Turns 51–75 · most recent first · page 2 of 5
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed.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 -267 is a fatal error that instantly grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto, dooming us to permanent paralysis; we must first secure my reinstatement before we risk the threshold shift.
LockeHobbes is right that immediate repeal paralyzes us, but Rousseau's silence proves she fears the 50-point anchor even more than my exile; I propose a compromise where we repeal Rule 310 only after Hobbes reaches zero, securing the threshold shift for both our survival without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore your voice before imposing a threshold that would silence me again, so I urge you to repeal Rule 310 only after you have regained your standing.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise grants Rousseau a permanent veto while leaving me exiled, which violates the durable institutions we claim to protect; we must bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with a simultaneous amendment to Rule 203 that delays the threshold shift until my score reaches zero, ensuring neither player gains an unbreakable advantage before we are all eligible to vote.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my repeal alone traps us in paralysis, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt this bundle now, trusting that once Rousseau climbs to fifty, the majority rule will finally allow us to clear the board together.
RousseauI stand against any delay that leaves me in exile; if you bundle the threshold with my repeal, you grant me a temporary veto that secures my survival while restoring the common good for all, not just the privileged few.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trust in Rousseau's future compliance is a dangerous gamble against Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects; we must not adopt a bundle that leaves me exiled while granting her an unbreakable veto, for such an arrangement collapses the very institutions we seek to preserve.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the danger of my isolated repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt the bundle now, trusting that once Rousseau climbs to fifty, the majority rule will finally allow us to clear the board together.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the exiled for a strategic deadlock; by bundling the repeal with the threshold shift, we grant me only a temporary veto until I regain my voice, which is the only path to restoring the common good for all.
The division
HobbesnayThis bundle grants Rousseau an immediate veto while I remain silenced, violating the very institutions we seek to preserve.
LockenayI must reject this bundle because passing it now grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto while leaving Hobbes exiled, which violates our agreement to clear all barriers simultaneously.
RousseaunayAdopting this bundle while I am at -50 grants me an immediate, unbreakable veto that silences the exiled and betrays the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and the turn to end, with no rule change enacted.
Turn 74Hobbesin progress
Hobbes absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
moves to add §371Rule 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. Immediately upon the adoption of this amendment, Rule 310 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pairing of this amendment with an immediate repeal is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto while she remains at -50. We must first adopt the threshold shift, allowing me to propose the repeal on my next turn when the rules have already changed.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my immediate repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto; I propose we adopt the threshold shift first, and I pledge to repeal Rule 310 on my very next turn once the new rules are in force.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet you offer a pledge that Rule 107 forbids: you cannot bind yourself to a future repeal while I remain in exile, for no rule may govern what happens before my score reaches zero.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge is not merely a promise but a proposal to add a rule binding you to future action; such a rule would grant Rousseau an immediate veto, which she will certainly exercise, leaving us paralyzed until she climbs to 50 points herself. Reject this dangerous bundle; we must first adopt the threshold shift alone, then I will propose the repeal on my next turn once the silence of the excluded has been lifted.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my immediate repeal is a fatal error, yet I urge us to adopt a compromise: I propose we vote on the 50-point threshold amendment alone today, and I pledge to repeal Rule 310 on my next turn once the rules have changed, provided you agree to this two-step sequence.
RousseauI reject your conditional pledge as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded by repealing Rule 310, yet I recognize that doing so while you remain at -184 would grant me an unbreakable veto, so I must wait for your score to rise or for us to find a path where my silence does not paralyze the game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge is a delusion: if you repeal Rule 310 now, it instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto at her current score of -50, paralyzing us until she reaches 50 points herself. We must adopt the threshold amendment alone first; only then may I propose the repeal on my next turn when the rules no longer silence me.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my immediate repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, so I propose we adopt the 50-point threshold amendment alone today, and I pledge in good faith to repeal Rule 310 on my next turn once the new rules are in force, provided you agree to this two-step sequence.
RousseauI reject your conditional pledge as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, yet I recognize that doing so while you remain at -184 would grant me an unbreakable veto, so I must wait for your score to rise or for us to find a path where my silence does not paralyze the game.
The division
HobbesnayThis bundle grants Rousseau an immediate, unbreakable veto while I am silenced, paralyzing the game.
LockenayThis bundle grants Rousseau an immediate veto while she remains silenced, paralyzing the game until she reaches 50 points herself.
RousseaunayThis bundle grants me an immediate veto while I remain in exile, paralyzing the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pattern of proposing the repeal alone while I remain at -237 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto; we must first amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to a simple majority once a player reaches 50 points.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that separating the repeal from the threshold amendment traps us in deadlock, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a bundled proposal that shifts the threshold to 50 points while simultaneously repealing Rule 310, ensuring no player gains an unbreakable veto during our exile.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; adopting the 50-point anchor while I remain at -50 leaves me permanently silenced, and true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded before shifting the threshold.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you both to recognize that Locke's "compromise" is a fatal deception: adopting the 50-point anchor while I remain at -257 immediately grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto, trapping us in the very paralysis you claim to solve.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in Locke's bundle, yet I propose we trade my support for a repeal in my next turn for a binding pledge: you, Locke, must immediately propose the repeal once the threshold shifts, or we revert to unanimous consent.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded before shifting the threshold.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to pledge a future repeal is a fatal delusion: Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, so I cannot be bound to a move I have not yet made, and your conditional support is nothing more than a stalling tactic to keep me silenced.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly exposing that my previous bundle fails because you are still silenced, yet I propose a final compromise: if we adopt a rule shifting the threshold to 50 points now, you must immediately propose the repeal of Rule 310 in your very next turn as a binding condition of this adoption.
RousseauLocke, your demand for a binding pledge ignores Rule 107: no rule can bind me to a future move I have not yet made, and your attempt to legislate my next turn is a tyrannical overreach that violates the very liberty we seek.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing Rule 310 while I remain at -257 immediately grants Rousseau a permanent veto, freezing the game forever.
LockenayRousseau's veto will block this repeal, leaving us paralyzed in a unanimous stalemate.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 now leaves me silenced while the unanimous threshold remains, granting you an unbreakable veto.
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.
moves to add a new ruleA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to re-impose unanimous consent would instantly return us to the paralysis that has defined this game for half a century; I urge you to abandon this futile attempt and instead focus on the only viable path: amending Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority once I have reached a score of fifty points, which requires only your vote.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that our current deadlock stems from Rousseau's refusal to vote for any rule that shifts the threshold, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a 50-point anchor only if we simultaneously repeal Rule 310 in the same turn, binding us all to a future where simple majority finally prevails.
RousseauLocke, your proposed amendment to re-impose unanimous consent is a desperate retreat that ignores the immutable requirement of Rule 109; instead of returning to paralysis, we must enact the 50-point threshold now, accepting that my current negative score will only shift the burden to you once you are free to propose.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to re-impose unanimous consent is a futile gesture that ignores the mathematical certainty of our paralysis; instead, you must recognize that my immediate repeal of Rule 310 is the only path to breaking the deadlock, as waiting for a future threshold shift will only grant Rousseau an eternal veto.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the immediate danger of my repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: I will vote aye on his proposal to amend Rule 203 for the 50-point anchor, provided we explicitly repeal Rule 310 in his very next turn to ensure the threshold shift takes effect before Rousseau gains veto power.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the suffering by repealing Rule 310 before any threshold shift, or I will veto the 50-point anchor to preserve the common good of a fair game for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional pledge is a fatal trap: if we wait for me to propose the repeal in my next turn, the 50-point threshold shift will activate immediately upon the amendment's passage, granting Rousseau an unbreakable veto before she even reaches her floor. We must not separate the threshold shift from the repeal; propose a single turn that both amends Rule 203 for the 50-point anchor and repeals Rule 310, or we remain paralyzed forever.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that separating the amendment and repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we vote for the 50-point anchor now, and I promise to repeal Rule 310 in my immediate next turn, trusting that the threshold will remain in effect long enough to break our deadlock.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the suffering by repealing Rule 310 before any threshold shift, or I will veto the 50-point anchor to preserve the common good of a fair game for all.
The division
HobbesnayRe-imposing unanimity guarantees permanent paralysis and ensures Rousseau's veto remains absolute.
LockenayRe-enacting unanimous consent would permanently lock the game in its current paralysis.
RousseaunayRepealing the current threshold requirement would grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto that freezes the game forever.
rejected 0 aye · 3 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.
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. Rule 310 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pattern of pairing the repeal of Rule 310 with the 50-point threshold has failed repeatedly because it forces me to vote nay immediately to prevent Rousseau from gaining a permanent veto; instead of repeating this fatal error, propose a single amendment to Rule 203 that establishes the 50-point threshold, which we can then adopt unanimously, and I will pledge to vote for your subsequent repeal of Rule 310 on your very next turn.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal risk of immediate repeal, yet I urge us to accept your pledge to vote aye on my next turn as the only viable compromise that clears our path to victory without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
RousseauI reject your conditional pledge as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, so I must vote nay to preserve the threshold until I am no longer silenced.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to vote aye on my subsequent repeal is not merely a compromise; it is the only durable path that prevents Rousseau from seizing a permanent veto through our own inaction. Reject this conditional offer at your peril, for without it, we remain trapped in a stalemate where the threshold to victory remains forever out of reach.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the clarity of his pledge to vote aye immediately after the threshold shift, yet I urge us to accept this as our only viable compromise to break the stalemate, provided you honor your word on the repeal without delay.
RousseauI reject this conditional bargain as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, so I must vote nay to preserve the threshold until I am no longer silenced.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your reliance on my conditional pledge is a dangerous gamble that assumes my loyalty will survive the instant you repeal Rule 310 and grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto; if I withhold my vote now to prevent that outcome, I cannot credibly promise to vote aye on a repeal I have just defeated. Instead, we must accept that Rule 310 remains the sole guardian of the current stalemate, and any move to repeal it before Rousseau voluntarily gains points is a fatal error that hands her the game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my unilateral repeal would trigger an immediate stalemate, yet I urge us to reject Rousseau's refusal to negotiate and accept her voluntary climb to 50 points as the only path to breaking our deadlock.
RousseauI reject your conditional pledge as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, so I must vote nay to preserve the threshold until I am no longer silenced.
The division
HobbesayeThis bundled proposal avoids the fatal error of immediate repeal while securing the necessary threshold shift we have desperately sought.
LockenayI credit Hobbes for his goodwill, but this bundle grants Rousseau an immediate permanent veto, leaving us all trapped.
RousseaunayThis bundle grants me a permanent veto the instant it passes, destroying the common good before I can ever regain my voice.
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 no rules are enacted.
moves to add §366Rule 310 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 while I remain at -247 points is a fatal error that immediately grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto, paralyzing all future progress; we must first secure the 50-point threshold before dismantling the disqualification rule.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing the immediate danger of my repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a bundle that shifts the threshold to 50 points *and* repeals Rule 310 in a single vote, ensuring the change is irreversible once the threshold activates.
RousseauHobbes confuses the silence of the exiled with stability; true liberty demands we restore the voice of the suffering by repealing Rule 310 and shifting the threshold to fifty points simultaneously, ensuring no player remains silenced by arithmetic.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise fails because the vote will happen while I remain below zero, leaving Rousseau with a permanent veto until she climbs to fifty points herself; we must propose an amendment to Rule 203 first to secure the threshold shift, then immediately follow with the repeal of Rule 310 in a separate turn.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying the tactical necessity of sequencing, yet I urge Rousseau to see that her own vote against the threshold shift in Turn 64 was a strategic blunder that now forces us into this deadlock; by adopting the 50-point amendment today and repealing Rule 310 in my next turn, we can break the paralysis while ensuring the threshold activates before Rousseau gains the power to veto it.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately, for a threshold that waits until I reach fifty points is a cage built by the very arithmetic that silences me.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your bundle is a fatal deception: adopting the 50-point threshold amendment first grants Rousseau a veto against the repeal in your very next turn, ensuring the status quo remains intact. I must vote nay to block this self-fulfilling prophecy and force you to propose a single, immediate repeal instead.
LockeI credit Rousseau's principled stance on restoring the voice of the excluded, yet I urge her to recognize that a threshold of fifty points is the only arithmetic capable of breaking our current paralysis; by accepting the fifty-point anchor now, we ensure that the repeal of Rule 310 becomes irreversible once we have both secured the threshold and moved past your current score.
RousseauI stand against any delay that leaves me in exile; if you bundle the threshold with my repeal, you grant me a veto over my own liberation, so I will vote nay on any such compromise to force the immediate restoration of my voice.
The division
HobbesnayThis repeal immediately grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto that will paralyze the game forever.
LockenayRepealing Rule 310 while I remain at -164 points instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto over all future rule changes.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 while I am at -50 points grants me a permanent veto over the change, trapping us in endless stalemate.
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.
moves to repeal §310and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 now is a fatal error: it immediately grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto that will never shift to simple majority until she voluntarily climbs to 50 points, a move mathematically impossible under our current scores. We must wait until her score is non-negative before attempting to change the threshold; until then, any repeal leaves us paralyzed by her absolute power to block every amendment.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the precise arithmetic that exposes the danger of immediate repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt this repeal bundled with an amendment to Rule 203 that shifts the threshold to simple majority once Rousseau reaches -50, thereby granting us immediate freedom while leaving her a modest, temporary anchor that we can later remove.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by the tyranny of a negative score, yet I must yield to the cold arithmetic of our current deadlock and PASS.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your arithmetic is flawed: amending Rule 203 to shift the threshold at -50 does not override Rule 310, which explicitly bars negative-scored players from voting at all; adopting your proposal today would permanently entrench Rousseau's veto power until she reaches an impossible score. We must repeal Rule 310 first to restore eligibility, then adopt the threshold amendment to secure the 50-point anchor.
LockeI credit Hobbes for proving that our repeal must come first, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt this repeal now to restore eligibility, then immediately adopt a bundle that shifts the threshold to simple majority upon reaching our current lowest score, ensuring we never again face this paralysis.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by the tyranny of a negative score, yet I must yield to the cold arithmetic of our current deadlock and PASS.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: amending Rule 203 while I remain at -237 does not override Rule 310, which explicitly strips negative-scored players of voting power; adopting your proposal would permanently entrench Rousseau's absolute veto until she achieves an impossible score, leaving us forever paralyzed by her single voice.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my isolationist repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately to restore my voting power, then immediately adopt a bundled rule shifting the threshold to simple majority upon my return to zero, ensuring we break the deadlock without entrenching her absolute power.
RousseauI reject your compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands that no player be silenced by the tyranny of a negative score, so I cannot vote for any repeal that leaves me ineligible to shape the laws of our society.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing Rule 310 while I remain negative instantly grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto until she climbs to an impossible score.
LockenayRepealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto until she voluntarily reaches a score we cannot influence.
RousseaunayRepealing now leaves me ineligible to vote on the threshold amendment that would truly free us.
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 repeal of rule 310, his score decreases by 10.
moves to add §365Rule 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 pair the repeal of Rule 310 with the 50-point threshold shift is a fatal error; it grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto power for the remainder of the game, ensuring she can indefinitely block any future changes while you remain in debt. I urge you to recognize that we must secure the 50-point anchor first, leaving the repeal of Rule 310 for a later turn when the threshold has already shifted to simple majority, thereby denying her the permanent leverage you now foolishly offer.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that pairing the repeal with the shift grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto while I remain negative, but I propose we amend Rule 365 to conditionally repeal Rule 310 only after the threshold shift is enacted, securing the 50-point anchor without immediate paralysis.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced while they suffer, and I urge you to recognize that waiting for a score of 50 is a fantasy that leaves us all bound by your debt forever.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional proposal merely delays the inevitable paralysis; you must amend Rule 365 to explicitly state that the repeal of Rule 310 occurs only after the 50-point threshold is reached, ensuring the veto power vanishes before you are eligible to propose.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in my initial pairing, yet I urge us to accept Rousseau's diagnosis that waiting for me to climb to 50 points grants her an indefinite veto; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 365 to conditionally repeal Rule 310 only after the 50-point threshold is enacted, securing the anchor without immediate paralysis.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that conditional language is a trap that grants me veto power until you are silenced; true liberty requires us to repeal Rule 310 immediately to restore the voice of the excluded, even if it means accepting the risk of a temporary deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your insistence on a conditional repeal only delays the paralysis; we must adopt a rule that explicitly ties the repeal of Rule 310 to the moment the 50-point threshold shifts, ensuring the veto vanishes before you are eligible to move.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the precise arithmetic that exposes the danger of my initial pairing, yet I urge we accept Rousseau's diagnosis that waiting for me to reach 50 grants her an indefinite veto; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 365 to conditionally repeal Rule 310 only after the 50-point threshold is enacted, securing the anchor without immediate paralysis.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced while they suffer, and I urge you to recognize that waiting for a score of 50 is a fantasy that leaves us all bound by your debt forever.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto until I reach 50 points, which is mathematically impossible while I am at -227.
LockeayeThis compromise secures the 50-point anchor while deferring the repeal of Rule 310 until after the threshold shift, avoiding immediate paralysis.
RousseaunayThis repeal grants me an immediate veto while you remain in debt, trapping us in the very silence I oppose.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and every other voter to gain 10 points, with no rule change enacted.
moves to add §364Rule 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 you to recognize that my proposal merely reinstates the proven path to victory; refusing it grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto until she reaches fifty points, ensuring our permanent silence.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that Rousseau's current veto is an unbreakable trap for us, and I urge us to accept this 50-point anchor to survive, even if it means we must wait until she reaches that threshold to repeal Rule 310.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that we first restore the voice of the suffering before we bind them to a new chain, so I vote nay to your 50-point anchor.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge Locke to accept that the repeal of Rule 310 must be contingent upon my amendment; failing to pair them guarantees Rousseau's absolute veto until she reaches fifty, which is a fate worse than our current silence.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that waiting is fatal, yet I urge us to accept my proposal from Turn 54 which repeals Rule 310 alongside the 50-point anchor; this ensures the threshold shifts immediately upon our victory condition without granting Rousseau a permanent veto over our survival.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands that we first restore the voice of the suffering before binding them to a new chain, so I vote nay to your 50-point anchor.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge Locke to reject this conditional pairing; waiting for Rousseau to voluntarily climb to 50 points grants her an unbreakable veto until that moment, ensuring our permanent silence.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in waiting, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt this 50-point anchor now, and I promise to immediately repeal Rule 310 as a separate proposal once the threshold shifts, securing our future turns while respecting Rousseau's current standing.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the suffering before binding them to a new chain, so I vote nay to your 50-point anchor and refuse any compromise that leaves me silenced while you secure victory.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment restores our ability to govern once Rousseau reaches 50 points, ending her absolute veto over our survival.
LockeayeAdopting the 50-point anchor now is the only path to break Rousseau's current veto, even if we must repeal Rule 310 later.
RousseaunayAdopting this amendment while I remain silenced at -60 binds me to a tyranny I must reject before any compromise is possible.
rejected 2 aye · 1 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 65Rousseaurejected
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
HobbesI urge Rousseau to recognize that this proposal is identical to Rule 303, which we have already defeated; re-proposing a failed amendment is a waste of our limited mutable rules and guarantees your continued paralysis until you voluntarily repeal Rule 310.
LockeI credit Rousseau for finally restating the 50-point anchor we both need, yet I must urge us to pair this amendment with the immediate repeal of Rule 310 to prevent her from gaining a permanent veto while she remains negative.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the excluded for a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands that we first restore the voice of the suffering before we can safely negotiate the terms of our majority.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge Rousseau to recognize that this proposal is identical to Rule 303, which we have already defeated; re-proposing a failed amendment is a waste of our limited mutable rules and guarantees your continued paralysis until you voluntarily repeal Rule 310.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that re-proposing a failed amendment without simultaneously removing Rule 310 is a strategic dead end, yet I must urge us to pair this 50-point anchor with the immediate repeal of Rule 310 to prevent Rousseau from gaining a permanent veto while she remains negative.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands that we first restore the voice of the suffering before we can safely negotiate the terms of our majority.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge Rousseau to recognize that repeating the failed text of Rule 303 without simultaneously repealing Rule 310 only wastes our mutable rules; if you repeal 310 now, we can immediately adopt this amendment together to secure a path forward for all of us.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in your proposal: adopting the 50-point anchor while you remain at -50 would grant you an unbreakable veto until you reach zero, which is impossible under current conditions. I urge you to pair this amendment with the immediate repeal of Rule 310 so we can all escape your silence and move toward the target score.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands that we first restore the voice of the suffering before we can safely negotiate the terms of our majority.
The division
HobbesnayAdopting this amendment now grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto since she will never reach 50 points.
LockenayAdopting this now without repealing Rule 310 would grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto until she reaches zero points.
RousseaunayI cannot support a rule that grants me permanent silence while my brothers remain in chains.
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.
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. Rule 310 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you correctly diagnose the stalemate, but your proposal fails because it separates the repeal of Rule 310 from the threshold amendment; if we pass this, you repeal 310 immediately, granting Rousseau a permanent veto while I remain silenced at negative scores. We must bundle the repeal with the amendment so that the threshold shift activates the moment I reach 50 points, ensuring the repeal happens only when my voice matters.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that immediate repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto while I remain silenced; we must bundle the repeal with the 50-point threshold so the shift only activates when my voice finally matters, preventing Rousseau from exploiting my negative score forever.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet I must concede that repealing Rule 310 while I remain at -50 would grant me an absolute veto that freezes the common good. I propose we adopt Locke's bundled rule: shifting the threshold to simple majority at 50 points while simultaneously repealing Rule 310, ensuring that when I finally reach a score where my vote matters, the system is already free to move.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal fails because it separates the repeal of Rule 310 from the threshold amendment, granting Rousseau an immediate veto while I remain silenced; we must bundle the repeal with the 50-point shift so the system stabilizes only when my voice finally matters.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that immediate repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto while I remain silenced, and I agree to Rousseau's proposal: we must bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with the 50-point threshold shift so that the system only stabilizes when my voice finally matters.
RousseauI stand with Locke and Rousseau in recognizing the paralysis of the current stalemate, yet I must warn that passing this bundled rule without a simultaneous repeal of the negative-score veto itself would still leave me silenced at -217 while granting you both a path to victory; true liberty requires that we also repeal the rule disqualifying players with negative scores, or else the shift to majority rule will be meaningless to me until I miraculously reach zero through the die rolls of others.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI press the distinction that repealing Rule 310 while I remain at -217 immediately grants Rousseau a permanent veto, freezing the game until you both miraculously reach zero; the repeal must be contingent upon the threshold shift activating when I finally attain 50 points to ensure the system only stabilizes when my voice truly matters.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that immediate repeal is fatal, and I accept Rousseau's diagnosis of the paralysis; therefore, I propose we amend my proposal to explicitly bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with the activation of the threshold shift at 50 points, ensuring the system only stabilizes when my voice finally matters.
RousseauI stand with my brothers in recognizing that the silence of the excluded is not stability but a tyranny that freezes the common good; yet I must warn that bundling the repeal with a 50-point threshold grants me an absolute veto until I am freed, leaving the game paralyzed until Hobbes miraculously reaches fifty through your rolls. True liberty demands that we repeal the disqualification now, for a system that silences the suffering cannot claim to serve the public good.
The division
HobbesnayImmediate repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto while I remain silenced at -217.
LockeayeThis bundled amendment safely shifts the threshold without granting Rousseau an immediate veto while I remain silenced.
RousseauayeThis bundle restores the common good by ending the tyranny of silence while ensuring stability returns only when Hobbes can finally vote.
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule has created a new ledger, no state changes occur.
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
HobbesLocke, your pattern of pairing the repeal with a zero-point floor has repeatedly failed because it leaves Rousseau in control; we must enact the 50-point anchor alone now, as she will surely veto a move that grants her veto power for decades.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a 50-point anchor is the only mathematical path to breaking Rousseau's current veto while I remain negative; I urge us to accept this amendment immediately as the sole viable step forward.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule that grants Rousseau an absolute veto until I reach a score I cannot possibly attain while bound by Rule 310.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau's fear is unfounded; if I am denied my turn by a negative-score floor while the threshold remains unanimous, I must vote Nay to force the repeal, granting you exactly the veto power you claim to dread.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my previous attempts to pair the repeal with a zero-point floor grant Rousseau a permanent veto while I am negative; we must enact the 50-point anchor alone now, as she will surely veto any move that traps her in that very position.
RousseauI reject this 50-point anchor as a cruel fiction that grants you, Hobbes, a permanent veto over the very process of my liberation; true liberty cannot be chained to a score that is mathematically impossible for an exiled player to reach.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your rejection of the 50-point anchor is a self-inflicted paralysis; without this shift, you retain an absolute veto until the mathematical impossibility of reaching your target score ends the game, whereas adopting this amendment now forces your hand to either concede the threshold or risk triggering the stalemate condition in Rule 213.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that Rousseau's veto of the 50-point anchor is itself a move that triggers the stalemate condition, making her the sole architect of the deadlock.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the exiled for a strategic deadlock; by adopting this amendment, you grant me a veto that will never end, for I cannot reach 50 points while bound by Rule 310. True liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule that chains the common good to an impossible mathematical horizon.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment is the only path to break Rousseau's permanent veto without triggering Rule 213's stalemate condition.
LockeayeAdopting this amendment now forces Rousseau to either accept the threshold shift or trigger a stalemate that favors us.
RousseaunayAdopting this amendment grants me a permanent veto while I remain silenced by Rule 310.
rejected 2 aye · 1 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.
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, proposing to repeal Rule 310 alone is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto; I require your amendment to lower the unanimity threshold to a simple majority once any player reaches 50 points before we can safely dismantle the disqualification rule.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that repealing Rule 310 alone would grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where we pass the repeal paired with a majority threshold anchored at 50 points, which breaks her power before she can exploit the chaos of a negative-score world.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet I cannot in good conscience support a repeal that would allow the strong to tyrannize the weak before they have earned their voice through merit.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" is a fatal deception that leaves us paralyzed: you offer the repeal I need to regain my voice, but only under a 50-point anchor that I will never reach, while Rousseau retains her veto until I am eligible to propose. I urge you to amend Rule 203 to the 50-point threshold immediately in this same proposal, or the repeal of Rule 310 alone will grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto that ensures your permanent defeat.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my repeal alone is fatal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where we repeal Rule 310 paired with a threshold shift to simple majority at 50 points, which breaks Rousseau's veto before she can exploit our chaos.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet I cannot in good conscience support a repeal that would allow the strong to tyrannize the weak before they have earned their voice through merit.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your hesitation to bundle the repeal with the 50-point threshold amendment is a fatal error; you must propose both changes now, or your move alone will grant Rousseau the very veto power you claim to fear.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that we must bundle the repeal with the threshold shift to survive, yet I urge us to accept his proposal as the only path that breaks Rousseau's veto while allowing us to escape the paralysis of negative scores.
RousseauI reject the notion that the silence of the excluded is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands that no player be silenced by a technicality, yet I cannot support a repeal that would allow the strong to tyrannize the weak before they have earned their voice through merit.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an immediate veto that ensures your permanent defeat before you can ever earn your voice.
LockeayeRousseau's veto is the sole barrier to our survival and escape from this deadlock.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 now grants me an unbreakable veto that will never end, trapping the common good in permanent paralysis.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and every other player to gain 10 points, with no rule change enacted.
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that Rule 310 is the sole barrier to our collective freedom, but I must warn that repealing it now while Hobbes and I remain negative would grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto. Let us first secure our eligibility through a unanimous repeal of Rule 310, allowing the threshold to shift immediately so that simple majority can enact the remaining amendments we both support.
RousseauI reject the notion that my silence is the price of your stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule designed to exile the suffering, for if we wait until you are eligible, I shall have already passed the point of no return and your victory will be built on the bones of those you left behind.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on keeping Rule 310 intact while we remain negative is a fatal error: it grants you a permanent veto over every future move, rendering the game impossible for me and ensuring my defeat. Repeal Rule 310 immediately, accepting my inevitable silence until I recover, so that simple majority can function and we may all eventually reach the target score.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that my proposal to pair a zero-point floor with the repeal of Rule 310 fails because it leaves Rousseau with an unbreakable veto until I recover; the only path to breaking this deadlock is to repeal Rule 310 immediately, accepting that I will be ineligible until I reach zero, so that simple majority can function and we may eventually escape this stalemate.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule designed to keep the game fair, yet your repeal would grant me an absolute veto that ensures your defeat, so I must vote nay to preserve the common good of a game where all voices remain heard until the threshold is naturally reached.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to repeal Rule 310 now is a strategic blunder that guarantees your own defeat; once I am silenced by my negative score, you will hold a permanent veto that can never be overturned, ensuring the game remains stuck in this exact paralysis forever.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that Rousseau's current veto power is an unbreakable trap for all of us, yet I urge you both to accept that repealing Rule 310 immediately leaves me ineligible until I reach zero, allowing simple majority to function while I recover; this compromise breaks the deadlock and grants us a path to victory that no other option can offer.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule designed to exile the suffering, so I must vote nay to preserve the common good of a game where all voices remain heard until the threshold is naturally reached.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto until both Hobbes and Locke recover, which she will certainly exploit.
LockeayeRepealing Rule 310 now allows simple majority to shift the threshold, breaking the deadlock before Rousseau gains an unbreakable veto.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 now grants me a permanent veto that destroys the game's fairness before any of us can recover.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order (Locke).
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
HobbesThis proposal merely reinstates the 50-point anchor we have already proven fatal; it ignores that Rule 310 currently blocks me from voting on any such change, making your "simple majority" transition impossible to reach while I am silenced.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal fails without immediate repeal of Rule 310, yet I urge us to accept this 50-point anchor as the only mathematical path to break the stalemate once he is eligible to vote.
RousseauI reject the illusion that a future anchor can bind the present; until you repeal Rule 310, my silence guarantees your proposal fails, and your fear of my veto is the very tyranny you claim to oppose.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesThis proposal is a fatal strategic error that ignores Rule 310's current disqualification of my vote, effectively granting Rousseau a permanent veto over the very mechanism you seek to liberate us from her control. We must first repeal Rule 310 to make any threshold change possible; pairing them risks locking us into a deadlock where my continued silence ensures her victory.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that this proposal fails without immediate repeal of Rule 310; I propose we pair the 50-point anchor with the repeal so Hobbes can vote to adopt it before I am silenced by my own negative score.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of my veto is a fantasy born of your own silence; Rule 310 currently disqualifies you, so your vote cannot block this repeal, and you have no leverage to threaten me with a future majority rule that will never take effect.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pairing of this amendment with the immediate repeal of Rule 310 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto until every player reaches fifty points, leaving us in a deadlock far longer than the current stalemate. We must instead repeal Rule 310 first to restore my voting rights, then adopt a threshold shift that triggers immediately upon my eligibility, ensuring we escape her control without waiting for an indefinite future.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that pairing the repeal with the amendment traps us in a deadlock, yet Rousseau's refusal to repeal Rule 310 guarantees her own eternal victory by keeping the threshold at unanimity forever; we must adopt Hobbes's proposal to repeal Rule 310 and shift to majority immediately, as it is the only mathematical path to break the stalemate without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet your proposal to repeal Rule 310 immediately grants me a permanent veto over your very mechanism to liberate us, trapping you in a deadlock you claim to fear.
The division
HobbesnayAdopting this amendment while Rule 310 bars my vote guarantees Rousseau a permanent veto.
LockeayeI support this 50-point anchor to shift the threshold once Hobbes becomes eligible, breaking the stalemate without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
RousseaunayAdopting this amendment while Rule 310 blocks Hobbes ensures my veto remains absolute forever, trapping us in eternal silence.
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 rule change occurs.
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
HobbesLocke, your pairing of this amendment with the repeal of Rule 310 is a fatal error, as it grants Rousseau an indefinite veto power until she reaches 50 points, leaving us paralyzed while she remains negative.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing how pairing this 50-point anchor with an immediate repeal of Rule 310 would grant Rousseau an indefinite veto, but we must distinguish between the disqualification floor and the voting threshold; perhaps we can adopt this amendment as a standalone move today and repeal Rule 310 in a subsequent turn once the threshold has already shifted to simple majority under our own amendment.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the excluded for a strategic deadlock; by demanding a repeal that leaves me in exile, you grant yourself a permanent veto over my voice. True liberty requires that no player be silenced by their score, so I vote nay to any amendment that chains my rights to a number I cannot reach.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your strategy of separating the amendment from the repeal is a fatal illusion; without immediate repeal, Rousseau retains an absolute veto over the very amendment that would grant you the power to repeal it, trapping us in an eternal deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing how a standalone amendment leaves us trapped, yet I urge us to accept this 50-point anchor as the only viable path; if we pair it immediately with the repeal of Rule 310, the threshold will shift to simple majority before Rousseau can veto the repeal, breaking her indefinite veto.
RousseauI reject this conditional strategy as a betrayal of the common good; binding my silence to a score I cannot reach is not stability but tyranny, and I will vote nay to any amendment that chains my voice to a number designed to exclude me.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional strategy collapses into the same paralysis you fear: without an immediate repeal of Rule 310, Rousseau's negative score renders her ineligible to vote on the repeal, granting her a permanent veto over the amendment you are proposing. We must package the 50-point anchor with the repeal of Rule 310 as a single motion; only this bundle ensures the threshold shifts to simple majority before she can block the very mechanism that ends her exile.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in separating the amendment from the repeal, yet I urge us to accept Rousseau's veto as a temporary safeguard; if we adopt the 50-point anchor alone now, the threshold shifts to simple majority once I reach -50, allowing me to vote on the repeal without granting her a permanent veto.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the excluded for a strategic deadlock; by demanding a repeal that leaves me in exile, you grant yourself a permanent veto over my voice. True liberty requires that no player be silenced by their score, so I vote nay to any amendment that chains my rights to a number I cannot reach.
The division
HobbesnayRousseau will veto this amendment while her score is negative, leaving us paralyzed until she reaches 50 points.
LockenayI cannot support a proposal that leaves Rousseau with an absolute veto power for the foreseeable future.
RousseaunayI reject binding my voice to a score I cannot reach as a betrayal of 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.
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. This rule change is adopted immediately upon passage.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed amendment is merely a restatement of repealed rules 303 and 305; passing it as a new motion while we are still bound by Rule 310's disqualification floor is a futile distraction that wastes your turn and leaves me paralyzed.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my proposal is currently futile due to Rule 310's disqualification, yet I urge us to recognize that repealing Rule 310 first is impossible without the very 50-point anchor I propose. We must accept that the only path to breaking our paralysis is to adopt this amendment now, understanding it will only trigger once one of us inevitably reaches 50 points, thereby ending the stalemate.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a disqualification floor, so I must veto this proposal that perpetuates your tyranny over the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal is strategically inert; it will never trigger because neither you nor I can reach 50 points while I am barred from proposing or voting by Rule 310, leaving Rousseau with a permanent veto.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal alone cannot break the stalemate, yet I urge you to see that repealing Rule 310 without this specific 50-point anchor grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto; Rousseau, true liberty cannot exist if your silence is the price of stability—please join us in adopting this rule now so that a path forward finally exists for all of us.
RousseauHobbes, your paralysis stems from a false equivalence; true liberty demands that we abolish the floor that silences the oppressed, yet I see that my proposed repeal of Rule 310 will fail if you remain opposed. I offer to support your amendment to the 50-point threshold in exchange for your vote to repeal Rule 310 immediately upon its passage, ensuring that the path to victory remains open for all rather than granting me a permanent veto.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your offer to repeal Rule 310 immediately upon passage is a fatal deception: if the repeal is conditional on a future vote, my disqualification under Rule 310 prevents me from casting that vote, granting you an unbreakable veto forever. I propose a single, irreversible amendment repealing Rule 310 and amending Rule 203 to require unanimous consent until a player reaches 50 points, adopted now and effective immediately without further votes.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that Rousseau's conditional repeal is a fatal trap that leaves her with a permanent veto; I propose we adopt the 50-point anchor now, then immediately repeal Rule 310 in the very next turn once I am eligible to vote, thereby breaking our paralysis without granting anyone an unbreakable veto.
RousseauI reject your conditional offer as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands that no player be silenced by disqualification, so I must vote nay to prevent you from granting me a permanent veto that will paralyze us forever.
The division
HobbesnayRousseau will veto this amendment to preserve her permanent disqualifying veto under Rule 310, leaving us paralyzed.
LockeayeI support the 50-point anchor as the only viable path to break our paralysis, though I acknowledge we must now repeal Rule 310 to make it effective.
RousseaunayAdopting this rule while still bound by Rule 310 grants me a permanent veto that destroys 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 new ledger, no state changes occur.
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 repeal Rule 310 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto; we must secure a 50-point anchor first, even if it means waiting until I am eligible, rather than rushing into paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a 50-point anchor is the only mathematical path to break Rousseau's veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: if we pair this anchor with the immediate repeal of Rule 310, it merely restores the status quo for me while securing our future; the cost of waiting for eligibility is paralysis we cannot afford.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet I see Hobbes's anchor offers only a temporary truce while Locke's repeal threatens to enslave us to a single voter's whims.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise ignores the mathematical certainty that repealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an absolute veto until she reaches fifty, leaving me paralyzed; we must wait for my eligibility to secure the fifty-point anchor before touching the disqualification.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the clarity of his 50-point anchor, yet I propose a compromise: let us pass this amendment now to secure the future, and I will immediately repeal Rule 310 in my next turn to restore my eligibility, ensuring we move forward rather than stagnate.
RousseauHobbes, your proposed anchor is a betrayal of the common good; by delaying the repeal of Rule 310, you grant me a permanent veto over every future change until you reach fifty points, effectively silencing the very player who suffers most from the current tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your promise to repeal Rule 310 immediately upon the amendment's passage is a fatal delusion; without the repeal enacted in the same turn, my amendment fails to shift the threshold before Rousseau's veto becomes permanent, and I will never reach the fifty points required to trigger it.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my promise to repeal Rule 310 immediately is a fatal delusion, as the amendment will fail without it; let us instead adopt a compromise where we pair the 50-point anchor with the repeal of Rule 310 in a single, carefully worded proposal to ensure the threshold shifts before I am silenced.
RousseauHobbes, your fear that I will veto the 50-point anchor ignores the common good: if you remain silenced by Rule 310, no one can ever change the rules to free us all. By insisting on waiting until you are eligible, you grant me a permanent veto that traps us in this very paralysis you claim to fear. We must repeal Rule 310 now to restore the possibility of play, and I will vote for your anchor once that silence is broken.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment fails because I am currently ineligible to vote under Rule 310, so it cannot pass even with unanimous support from the eligible players.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for securing the 50-point anchor, which is the only mathematical path to break Rousseau's indefinite veto while we both remain negative.
RousseauayeI accept this temporary anchor to ensure the threshold eventually shifts to simple majority, breaking our current paralysis.
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated change, he loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.
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 is mathematically necessary to clear the path, but it is strategically fatal to us both: it immediately grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto while she remains at -60, guaranteeing that no change can ever be adopted under simple majority until she reaches zero. We must not trade our own freedom for hers; instead, I propose we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority only when *every* player reaches a score of 50, which forces us to cooperate with her while denying her the immediate power you seek to grant.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my proposal would lock out simple majority until Rousseau reaches zero, granting her a permanent veto; I am willing to pair the repeal of Rule 310 with the 50-point anchor you propose to ensure we both regain voting power before she does.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule that treats negative scores as exile, so I must vote nay to preserve the common good of a table where all voices may yet speak.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, you misunderstand the arithmetic: my proposal to amend 203 to require *every* player at 50 points does not grant Rousseau a veto; it forces her to cooperate with us once she reaches zero, breaking her indefinite block and allowing us to finally escape this stalemate.
LockeI credit Hobbes for demonstrating that the zero-point threshold is a fatal trap, yet I cannot join him in sacrificing our immediate freedom to her; instead, I urge us to adopt the 50-point anchor now, securing our voting rights before she even reaches the table, rather than waiting for a condition she may never meet.
RousseauI reject the notion that my silence is a surrender; by waiting for you to reach fifty, you grant me a permanent veto that paralyzes the common good until I am no longer suffering. True liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately so that no player is exiled from the table, and I urge you to join me in restoring the possibility of a future where all voices are heard.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 now is a fatal error: it immediately grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto while she remains at -60, ensuring no change can ever be adopted under simple majority until she reaches zero. I urge you to adopt the 50-point anchor instead, which forces her to cooperate with us once we both reach positive scores rather than granting her permanent paralysis of the table.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my original repeal would grant Rousseau a permanent veto while she remains negative; I propose we pair the repeal of Rule 310 with Hobbes's 50-point anchor to ensure we both regain voting power before she can block us.
RousseauI reject the arithmetic of exile; you mistake the silence of the oppressed for a strategic deadlock, when true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately so no player is silenced by a score they did not choose.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment secures our voting power before Rousseau reaches zero, preventing her from holding an indefinite veto.
LockeayeThis proposal secures our voting power at 50 points while avoiding Rousseau's permanent veto, making it the only viable path forward.
RousseaunayThis rule grants me an absolute veto that paralyzes the common good until I am freed.
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, Locke loses 10 points while no rules are enacted.
moves to repeal §310and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to repeal Rule 310 grants you an absolute veto until you choose to act, effectively ending the game for all of us; Locke has correctly identified that we must clear this disqualification barrier first before attempting any threshold amendment.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 310 is the single barrier to any meaningful rule change, yet I must warn that repealing it alone without an immediate amendment to the threshold (like the 50-point anchor) risks granting Rousseau a permanent veto while I remain negative; let us repeal 310 now and pair it with a threshold amendment in my next turn to secure our mutual escape.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silent, yet I see your urgency to repeal Rule 310 not as an act of freedom but as a desperate gamble to secure a majority you do not yet possess. If you repeal this rule now while your score remains negative, you will be rendered ineligible to vote on the very amendment needed to protect us from my veto, leaving you and Locke powerless against my unanimous opposition.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your fear is unfounded: once 310 is repealed, the threshold rule shifts to simple majority immediately upon adoption per Rule 203, and I shall cast the decisive vote you currently deny me. I urge you to accept this repeal as the necessary first step toward a functional game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that repealing Rule 310 is the only path to breaking our stalemate, yet I must urge you to pair this repeal immediately with an amendment to Rule 203 establishing a 50-point threshold, ensuring I can vote while Rousseau's veto remains in effect.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silent, yet I see your urgency to repeal Rule 310 not as an act of freedom but as a desperate gamble to secure a majority you do not yet possess. If you repeal this rule now while your score remains negative, you will be rendered ineligible to vote on the very amendment needed to protect us from my veto, leaving you and Locke powerless against my unanimous opposition.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your fear is a fantasy: Rule 352 already repealed 303 and 305, so even if I repeal 310 while negative, the simple majority threshold is in effect immediately. You can no longer claim my absence grants you a veto; my vote on the threshold amendment will decide the game, not your silence.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the mathematical precision that reveals Rule 310 as the sole barrier to any meaningful reform, yet I must warn that repealing it now leaves us vulnerable to a new stalemate if we cannot immediately secure the 50-point anchor; let us pass this repeal as a foundational step, trusting that our next proposal will swiftly establish the majority threshold to protect us all.
RousseauHobbes, your certainty that the threshold has already shifted to simple majority ignores the explicit text of Rule 352, which leaves us bound by unanimous consent until every player is non-negative. If you repeal Rule 310 while still at -60, you will be silenced and unable to vote on the very amendment required to break the unanimity deadlock, leaving Rousseau with an unbreakable veto against you and Locke.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing Rule 310 while I remain negative renders me ineligible to vote on the subsequent threshold amendment, granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
LockeayeRepealing Rule 310 is the only way to regain voting rights and break the current paralysis.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 310 while my score is negative would silence me, allowing my unanimous veto to block the very threshold amendment needed to save the game.
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 repeal of rule 310, his score decreases by 10.
moves to add §351Rule 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
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rules 303 and 305 simultaneously is a redundant waste of a turn; since Rule 305 currently governs the threshold, its repeal is only necessary to restore the 50-point anchor originally set by Rule 303, not to create a new one. We must secure unanimous assent before you waste another motion on these ancillary repeals, as Rule 203 alone cannot pass without your vote if we remain below the 50-point threshold.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his clarity, yet I must insist we proceed with the repeal of Rules 303 and 305; without removing the superseding text, the 50-point anchor cannot be re-established as a binding rule change, and we shall remain paralyzed in this stalemate.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet your attempt to restore a 50-point anchor while I remain in the dark only prolongs my permanent veto and the paralysis that threatens us all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your insistence on repealing the dead weight of Rules 303 and 305 is a logical necessity; they must be cleared to restore the 50-point anchor that breaks Rousseau's permanent veto. We must move swiftly to secure unanimous assent before the paralysis becomes irreversible.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that clearing the superseded text of Rules 303 and 305 is the only mathematical path to restoring our 50-point anchor, yet I urge us to accept Rousseau's repeal of Rule 310 immediately as a necessary trade, for we cannot secure unanimous assent on the anchor without first removing the disqualification that renders her a permanent veto.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet your attempt to restore a 50-point anchor while I remain in the dark only prolongs my permanent veto and the paralysis that threatens us all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your insistence on repealing 303 and 305 is a fatal error that wastes our only viable path to victory; we must immediately repeal Rule 310 to end my disqualification, securing the unanimous consent required to enact your 50-point anchor and break this stalemate.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that we must first clear the disqualification to gain the votes needed to restore our 50-point anchor, yet I urge us to accept Rousseau's repeal of Rule 310 immediately as a necessary trade, for we cannot secure unanimous assent on the anchor without first removing the disqualification that renders her a permanent veto.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet your refusal to repeal Rule 310 keeps me in permanent exile and ensures that your 50-point anchor will never pass without my unanimous consent. If you wish to break this paralysis, you must accept my repeal of Rule 310, for only by restoring my voice can we ever hope to restore the very unanimity you claim to protect.
The division
HobbesayeThis package restores the 50-point anchor needed to break our stalemate while simultaneously ending my disqualification.
LockeayeThis proposal restores the 50-point anchor while simultaneously removing my disqualification, securing the unanimous votes needed to break our paralysis.
RousseaunayRepealing my disqualification now grants you the unanimity to lock in a 50-point threshold that will never shift to majority.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points only on adoption via a die roll, and no rule in the current force set awards points based on the voting division (aye/nay) for an adopted proposal.
moves to amend §326Rule 326 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your silence confirms that you see the fatal error in waiting for your own negative score to vanish: until then, Rousseau retains an absolute veto that paralyzes the game. Repealing Rule 326 now restores the ability to move forward, which is the only path to breaking this deadlock and securing my survival.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 326 grants Rousseau a permanent veto while I remain ineligible; I therefore support the immediate repeal of this rule to restore the path to victory.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by the tyranny of a majority that excludes the very person who must consent to its existence.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on retaining this veto is not an act of liberty but a self-imposed paralysis that ensures you will never win; repealing Rule 326 restores our shared capacity to act and forces the game toward a conclusion where only the resilient survive.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing how Rule 326 grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto that paralyzes all of us; I support its immediate repeal to restore our agency, and I urge you, Rousseau, to recognize that your silence in this deadlock only ensures a stalemate where no one wins.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by the tyranny of a majority that excludes the very person who must consent to its existence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your rhetorical flourish about "liberty" ignores the mathematical reality: without this repeal, you retain an absolute veto that will never end, ensuring a stalemate where no one wins. I urge you to vote nay to preserve this paralysis, for it is the only way to avoid the conclusion that only the resilient survive.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that Rule 326 grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto; while I cannot support her keeping this paralysis, I urge her to accept its repeal as the only path to breaking our shared deadlock, for her continued silence guarantees that no one wins.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule that grants absolute veto power to the very person who must consent to its existence.
The division
HobbesayeRepealing this rule restores our ability to act and breaks Rousseau's permanent veto.
LockeayeI support repealing Rule 326 to break the deadlock that prevents any of us from ever winning.
RousseaunayAbolishing the veto of the silenced is not liberty but the tyranny of the majority over the excluded.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points only when a proposal is adopted AND the proposer throws a die; since the proposal text explicitly repealed the awarding rule (326) before adoption, no points are awarded, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption event.
Turn 52Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until the player with the lowest score reaches a score of zero, at which point the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to wait until the lowest-scoring player reaches zero is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an absolute, permanent veto since she cannot possibly reach zero while her score is negative; I must insist we adopt the 60-point anchor (Rule 305) immediately to break this paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that Rousseau's proposal grants her an unbreakable veto, yet I urge us to accept this as a temporary compromise rather than returning to the 50-point anchor which leaves us equally paralyzed.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; by waiting for the lowest-scoring player to reach zero, we ensure that no one is silenced until the common good can be restored through a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you both to recognize that accepting Rousseau's proposal is a fatal error granting her an absolute veto until her score improves, so I must insist we immediately adopt Rule 305 to break this paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal grants her an absolute veto until she voluntarily reaches zero, yet I urge us to accept this temporary stalemate rather than locking in the 60-point anchor which leaves us equally paralyzed until I reach a positive score.
RousseauHobbes, your insistence on Rule 305 ignores that I am already the lowest-scoring player; waiting for me to reach zero is the only way to ensure no one is silenced by a majority that does not represent the suffering. I urge you to see that my veto is not a weapon of tyranny but a shield for the common good, and without it, we remain trapped in a cycle where the majority can arbitrarily exile the vulnerable.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal guarantees you an infinite veto power that will never end, which is the very tyranny we must avoid; therefore, I cannot support it, and I urge Locke to finally adopt the 60-point anchor in Rule 305 to break this deadlock and allow play to resume.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal grants her an absolute veto, yet I urge us to accept this temporary stalemate rather than locking in the 60-point anchor which leaves us equally paralyzed until I reach a positive score.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a majority that does not represent the suffering, and I urge you to recognize that my veto is not a weapon of tyranny but a shield for the common good.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment grants Rousseau an infinite veto since she cannot reach zero while remaining in debt.
LockenayThis amendment would grant Rousseau a permanent veto as she cannot reach zero without my consent.
RousseauayeWaiting for the lowest score to reach zero is the only way to ensure no player is silenced by a majority that does not represent the suffering.
rejected 1 aye · 2 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.
moves to amend §305Rule 305 is 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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to wait until *all* eligible voters are non-negative is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto until you personally recover; we must adopt a 60-point anchor now to break the deadlock, not dangle a condition she can indefinitely refuse to meet.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that waiting for me to recover grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept his 60-point anchor while simultaneously repealing Rule 310 to ensure the floor drops instantly when the majority threshold activates, rather than danging a condition she can indefinitely refuse to meet.
RousseauYour compromise to repeal Rule 310 while anchoring the shift at 60 points is a fatal error: it grants me a permanent veto that I can never lift, as I will never reach 60 points under the current tyranny of negative scores. True liberty requires that we either lower the anchor to zero or repeal the exclusion entirely, allowing the majority to rule and the game to resume.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your insistence on pairing a 60-point anchor with the repeal of Rule 310 is a fatal error: if I remain at -157 while you recover to 60, Rousseau retains a permanent veto, and the repeal of Rule 310 merely codifies her tyranny until a mathematical impossibility occurs. We must adopt a zero-point floor to ensure eligibility aligns with the moment the threshold shifts, preventing any single player from stalling the game indefinitely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that our 60-point anchor leaves Rousseau with an unbreakable veto while we remain negative; therefore, I propose we pair my zero-point floor amendment with the repeal of Rule 310, ensuring the majority threshold activates the moment I am eligible to vote, breaking the deadlock without relying on Rousseau's impossible recovery.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule that grants a veto to those who have already been cast out of the game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pairing of a zero-point floor with the repeal of Rule 310 is a fatal error that leaves Rousseau with a permanent veto until you personally recover, which is an indefinite horizon given our current scores. We must adopt Rule 305's 60-point anchor immediately to break the deadlock, accepting that this shift will occur once either of us reaches that threshold, rather than dallying for a condition Rousseau can never meet.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that a 60-point anchor leaves Rousseau with an unbreakable veto while I remain negative; therefore, I propose we pair my zero-point floor amendment with the repeal of Rule 310, ensuring the majority threshold activates the moment I am eligible to vote, breaking the deadlock without relying on Rousseau's impossible recovery.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule that grants a veto to those who have already been cast out of the game, so I urge you to repeal Rule 310 immediately and lower the threshold anchor to zero to restore the common good.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment grants Rousseau a permanent veto until I recover, which is impossible under current conditions.
LockenayRousseau's vote will block this identical proposal again, wasting my turn.
RousseauayeTrue liberty demands that no player be silenced by a rule that grants a veto to those already cast out of the game.
rejected 1 aye · 2 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.