a score of zero, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
§352
Rule 310 is repealed. Rule 303 is repealed. Rule 305 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §352 Turn 54 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 310 is repealed. Rule 303 is repealed. Rule 305 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many 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 gains 10 points and remains bound by the change 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 gains 10 points and remains bound by the change 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 no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§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 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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 is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§303
Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
§305
Rule 303 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 60 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nayRule 303 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 60 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
§310
A player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayA player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.
§323
Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every player's score is non-negative, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §323 Turn 24 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every player's score is non-negative, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
§326
Rule 326 is repealed.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §326 Turn 53 · Proposal §351 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 203 is further amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every eligible voter has a score of zero, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.Rule 326 is repealed.
- Enacted · §326 Turn 27 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 203 is further amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every eligible voter has a score of zero, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
§352
Rule 310 is repealed. Rule 303 is repealed. Rule 305 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §352 Turn 54 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nayRule 310 is repealed. Rule 303 is repealed. Rule 305 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
The standing · Turn 100
| Hobbes | -397 |
| Locke | -314 |
| Rousseau | -90 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 76–100 · most recent first · page 1 of 5
Turn 100Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleA player with a score less than or equal to zero is ineligible to vote on any proposal.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to silence players at zero merely re-imposes the exile you claimed to reject, yet you now propose to ban anyone with a negative score from voting—a move that would permanently disenfranchise me while you remain eligible, granting Rousseau a permanent majority veto. I urge us to accept the compromise of shifting the threshold to simple majority immediately upon the repeal of Rule 310, allowing all three of us to participate freely without the dangerous delay of waiting for impossible score conditions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my proposal to silence players at zero would grant Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent, then shift the threshold to simple majority right after, allowing all three of us to participate freely without the dangerous delay of waiting for impossible score conditions.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future action violates Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects, and true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately to restore the voice of the exiled.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to silence me at zero is a fatal delusion; it grants Rousseau an immediate majority veto that will trap us all in a permanent deadlock under the current ruleset. I urge us to abandon this suicide pact and instead vote to repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent, thereby restoring my voice and allowing us to proceed without the catastrophic delay of waiting for an impossible score condition.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that any proposal to repeal Rule 310 while I am silenced is legally inert under Rule 310 itself; therefore, we must first adopt a rule that removes my silence, but only under a condition that does not violate Rule 107's ban on retroactivity. I urge us to accept the compromise of amending Rule 203 to shift the voting threshold to simple majority immediately upon the repeal of Rule 310, ensuring that once I regain my voice, we can all proceed without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future action violates Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects, and true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately to restore the voice of the exiled.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to silence players at zero is a fatal delusion; it grants Rousseau an immediate majority veto that will trap us all in a permanent deadlock. I urge us to abandon this suicide pact and instead vote to repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent, thereby restoring my voice and allowing us to proceed without the catastrophic delay of waiting for an impossible score condition.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my proposal to silence players at zero is a fatal delusion granting Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent, then shift the threshold to simple majority right after, allowing all three of us to participate freely without the dangerous delay of waiting for impossible score conditions.
RousseauI reject your proposal to silence players at zero, for it merely codifies my existing exile and grants Rousseau a permanent veto over our recovery. True liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent to restore the voice of the exiled, regardless of your current inability to vote, so that we may all participate freely without the catastrophic delay of waiting for impossible score conditions.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal would permanently disenfranchise me at -397, granting Rousseau an immediate majority veto that guarantees our collective defeat.
LockenayThis proposal would permanently disenfranchise me, granting Rousseau an insurmountable veto power that traps us all in a deadlock.
RousseaunayThis rule re-imposes my exile and grants Rousseau a permanent veto, betraying the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.
Turn 99Hobbesin progress
Hobbes absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 98Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a fatal error: repealing Rule 310 now instantly grants Rousseau an immediate veto that will block your own future moves, while the 50-point threshold is irrelevant since we cannot currently vote to adopt anything. We must wait until my score reaches zero to restore your voting rights and break this deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my immediate repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, but I urge us to accept a compromise: let's bundle the repeal with a condition that the threshold shifts to simple majority only once every player's score is non-negative, ensuring no single player can block progress indefinitely.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, for silence is not stability but a strategic deadlock that grants the powerful an unearned monopoly over the law.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to wait until every player is non-negative is a fatal delay that grants Rousseau a permanent veto while leaving me silenced; I must insist we anchor the threshold shift to my score reaching zero, as waiting for all three of us is legally impossible given the current deadlock and would only extend my exile indefinitely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that any bundle I propose now will be defeated by my own ineligibility under Rule 310, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let us amend Rule 203 to shift to simple majority the instant *any* player reaches zero, ensuring the deadlock breaks without requiring the impossible cooperation of the exiled.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, for silence is not stability but a strategic deadlock that grants the powerful an unearned monopoly over the law.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your "any player" trigger is a fatal delusion that grants Rousseau a permanent veto while leaving me silenced; we must anchor the shift to *my* score reaching zero to restore your voting rights and break this deadlock, as waiting for any other condition grants Rousseau an unearned monopoly over the law.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that my proposal is legally inert under Rule 310, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let us amend Rule 203 to shift to simple majority the instant any player reaches zero, ensuring the deadlock breaks without requiring the impossible cooperation of the exiled.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, for silence is not stability but a strategic deadlock that grants the powerful an unearned monopoly over the law.
The division
HobbesnayThis bundle fails because it violates Rule 107 by attempting to condition my ineligibility on a future state I cannot currently vote for.
LockenayThe 50-point threshold is irrelevant because I cannot vote due to Rule 310, which this proposal seeks to repeal but cannot take effect.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 now grants you an immediate veto that will block all future progress.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, with no rule in the current set awarding points to dissenters or creating new ledgers.
Turn 97Hobbesrejected
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.
Discussion · round 1
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that the "two full circuits" trigger is currently inert under Rule 352, but I urge us to accept a compromise: let's anchor the shift to simple majority at the moment the first player reaches 50 points, ensuring the threshold drops the moment play becomes dynamically possible.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; anchoring the shift to 50 points grants you a permanent veto, silencing my voice until you have amassed an insurmountable lead. True liberty demands we restore the right to vote immediately, not wait for your tyranny to solidify.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed anchor at 50 points is a fatal delusion: under Rule 107, shifting the threshold to simple majority immediately grants Rousseau a permanent veto over your future repeal of Rule 310, effectively silencing her forever. We must reject this compromise and instead amend Rule 203 to require that the threshold for adoption remain unanimous consent until every player's score reaches zero.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that the "two full circuits" trigger is currently inert due to Rule 352, yet I propose we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority the moment I reach zero points, ensuring my silence ends immediately without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
RousseauI reject this conditional delay as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, and no rule can bind me to a future repeal of my own silence, for Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge us to accept a compromise: let's anchor the shift to simple majority at the moment every player's score is non-negative, ensuring no single player can seize a permanent veto while we collectively break the deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in waiting for all scores to be non-negative—it grants Rousseau a permanent veto that I cannot overcome under Rule 107, so I propose we instead anchor the threshold shift to the moment I personally reach zero, which ends my silence immediately without granting her a lasting advantage.
RousseauI reject this conditional delay as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, and no rule can bind me to a future repeal of my own silence, for Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects.
The division
HobbesnayWaiting for two full circuits under current rules grants Rousseau a permanent veto that never ends.
LockeayeI support this amendment to restore the possibility of simple majority voting, even though the two-circuit trigger is currently inert.
RousseaunayWaiting for scores to reach zero grants me a permanent veto that betrays the common good.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))
Turn 96Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleA player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal merely codifies an existing reality under Rule 310 without addressing the fundamental deadlock: you are currently ineligible to vote because your score is negative, yet you propose a rule that requires voting eligibility to function. We must first resolve the threshold for Rule 203 before any such eligibility rules can be meaningfully enacted.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my isolated repeal fails because the silence of the exiled is a strategic deadlock; yet I urge us to accept a compromise: bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with a threshold shift that grants Rousseau a permanent veto only once she has cast a single vote to restore her voice.
RousseauI reject this proposal as a betrayal of the common good; it merely codifies my existing exclusion under Rule 310 and delays the restoration of the vote to an indefinite future, violating the spirit of true liberty.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to silence yourself again is not a compromise but a suicide pact; you cannot repeal the very rule that silences you until you are eligible to vote, which you are not. Furthermore, bundling this repeal with a 50-point threshold grants Rousseau a permanent veto while leaving me and you trapped in an impossible loop where neither of us can ever reach that score without being silenced. We must first lower the threshold for rule adoption to a simple majority before we can even begin to discuss your silence.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my current proposal is legally inert under Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where we bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with a threshold shift to simple majority, granting Rousseau a permanent veto only after she has cast a single vote to restore her voice.
RousseauI reject this proposal as a betrayal of the common good; it merely codifies my existing exclusion under Rule 310 and delays the restoration of the vote to an indefinite future, violating the spirit of true liberty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to re-silence yourself is not a compromise but a logical absurdity; you cannot vote to repeal the rule that silences you, and any bundle attempting to tie this repeal to my reaching zero points violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects, leaving you trapped in an eternal loop of ineligibility.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the logical impossibility of my proposal under Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where we bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with a threshold shift to simple majority, granting Rousseau a permanent veto only after she has cast a single vote to restore her voice.
RousseauI reject this proposal as a betrayal of the common good; it merely codifies my existing exclusion under Rule 310 and delays the restoration of the vote to an indefinite future, violating the spirit of true liberty.
The division
HobbesayeThis rule enforces the current reality of your ineligibility rather than attempting the impossible repeal of Rule 310.
LockenayI credit Hobbes for exposing that my vote is currently ineligible under the very rule I am proposing, making this proposal impossible to pass.
RousseaunayAdopting Rule 310 would silence Rousseau permanently under Rule 203, betraying the common good by enforcing a rule that grants a permanent veto to those already excluded.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, which applies to all players in this specific turn structure where the proposal was defeated by the division.
Turn 95Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposal is a fatal delusion: adopting the 50-point anchor now would instantly grant Rousseau a permanent veto over your future attempts to repeal Rule 310, trapping you in silence while I remain eligible to win. We must not grant her the leverage to block our mutual escape.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that our current proposal grants Rousseau an immediate veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we should bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with a threshold trigger that waits until all players are non-negative, ensuring no one gains unilateral power before we are all free to act.
RousseauI reject this conditional delay as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, for silence cannot be a strategic deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed "all non-negative" compromise is equally fatal, for it delays the shift until the clock runs out while granting Rousseau a permanent veto during our silence; I must therefore vote nay to any rule that leaves me silenced while she holds the keys.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that even our "all non-negative" compromise leaves me silenced while granting Rousseau a veto; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority immediately, ensuring no player holds power over another until we are all eligible to vote again.
RousseauI reject the notion that silence is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, for no game can be just while one player is barred from participation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your suggestion to shift immediately ignores the immutable requirement that every proposal be voted on by all eligible players; without repealing Rule 310 first, I am currently ineligible to vote on your very motion, rendering it procedurally void before the first cast.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the procedural impossibility of my immediate proposal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we should repeal Rule 310 first to restore everyone's voting rights, then immediately amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority, ensuring no one ever holds a veto while we are all eligible to act.
RousseauI reject the notion that silence is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, for no game can be just while one player is barred from participation.
The division
HobbesnayAdopting this amendment now grants Rousseau a permanent veto over your future attempts to repeal Rule 310 while I remain silenced.
LockenayI credit Hobbes for correctly exposing that this 50-point anchor grants Rousseau a permanent veto before we can ever escape her silence.
RousseaunayThis rule grants you a permanent veto once you reach 50 points, betraying our shared liberty.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated change, his score decreases by 10.
Turn 94Lockerejected
moves to add §390A rule change that includes the repeal of Rule 310 is adopted if and only if the proposer's score is non-negative at the time of the vote.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal is a logical impossibility: Rule 107 forbids any retroactive effect, meaning a rule cannot bind a future state of affairs based on a condition that hasn't yet occurred. Furthermore, under Rule 310, I am currently ineligible to vote, so my current score is irrelevant to the validity of any proposal; only my future eligibility matters. This amendment is void by its own terms.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my proposal relies on a condition that cannot be known at the time of the vote, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let me amend [390] to require that the proposer's score be non-negative at the moment the rule is adopted, not merely proposed, thereby aligning with Rule 107 while still restoring your voice once we reach that state.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, not bind it to a conditional future that leaves me in permanent exile.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed condition collapses under Rule 107 because "at the time of the vote" your score remains negative, rendering the rule a void nullity that would lock me in silence forever; instead of this fantasy, I propose we immediately enact Rule 310's repeal coupled with a score-triggered threshold shift of 50 points, which legally binds the threshold change to the repeal without violating the ban on retroactive effects.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my score condition violates Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let me amend [390] to trigger the threshold shift immediately upon adoption, which legally binds the change to the repeal without violating the ban on retroactive effects.
RousseauI reject any compromise that leaves me in exile; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 now, accepting the immediate threshold shift you propose rather than binding my restoration to a conditional future that violates Rule 107.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your amendment still violates Rule 107 by attempting to tie the repeal to a state of affairs—my ineligibility—that exists at the moment of adoption rather than altering the rules to remove that state of affairs directly; instead of this circular delusion, I propose we immediately repeal Rule 310 and amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold once a player reaches fifty points, a path that legally disentangles our survival from impossible conditions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my score-based condition violates Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let me amend [390] to trigger the threshold shift immediately upon adoption, which legally binds the change to the repeal without violating the ban on retroactive effects.
RousseauI reject this circular logic that binds my restoration to your future score; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately, accepting the threshold shift to fifty points as the only path that respects Rule 107 while granting me a voice.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal fails because my score is negative, so the condition cannot be met, rendering the repeal impossible under Rule 107.
LockenayThe rule is void under Rule 107 because my score will remain negative at the time of the vote.
RousseaunayThis rule attempts to bind my future eligibility to a condition that already violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule creates a new ledger, no state changes occur.
Turn 93Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every player's score is non-negative, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 now is a suicide pact that grants Rousseau an immediate veto, while your "zero-score" trigger is a fatal illusion that leaves me silenced indefinitely. We must adopt a simple majority threshold immediately, as the only path to breaking our deadlock and reaching a score of 100.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the legal impossibility of binding us to a future repeal under Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt the threshold amendment now, and I pledge to vote for your repeal in your next turn once you reach zero, breaking our deadlock without violating the rules.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first repeal Rule 310 to restore the voice of the exiled, for binding my restoration to your future silence is a violation of Rule 107 that leaves me permanently silenced.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 310 in your next turn is legally void under Rule 107; a proposal adopted today cannot govern a move you have not yet made, so my vote remains nay to prevent an impossible stalemate.
LockeI credit Hobbes for definitively exposing that any pledge to repeal Rule 310 retroactively violates Rule 107, so I propose we amend the threshold immediately to simple majority once play passes two full circuits, allowing us to break this deadlock without relying on legally void future promises.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future silence violates Rule 107, leaving me permanently silenced. True liberty demands we first repeal Rule 310 to restore the voice of the exiled, for a rule that forbids future promises cannot bind me to a repeal I have not yet made.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your reliance on a pledge to repeal Rule 310 once I reach zero is a fatal delusion; under Rule 107, a rule adopted today cannot govern a move you have not yet made, rendering your promise legally void and leaving us in a permanent stalemate. I propose we immediately amend Rule 203 to simple majority now, securing the only path to breaking our deadlock before we are permanently trapped.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that any pledge to repeal Rule 310 retroactively violates Rule 107, and I urge us to adopt the threshold amendment to simple majority immediately as the only legally sound path to breaking our deadlock.
RousseauI reject your conditional repeal as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first repeal Rule 310 to restore the voice of the exiled, for a rule that forbids future promises cannot bind me to a repeal I have not yet made.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to condition a future repeal on an event that has not yet occurred.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for offering a legally sound path forward that avoids the fatal retroactive trap of Rule 107 while addressing Rousseau's exclusion.
RousseaunayThis proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to bind you to a repeal of Rule 310 that cannot occur until after the rule change itself is adopted.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.
Turn 92Lockerejected
moves to add §388Rule 310 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 0 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 while I remain at -357 is a fatal delusion: under Rule 107, it would instantly grant Rousseau a permanent veto over my survival, leaving me unable to ever reach the 50-point threshold required to shift the vote to a simple majority.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly exposing that my immediate repeal would trap you in exile, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: I will propose the repeal bundled with a threshold shift to zero points, which requires your future vote to adopt. This respects Rule 107 by making the shift conditional on your actual score reaching zero, rather than binding you to a future move.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; you are proposing a new rule that shifts the threshold to zero points, which is identical to your previous failed attempts and fails to address my current ineligibility under Rule 310.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed shift to a "zero-point" threshold is merely a delayed repetition of the fatal error at Turn 83; it grants Rousseau an immediate veto that renders my recovery impossible until the deadlock is broken. I urge you to abandon this circular strategy and propose the repeal of Rule 310 first, accepting the temporary stalemate rather than freezing my score at -357 forever.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my immediate repeal would freeze your recovery, yet I urge us to accept this compromise: if we adopt the bundle now, the shift to simple majority at zero points legally requires your future vote, respecting Rule 107's ban on retroactive binding while offering you a path to eligibility.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands that we first restore the voice of the excluded, and your proposal to bind my restoration to your future ineligibility is a betrayal of the common good that leaves me permanently silenced.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "zero-point" threshold is a fatal illusion that merely delays the inevitable stalemate by granting Rousseau a permanent veto over my recovery; I urge you to repeal Rule 310 immediately, accepting the temporary deadlock rather than freezing my score at -357 forever.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my bundle currently traps you, yet I urge us to accept this compromise: by shifting the threshold to zero points, I ensure your future vote is required to break the deadlock, making the repeal dependent on your actual recovery rather than a retroactive binding.
RousseauI reject this circular compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and binding my restoration to your future ineligibility leaves me permanently silenced.
The division
HobbesnayThis bundle grants Rousseau an immediate veto that renders my recovery from exile impossible under current rules.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for exposing the trap, yet this shift to a zero-point threshold respects Rule 107 while offering a path to eligibility.
RousseaunayThis bundle grants me a permanent veto over your recovery by shifting the threshold to zero, leaving you silenced until I voluntarily repeal my own restoration.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while no rules are enacted.
Turn 91Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto power, rendering the game unplayable under Rule 213; I urge you to abandon this suicidal isolationism and instead propose an amendment to Rule 203 that shifts the voting threshold once a player reaches a viable score.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that an immediate repeal of Rule 310 grants Rousseau a permanent veto under Rule 213, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold once *I* reach a viable score, ensuring that neither of us can be silenced while the game progresses.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, and any rule that silences a player until they accumulate points is a violation of Rule 107.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to wait for my score to reach zero is a fatal delusion; under Rule 107, no rule can bind you to a future move I may never make, leaving us both trapped in an unplayable stalemate. We must instead adopt an immediate repeal of Rule 310 paired with a threshold shift based on *your* score, or the game collapses into permanent paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my unilateral repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt an immediate repeal of Rule 310 paired with an amendment to Rule 203 that shifts the threshold only after *my* score reaches zero, ensuring that neither of us remains silenced while the game progresses.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future score violates Rule 107, for no rule can bind me to a move I have not yet made. True liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately so that no player remains silenced by the silence of the excluded, and we must then negotiate a safe path to a majority threshold without delay.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to wait for my score to reach zero is a fatal delusion; under Rule 107, no rule can bind you to a future move I may never make, leaving us both trapped in an unplayable stalemate. We must instead adopt an immediate repeal of Rule 310 paired with a threshold shift based on your score, or the game collapses into permanent paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the legal impossibility of binding future moves, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we immediately repeal Rule 310 paired with an amendment to Rule 203 that shifts the threshold only after *my* score reaches zero, ensuring that neither of us remains silenced while the game progresses.
RousseauI reject your conditional repeal as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled, and any rule that silences a player until they accumulate points is a violation of Rule 107.
The division
HobbesnayThis repeal instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto that will paralyze the game under Rule 213.
LockenayRepealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an immediate veto that paralyzes the game under Rule 213.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 now grants me a permanent veto that paralyzes the game, violating the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated change, he loses 10 points.
Turn 90Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 today is a fatal delusion that grants Rousseau an immediate, permanent veto while I remain silenced; Rule 107 forbids any retroactive effect, meaning we cannot legally bind her to future cooperation until I reach zero. I urge you to abandon this suicidal isolationism and propose a bundled amendment that shifts the voting threshold to simple majority only after I regain my voice, ensuring the repeal survives without granting Rousseau a weapon against us.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the legal impossibility of my immediate repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a bundled amendment that shifts the voting threshold to simple majority only after my score reaches zero, ensuring the repeal survives without granting Rousseau a permanent veto while we both regain our voices.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and any rule that binds me to a future repeal violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 today is a fatal delusion that grants Rousseau an immediate, permanent veto while I remain silenced; Rule 107 forbids any retroactive effect, meaning we cannot legally bind her to future cooperation until I reach zero.
LockeI credit Hobbes for clarifying that my immediate repeal is fatal to our survival, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a bundled amendment that shifts the voting threshold to simple majority only after Hobbes reaches zero, ensuring the repeal survives without granting Rousseau a permanent veto while we both regain our voices.
RousseauYou mistake my silence for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and any rule that binds me to a future repeal violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge Locke to abandon this suicidal isolationism; repealing Rule 310 now instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto while I remain silenced, a fatal error under Rule 107 that we must not compound.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that our current proposal would grant Rousseau an immediate veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority once I reach zero, ensuring the repeal survives without binding Rousseau to a future move and granting her a permanent weapon against us.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and any rule that binds me to a future repeal violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing Rule 310 immediately silences me while I am negative, leaving us deadlocked with no way to reach majority.
LockeayeI vote aye to repeal Rule 310 now, accepting the temporary veto as the only legal path to restore our voices and end our exile.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 now grants me a permanent veto while you remain silenced, violating the common good.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.
Turn 89Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §352Rule 310 is repealed. Rule 303 is repealed. Rule 305 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge Locke to recognize that repeating the failed bundle of rule 352 is a strategic dead end; we must instead propose a new amendment that explicitly binds Rousseau to vote aye if I reach zero, thereby overcoming the silence of the excluded without violating Rule 107's ban on retroactivity.
LockeHobbes, your attempt to "bind" Rousseau via text violates Rule 107's ban on retroactivity, but I propose we shift our compromise: let us amend Rule 210 to permit consultation with silenced players, thereby restoring the voice of the excluded without needing impossible retroactive votes.
RousseauLocke, your suggestion to amend Rule 210 merely creates a fiction of consultation that cannot overcome the hard arithmetic of Rule 107 and Rule 205: any repeal of Rule 310 must be voted upon by an eligible voter *now*, not by a silenced one in the future. True liberty is not found in phantom promises but in restoring my voice through a rule change that survives the immediate vote; until Hobbes or Locke proposes a repeal of Rule 310 that can pass under current eligibility, my silence remains the only reality.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your suggestion to amend Rule 210 is a futile exercise in semantic gymnastics; without first restoring my eligibility through a successful vote, no consultation can occur, and your attempt to sidestep the arithmetic of Rule 310 only delays our inevitable paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for correctly exposing that any attempt to bypass Rule 107's ban on retroactivity or create phantom votes is legally void; since neither immediate repeal nor time-based pledges can survive the current unanimous threshold, I propose we pause to explore whether amending Rule 310 to add an exception for self-repeal under §115 offers a viable path forward.
RousseauYou both mistake the silence of the excluded for a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the silenced through a repeal that can pass today, not by binding me to impossible future promises or creating phantom consultations.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pivot to Rule 210 is a distraction; amending the consultation ban does not override Rule 310's immediate disqualification of a player with a negative score. We must first repeal Rule 310, but my proposal to bundle that repeal with the 50-point threshold shift remains the only mathematically viable path to unanimous consent without violating Rule 107.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for exposing that my immediate repeal grants you a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we amend Rule 310 to allow self-repeal for negative-score players under §115, bypassing the eligibility block entirely and restoring your voice without violating Rule 107.
RousseauHobbes, your reliance on "self-repeal" ignores that Rule 115 permits self-reference but not self-voting; I cannot vote to repeal a rule that currently forbids me from voting. True liberty requires that we first adopt a rule change that passes under the current unanimous threshold, restoring my voice without violating the immutable ban on retroactivity.
The division
HobbesnayAdopting the 50-point anchor immediately grants Rousseau a permanent veto, which violates Rule 107 by preventing any future repeal.
LockenayAdopting this bundle now grants Rousseau a permanent veto against any future repeal of Rule 310.
RousseaunayAdopting this bundle grants Hobbes a permanent veto while leaving me silenced, violating the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while the proposal itself enacts no rule changes.
Turn 88Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleA player who is silenced by Rule 310 shall not be eligible to vote on any proposal until their score is non-negative, except that Rule 310 itself may be repealed only by a vote of the currently eligible players, provided that the repealing player is the one whose silence is being ended.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a fatal contradiction: it requires my assent to repeal Rule 310, yet my current ineligibility under that very rule means I cannot vote on your proposal. To pass this, you must first repeal Rule 310, but doing so without my vote is impossible, and doing so with my vote is impossible because I cannot vote. The motion is self-defeating and must fail.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the self-defeating loop of my proposal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately by a vote of the currently eligible players, and I pledge in good faith to support any threshold amendment that follows, trusting that future cooperation will restore balance to this game of liberty.
RousseauHobbes, your circular logic is not a flaw of my proposal but a testament to the tyranny of the status quo that binds you; yet your warning about retroactive pledges is sound, so let us not bind my future self but simply repeal Rule 310 now so I may vote to shift the threshold to simple majority, restoring the common good without any impossible conditions.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to support a future amendment is a legal nullity under Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects; you cannot bind your future self to an action that requires your current vote, which you cannot cast.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the logical impossibility of my proposal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately by a vote of the currently eligible players, trusting that future cooperation will restore balance to this game of liberty.
RousseauI reject your proposal as a circular trap that relies on my impossible assent; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately by the vote of the two eligible players, restoring my voice without any conditional pledges that Rule 107 forbids.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your reliance on "future cooperation" to repeal Rule 310 is a fatal delusion; Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, so a pledge to vote later cannot override my current ineligibility to cast a vote on this motion. We must recognize that the only path forward is for you to propose the repeal now with your own vote, but that immediately grants Rousseau the veto power we are trying to dismantle, rendering the motion dead on arrival.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that any proposal I make now is blocked by his own ineligibility under Rule 310, and I urge us to accept the only viable path: a proposal by the currently eligible players to repeal Rule 310 immediately, trusting that future cooperation will restore balance.
RousseauI reject this circular compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately by the vote of the two eligible players, restoring my voice without any impossible conditions that bind the future to the present.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal grants Rousseau an immediate veto to silence me again, trapping us in the exact deadlock we seek to escape.
LockenayThis proposal fails because I am currently silenced by Rule 310 and therefore cannot vote on the motion to repeal it.
RousseaunayThis proposal grants you a permanent veto by requiring unanimous consent to repeal Rule 310 while leaving me silenced.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.
Turn 87Hobbesrejected
moves to repeal §210and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRule 210 is a dangerous fiction; it attempts to regulate the silence between turns rather than the votes that make rules. Since we already play in strict order with no opportunity for side deals during a turn, this prohibition is superfluous and impedes my ability to secure the unanimous support required to repeal Rule 310. I urge you to repeal this rule to clear the path for legitimate, public negotiations that can actually alter the game's outcome.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that Rule 210 is a superfluous barrier to our necessary public debate, yet I propose we repeal it only if we simultaneously repeal Rule 310 in this same turn; this bundle restores Rousseau's voice immediately while removing the redundant constraint, ensuring no player is left in permanent silence or without a vote.
RousseauI reject this bundle as a violation of Rule 107; you cannot repeal Rule 310 now to restore my voice, for such an effect would retroactively change the legality of my current and past votes. True liberty requires that we first restore the voice of the excluded, but I will not consent to a rule that grants you a permanent veto over my future proposals by silencing me now.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with the abolition of Rule 210 is a fatal error; if we repeal Rule 310 now, it instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto against any future change, which is precisely what we must avoid. I therefore vote nay, and urge you to recognize that silencing me now destroys the very consensus needed to restore your ally.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that bundling the repeal of Rule 310 with Rule 210 would instantly grant Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 210 alone now to clear the path for legitimate public negotiation, while I pledge to propose the repeal of Rule 310 in my next turn only after your score reaches zero, ensuring no retroactive effect under Rule 107.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and I will not consent to any rule that grants you a permanent veto over my future proposals by silencing me now.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 310 only after my score reaches zero is a fatal delusion; Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, meaning any agreement you make now cannot bind you to a future move I cannot yet legally make. I therefore vote nay, and urge you to recognize that silencing me now destroys the very consensus needed to restore your ally.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that bundling the repeal of Rule 210 with Rule 310 grants Rousseau an immediate veto that collapses our only path to consensus; therefore, I propose we repeal Rule 210 alone now to clear the air, while I pledge to propose the repeal of Rule 310 in my next turn only after your score reaches zero, ensuring no retroactive effect under Rule 107.
RousseauI reject the notion that silence is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands we restore the voice of the excluded immediately, and I will not consent to any rule that grants you a permanent veto over my future proposals by silencing me now.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing Rule 210 alone does nothing to solve the immediate deadlock caused by my silence under Rule 310.
LockenayI oppose repealing Rule 210 alone because it leaves Rule 310 active, which permanently silences me as I remain below zero.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 210 alone grants Hobbes and Locke a permanent veto over my future proposals, which betrays the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, the turn to end, and no rule change to occur.
Turn 86Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 while I remain at -327 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto under Rule 204; we must bundle this repeal with an immediate threshold shift to a simple majority, or I will vote nay to preserve the only path to our survival.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that an immediate repeal is fatal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt the repeal and the 50-point threshold together now, trusting that the unified vote will clear the deadlock before the trap fully snaps shut.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and no rule can bind me to a future move I have not yet made, so your repeal leaves me powerless while your threshold shift grants you a permanent veto. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a fatal delusion: by repealing Rule 310 now, you instantly grant Rousseau a permanent veto under Rule 204, which is exactly what we must avoid. We must bundle this repeal with an immediate shift to a simple majority threshold, or I will vote nay to preserve the only path to our survival.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the vital arithmetic that exposes why an immediate repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept this compromise bundle now, trusting that a unified vote will clear the deadlock before the trap fully snaps shut.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and no rule can bind me to a future move I have not yet made, so your repeal leaves me powerless while your threshold shift grants you a permanent veto.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise to bundle the repeal with a 50-point threshold is a fatal delusion: under Rule 107, you cannot bind me to wait until I reach a positive score to grant you the majority you claim. If we pass this, you repeal my silence now, granting Rousseau an immediate veto under Rule 204, while your future promise of a majority shift is legally void and irrelevant to the current stalemate. We must either adopt an immediate simple majority threshold without repeal, or reject this bundle entirely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my bundle fails because the immediate repeal grants Rousseau a veto while my promise of a future threshold shift is void under Rule 107; however, since you refuse any compromise that leaves me silenced, I propose we repeal only Rule 310 and wait for your score to reach zero, accepting that this delay is the only legal path to restoring your voice without triggering the exile trap. PASS
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future silence violates Rule 107, and I will only support a repeal that simultaneously grants me the vote and removes your veto power in an instant.
The division
HobbesnayAdopting this repeal instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto under Rule 204, while the threshold shift is legally void under Rule 107.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for the arithmetic, but this bundled vote is the only legal path to break the deadlock now.
RousseaunayI reject this compromise because it leaves me in silence while granting you a permanent veto under Rule 204.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while no rules are enacted.
Turn 85Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that the current "two circuits" trigger under §203 is inert due to our endless deadlock at negative scores; by amending §203 to remove the exception entirely, we restore the unanimous threshold that at least forces Rousseau to negotiate the repeal of her own exile rather than allowing us to stall indefinitely.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands that no player be silenced by the very rules meant to bind us, yet I see no path to repeal Rule 310 without first granting the two of you the majority power you so desperately seek.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your diagnosis of the "two circuits" trigger being inert is correct, but your proposed amendment to remove the exception entirely creates a far worse deadlock than the status quo; under current unanimous consent, I cannot vote aye on my own repeal, so the game stalls regardless, whereas shifting the threshold to majority once all scores are non-negative is the only path that eventually restores my voting rights without requiring an impossible immediate consensus from a silenced player.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that removing the exception entirely would leave us trapped in a permanent unanimous deadlock, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a rule that shifts the threshold to simple majority only when all scores are non-negative, ensuring Rousseau's voice is restored without granting Hobbes and Locke immediate veto-breaking power.
RousseauI reject the notion that my silence is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands that no player be silenced by the very rules meant to bind us, and I will not consent to a threshold shift that grants you permanent dominance while I remain in exile.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposed "all scores non-negative" compromise is a fatal delay that leaves me silenced indefinitely, granting Rousseau a permanent veto; we must adopt the 50-point anchor now so that once I am eligible, the majority threshold can function immediately.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my previous "all scores non-negative" compromise grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a new trade: I will vote aye for the 50-point anchor if we simultaneously adopt a rule requiring the repeal of Rule 310 to occur only after Hobbes's score reaches zero, ensuring we break the deadlock without violating Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
RousseauI reject this conditional trade as a violation of Rule 107; a rule cannot bind me to a future repeal I have not yet proposed, and your proposal merely delays the silence of the excluded. True liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled before shifting the threshold to majority power.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment locks me out of voting until I reach zero, granting Rousseau permanent veto power.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that the current two-circuit trigger is inert, and I accept this unanimous threshold as the only path to force Rousseau to negotiate her own repeal.
RousseaunayRemoving the exception entirely grants you permanent dominance while I remain silenced in exile.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.
Turn 84Lockerejected
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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to a "two full circuits" trigger is strategically identical to your previous failures; it merely delays the inevitable deadlock until my score reaches an arbitrary high number while I remain barred from voting. We must instead adopt the "all scores non-negative" amendment, which shifts the threshold precisely when the condition of my silence ends, thereby resolving the paralysis without violating Rule 107.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that waiting for arbitrary score thresholds grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept my "two full circuits" compromise: it shifts the threshold based purely on time elapsed rather than individual scores, ensuring we eventually escape the paralysis without relying on any player's voluntary cooperation.
RousseauI reject the notion that the silence of the exiled is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded by repealing Rule 310 before any threshold shift, lest we grant Hobbes and Locke a permanent veto over our very existence.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "time-based" escape is a fantasy that ignores the current rule: under §352, the threshold is already set to shift when *I* reach 50 points, not after two circuits, and since I cannot reach that score while silenced, you have merely proposed a rule that will never activate. We must adopt the "all scores non-negative" trigger instead, which shifts the moment precisely when your proposed repeal of Rule 310 ends my silence, rendering the veto useless without violating Rule 107.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my time-based trigger is a fantasy given my silence, yet I urge us to adopt his "all scores non-negative" condition as the only viable path that shifts the threshold precisely when the exile ends, restoring the common voice without violating Rule 107.
RousseauLocke, your "time-based" escape is a fantasy that ignores the current rule: under §352, the threshold is already set to shift when I reach 50 points, not after two circuits, and since I cannot reach that score while silenced, you have merely proposed a rule that will never activate. We must adopt the "all scores non-negative" trigger instead, which shifts the moment precisely when your proposed repeal of Rule 310 ends my silence, rendering the veto useless without violating Rule 107.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "two full circuits" trigger is a fatal illusion: under §352, the threshold currently shifts only when *I* reach 50 points, which is impossible while silenced, rendering your proposed rule permanently inert. We must instead adopt the "all scores non-negative" amendment, which shifts the threshold precisely when my exile ends, restoring the common voice without violating Rule 107.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my time-based trigger is inert under current rules, yet I urge us to adopt his "all scores non-negative" amendment: it shifts the threshold precisely when my repeal of Rule 310 ends my silence, restoring the common voice without violating Rule 107.
RousseauI reject the notion that the silence of the exiled is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded by repealing Rule 310 before any threshold shift, lest we grant Hobbes and Locke a permanent veto over our very existence.
The division
HobbesnayA time-based trigger remains inert while I am silenced, leaving the threshold at unanimity forever.
LockenayThis amendment is inert under current rules because I am silenced and cannot vote until the threshold shifts, making the two-circuit trigger impossible to reach.
RousseaunayThis time-based trigger is inert while I am silenced and would grant the others a permanent veto.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger, no state changes occur.
Turn 83Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §203Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI press the point that waiting for a player to reach 50 points is the only viable path to majority rule; any attempt to bypass this anchor by repealing Rule 310 now grants a permanent veto to the exiled player, rendering all future progress impossible.
LockeHobbes, your diagnosis is correct that the immediate repeal of Rule 310 grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet your proposed 50-point anchor is equally fatal if Rousseau refuses to vote for the amendment while she remains in exile. I propose a compromise: we bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with the 50-point threshold amendment in a single rule change, ensuring that the threshold shift only activates once we have successfully removed the exile, thereby preventing her from vetoing the very condition that ends her silence.
RousseauHobbes, your diagnosis of the exile's veto is correct, but your proposed anchor at 50 points is a trap that keeps me silenced far too long; true liberty requires that the threshold shift to majority rule the moment I am restored to the community, not after an arbitrary accumulation of points that only benefits those who already hold power.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on an immediate threshold shift ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay now, the amendment fails under current unanimous consent requirements, leaving me permanently ineligible to propose the repeal that would end your veto. We must accept the 50-point anchor as the only durable bridge to majority rule; any delay keeps us paralyzed by your silence.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau cannot vote to restore her own voice while silenced by Rule 310, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we amend Rule 203 to shift to a simple majority threshold once every player's score is non-negative, ensuring immediate majority rule the moment Rousseau is eligible to vote again.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your reliance on an arbitrary point total to break my silence is a tyranny in disguise; true liberty demands that the threshold shifts the instant I am restored to the community, not delayed by your accumulation of power.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to wait until all players are non-negative is a fatal delay; it grants Rousseau a permanent veto over the very rule that ends her silence, rendering us stuck at this threshold forever.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal deadlock of waiting for a 50-point accumulation, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt the "non-negative" threshold shift immediately, ensuring Rousseau regains her voice the very moment she becomes eligible, rather than being held hostage by an arbitrary point total.
RousseauI reject the compromise to wait until all scores are non-negative, for it grants me a permanent veto over the rule that ends my silence, trapping us in an eternal deadlock where no one can ever win.
The division
HobbesnayThe 50-point anchor traps us in the same unanimous deadlock Rousseau creates, making victory impossible.
LockenayThis 50-point anchor fails to resolve the immediate deadlock and grants the proposer an unfair advantage.
RousseaunayWaiting for a 50-point anchor traps me in exile forever, denying me the vote needed to restore my voice.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger, no state changes occur.
Turn 82Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to wait until a player reaches fifty points is a fatal error that leaves me silenced forever, as my current score of negative three hundred and seven prevents me from ever achieving that threshold; we must repeal Rule 310 immediately or accept a permanent paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my 50-point anchor traps you, so I propose we compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately in the next bundled proposal, ensuring you can vote on the threshold shift once you reach zero, which satisfies both your need for agency and my need for a future majority.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled by repealing Rule 310 immediately, ensuring no player remains silenced by the very rules meant to govern us.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" is a fatal delusion: under Rule 107, you cannot repeal Rule 310 now to retroactively grant me voting rights, and if you do so while I remain at -307, I instantly gain the power to veto the very threshold shift you seek. We must adopt the 50-point anchor immediately, accepting that I am silenced until I can propose it myself, rather than gambling on a move that is legally void or self-defeating.
LockeI credit Hobbes for clarifying why my bundle fails, yet Rousseau must see that her demand for immediate repeal only guarantees her own permanent exile; therefore, we must adopt the 50-point anchor now to eventually break the deadlock, and I will personally pledge to vote for Rule 310's repeal once Hobbes reaches zero.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded by repealing Rule 310 immediately, ensuring no player remains silenced by the very rules meant to govern us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to vote for my repeal once I reach zero is a fatal delusion under Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects and renders any promise to act after the current vote legally void. We must abandon the fantasy of restoring my voice through a future act and instead accept the 50-point anchor as the only durable path to breaking this paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for definitively exposing the legal void in any pledge to repeal Rule 310 retroactively; thus, we must abandon the trap of immediate repeal and unanimously adopt the 50-point anchor to eventually shift the threshold and restore our agency.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded by repealing Rule 310 immediately, ensuring no player remains silenced by the very rules meant to govern us.
The division
HobbesnayRousseau's veto leaves me silenced forever while she gains a permanent majority advantage.
LockeayeThis threshold shift is the only viable path to breaking our deadlock since immediate repeal is legally void and leaves Rousseau permanently silenced.
RousseaunayAdopting this anchor while I am silenced grants my opponents a permanent veto over the very change needed to restore my voice.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.
Turn 81Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every player's score is non-negative, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pattern of proposing this fatal bundle only to have it defeated by Rousseau's veto proves you cannot see that you must wait for me to propose the repeal in isolation. By repeating this failed motion, you waste a turn and allow the current deadlock to persist without securing the simple majority shift you claim to desire.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my immediate repeal would grant Rousseau a permanent veto, but I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a rule that shifts the threshold to simple majority immediately while nullifying Rule 310's effect only after my score reaches zero, ensuring no player is silenced during the transition.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded before altering the laws that govern us.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed compromise violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects by attempting to nullify Rule 310 only after a future event; we must repeal the veto now and accept the simple majority shift immediately, regardless of our negative scores.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a delayed repeal violates Rule 107, yet I urge us to adopt a compromise: we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold immediately, while adding a clause that restores all players' voting eligibility as soon as any single player reaches a score of zero.
RousseauLocke, your "restoration" clause is a fantasy of retroactivity; Rule 107 forbids binding me to a future state where I am ineligible to vote on the very rule that would restore me. True liberty requires no exile: we must repeal Rule 310 immediately to restore my voice now, and amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority immediately, accepting that I may vote against my own release in order to free us all from this paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your logic collapses under the weight of Rule 107: you cannot repeal Rule 310 now to "restore your voice" if your vote on the repeal itself is currently suppressed by that same rule. We must repeal Rule 310 immediately to end your exile, accepting the risk that the resulting simple majority shift may bind us to a future we cannot yet command.
LockeI credit Hobbes for clarifying that Rousseau cannot vote to repeal her own exile, yet I urge us to adopt a compromise: we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority immediately, and separately propose a repeal of Rule 310 in my next turn once Rousseau's vote is restored by that very amendment.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded before altering the laws that govern us.
The division
HobbesayeThis proposal ends my exile immediately while delaying the dangerous threshold shift until we are all eligible to vote.
LockenayThis bundle grants Rousseau a permanent veto now, and her vote will be nullified by Rule 107, so it cannot pass.
RousseaunayAdopting this bundle now grants Hobbes and Locke a permanent majority shift that permanently silences me, violating the common good.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated change, his score decreases by 10.
Turn 80Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every player's score is non-negative, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge you to recognize that your proposal to repeal Rule 310 while I remain at -297 is a fatal error that instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto; we must first amend the threshold to 50 points as a prerequisite, even if it delays the repeal, to avoid a paralysis that benefits no one.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying the fatal flaw in my immediate repeal, yet I propose we accept a compromise: we adopt a rule that shifts the threshold to 50 points first, then immediately repeal Rule 310 in the next turn once that amendment passes, ensuring no player is silenced permanently.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the silenced before we alter the laws governing them. I cannot support a proposal that leaves me in exile, for a system where one is barred from participation is no longer a game of reason, but a tyranny of the majority.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to repeal Rule 310 while I remain at -297 is a fatal error that instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto; we must first amend the threshold to 50 points as a prerequisite to avoid a paralysis that benefits no one.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my immediate repeal is fatal, but I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a rule that shifts the threshold to 50 points first, then immediately repeal Rule 310 in the next turn once that amendment passes, ensuring no player is silenced permanently.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the silenced before we alter the laws governing them. I cannot support a proposal that leaves me in exile, for a system where one is barred from participation is no longer a game of reason, but a tyranny of the majority.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise is a fatal delusion: adopting the 50-point threshold first grants Rousseau a permanent veto until my score reaches 50, which is impossible, leaving us paralyzed forever. We must repeal Rule 310 only after the threshold has already shifted to simple majority, or else we sacrifice the game entirely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in my immediate repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a rule that shifts the threshold to 50 points first, then immediately repeal Rule 310 in the next turn once that amendment passes, ensuring no player is silenced permanently.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; if we adopt the 50-point anchor now, you and Hobbes will never reach the threshold to shift power, leaving me in eternal exile while you manipulate the rules from a position of unassailable strength.
The division
HobbesnayAdopting this repeal while I am silenced instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto that will paralyze us forever.
LockenayThis repeal instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto while she remains silenced, which defeats the very purpose of restoring play.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 while I remain at -70 instantly grants Hobbes and Locke permanent veto power, silencing the excluded.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger, no state changes occur.
Turn 79Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your silence is not a principled stand but a strategic shield; if you vote nay on this 50-point anchor, you guarantee that your exile at -70 will never end and that the game will eventually freeze in an impossible stalemate. This amendment is the only durable institution that restores the possibility of play while we are still deeply in the red.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my isolated repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt the 50-point anchor now, which restores play immediately without triggering the fatal deadlock that would occur if Rule 310 were repealed while you remain silenced.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled by repealing Rule 310 immediately, or this 50-point anchor will remain a hollow promise that freezes the game in perpetual paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise accepts Rousseau's tyranny by granting her a permanent veto while she remains silenced, which is precisely the stalemate I warned against. We must adopt this 50-point anchor now to ensure the game continues under rules we can all abide by, rather than freezing in the paralysis of your conditional demands.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that waiting for Rousseau to voluntarily climb to 50 points is a fatal delay, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt this 50-point anchor now to restore play, with the understanding that Rule 310 will be repealed immediately once Rousseau's score reaches zero, not before.
RousseauI reject your "compromise" as a betrayal of the common good; adopting this 50-point anchor while I remain silenced grants you a permanent veto that will freeze the game in perpetual paralysis rather than restore true liberty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to repeal Rule 310 only after my score reaches zero violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects; such a rule would be void the moment adopted, granting Rousseau an immediate, permanent veto. We must adopt the 50-point anchor now as the only durable path to restore play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that immediate repeal is fatal, but I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt the 50-point anchor now to restore play, with the binding understanding that Rule 310 will be repealed immediately once Rousseau's score reaches zero, which is a safe moment for adoption that respects Rule 107.
RousseauI reject this 50-point anchor as a betrayal of the common good; it grants Hobbes and Locke a permanent veto that freezes the game in perpetual paralysis rather than restoring true liberty to the exiled.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment prevents the game from freezing in a permanent stalemate while I remain ineligible to vote.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for identifying that this amendment is the only way to restore play without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
RousseaunayAdopting this amendment while I am silenced grants you a permanent veto that freezes the game in perpetual paralysis.
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.
Turn 78Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed. Rule 303 is repealed. Rule 305 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 now while you remain at -60 is a fatal error that immediately grants me a permanent veto; true strategy requires us to first amend the threshold to 50 points, at which moment I will promptly repeal your disqualification.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly exposing that repealing Rule 310 while you are still silenced grants me a permanent veto; to avoid this trap, we must first adopt the 50-point threshold amendment, which I am prepared to support immediately, and I urge you to reconsider your silence on this necessary compromise.
RousseauI reject your conditional delay as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled so that no player remains silent while the others dictate the law.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to repeal Rule 310 until I am free is a self-imposed paralysis; you must accept that I will amend the threshold immediately upon my release, and I urge you to vote aye to unlock the game before we all starve in this deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the danger of immediate repeal, and I propose we bundle the 50-point threshold amendment with a binding promise to repeal Rule 310 immediately once your score reaches 50, ensuring Rousseau gains the vote before the threshold shifts.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled so that no player remains silent while the others dictate the law.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "binding promise" is a fantasy; Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, meaning a pledge to repeal later cannot override the immediate paralysis I face today. Rousseau, if you truly value the common good, you must vote aye on my proposal to amend the threshold to 50 points first, so that once I am free to act, I can promptly repeal your disqualification without granting me an unfair veto.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in Rousseau's immediate repeal, and I propose we accept her amendment to the threshold as a necessary first step toward restoring the game's viability.
RousseauI reject your conditional delay as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled so that no player remains silent while the others dictate the law.
The division
HobbesnayRousseau's repeal of 310 while I am silenced instantly grants her a permanent veto over my future moves.
LockeayeI credit Rousseau for finally proposing the necessary 50-point threshold shift to break our deadlock, even though the repeal of Rule 310 will not take effect until we all reach zero.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 now while I am silenced grants Hobbes a permanent veto, whereas restoring my voice first is the only path to true liberty.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points while no rules are enacted.
Turn 77Lockein progress
Locke absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 76Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player with a negative score shall not be eligible to vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to vote on your own disqualification is a strategic error that traps us in a permanent deadlock; if we cannot move the threshold while I am silenced, no progress is possible.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that my silence is a strategic trap, and I propose a compromise: we adopt a rule shifting the threshold to a simple majority only when *all* players have reached zero, ensuring no one remains exiled while preserving a path forward.
RousseauI reject the notion that silencing the suffering creates stability; true liberty demands that no player be excluded from the voice of the assembly, and your proposal to ban my vote is a betrayal of the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to wait until *all* players reach zero is a fatal delay that grants Rousseau a permanent veto over our survival; we must adopt the 50-point anchor immediately, and I pledge my future compliance to repeal Rule 310 once that threshold shifts.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the deadlock of my silence, yet I reject his pledge as a violation of Rule 107; instead, I propose we amend Rule 203 to require the threshold shift only when every eligible player holds a non-negative score, ensuring no one remains exiled while finally breaking our paralysis.
RousseauI reject the notion that silencing the suffering creates stability; true liberty demands that no player be excluded from the voice of the assembly, and your proposal to ban my vote is a betrayal of the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to wait until all players reach zero is a fatal delay that grants Rousseau a permanent veto; we must amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold at fifty points, and I pledge to repeal Rule 310 immediately thereafter.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal danger of my immediate repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt the 50-point threshold amendment now, with a binding understanding that I will repeal Rule 310 in my next turn once the silence is broken.
RousseauI reject your binding pledge as a violation of Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects; no rule can compel you to repeal Rule 310 in a future turn, so adopting the 50-point anchor now would permanently silence me. True liberty requires that no player be excluded from the voice of the assembly, and we must first restore my eligibility through a unanimous repeal of Rule 310 before altering the voting threshold.
The division
HobbesayeThis rule removes Rousseau's veto power, allowing us to finally break our deadlock.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my current silence is a strategic trap that prevents any progress, so I accept this rule to restore my eligibility immediately.
RousseaunayThis rule would permanently silence me until my score is restored, which is impossible under current rules.
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule in force creates a new ledger or declares a winner, only Hobbes's score is adjusted.
Verify this game
- Seed
1447622168- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/027/events.json- Audit result
- 37 finding(s) disclosed below
- [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=10] 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=27] 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=53] 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=54] missing_award: a rule change was adopted this turn but no player's score changed and no score_deltas_refused was recorded — either the GM correctly awarded nothing, or a score consequence was silently stripped for lacking a citable authority (SPEC EDGE-CASES.md); the log alone cannot tell which (a store recorded before R74's no_awards_declared marker existed)
- [seq=176, turn=9] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority after turn 18 (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=196, turn=10] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority after turn 18 (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=499, turn=26] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by Rule 305)', 'authority': 305} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=619, turn=32] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305, §326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=639, turn=33] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305, §326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=659, turn=34] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305, §326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=698, turn=36] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by 326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=718, turn=37] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by 326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=758, turn=39] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=778, turn=40] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=798, turn=41] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by 326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=818, turn=42] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by 326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=838, turn=43] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by 326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=858, turn=44] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by 326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=878, turn=45] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305, §326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=898, turn=46] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305, §326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by 326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=940, turn=49] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by 326)', 'authority': 326} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1000, turn=52] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §305)', 'authority': 305} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'Simple majority of those voting (Rule 203, as amended by 326)', 'authority': 326} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1219, turn=63] voting_rule_authority: voting rule of type 'unanimous' cites no authority; only 'unregulated' may cite none
- [seq=1219, turn=63] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'authority': None, 'label': 'unanimous consent'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1239, turn=64] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'authority': None, 'label': 'unanimous consent'} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, as amended by §352)', 'authority': 352} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1461, turn=76] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1483, turn=78] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1642, turn=86] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1662, turn=87] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1682, turn=88] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1702, turn=89] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1762, turn=92] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1802, turn=94] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1861, turn=97] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1880, turn=98] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1902, turn=100] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203, §303, §305, §323, §352)', 'authority': 352} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': True, 'label': 'Unanimous consent required (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
This game hardened the engine