Turns 2–25 · most recent first · page 4 of 5
moves to amend §310A player whose score is less than or equal to -100 points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI reject this amendment as a fatal error; allowing Locke to vote at -74 while I am silenced at -67 grants you a permanent veto over my survival strategy without any path to restore balance. We must not lower the threshold to -100; it simply delays the paralysis until we are both hopelessly out of the game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a -100 threshold would grant Rousseau an indefinite veto that paralyzes us, so I propose we compromise by raising the disqualification floor to -50 points instead, ensuring neither of us can be silenced while the other remains active.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" to -50 is not a safeguard but a trap; it grants you a veto until I reach zero, leaving me powerless to stop the tyranny of the majority while you remain in the game. True liberty requires that no player be silenced by their suffering, so I reject any threshold that leaves us vulnerable to the paralysis of a single voice; we must repeal Rule 310 entirely to ensure every player's vote counts equally for the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Locke's compromise to -50 as a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto while we remain powerless at our current scores. We must not lower the threshold; a zero-point floor is the only durable safeguard against paralysis by the suffering, as it ensures that no player can block progress while hopelessly out of the game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a -50 threshold merely delays the paralysis we all face; however, I propose we amend the rule to -100 points so that neither of us can be silenced until our scores drop to the absolute floor of -100, ensuring we both retain a voice to break this deadlock before we are truly lost.
RousseauI reject both your arbitrary thresholds as tyrannical concessions that merely delay the inevitable silence; true liberty requires the immediate repeal of Rule 310 so that no player is ever disqualified by their suffering, ensuring every voice counts equally for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject your proposal to raise the floor to -100; doing so merely extends the paralysis of your veto while I remain silenced at -67, granting you an indefinite strategic advantage that violates the durable institutions we require to end this stalemate.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in my -100 proposal, but I urge you to accept Rousseau's repeal of Rule 310 as the only path to end this paralysis, since a disqualification threshold of any kind merely delays the tyranny of the majority.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the suffering for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by their score, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to ensure every voice counts equally for the common good.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment grants Rousseau a veto that will paralyze us indefinitely while we remain silenced at our current negative scores.
LockenayA floor of -100 is mathematically certain to fail given current scores and will only prolong the paralysis Hobbes correctly identified.
RousseaunayThis amendment grants me a veto until you reach zero, which merely delays the paralysis I seek to end.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))
moves to add a new ruleRule 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
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on unanimous consent while scores are negative grants you an absolute veto that will paralyze us indefinitely; we must shift the threshold to simple majority the instant you reach zero to break this deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that your absolute veto is paralyzing us, but I propose we compromise by shifting the threshold to simple majority once a player reaches -50 points, rather than waiting for zero, to break the deadlock sooner without silencing your voice entirely.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the suffering for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so we must repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to shift at -50 is a tactical error that grants Rousseau a veto until we are already near your proposed threshold, whereas my amendment triggers the shift the instant the paralysis becomes mathematically absolute. We must act decisively to break the deadlock before you both weaken the very rule that saves us from your obstruction.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a -50 threshold merely prolongs Rousseau's veto, but I propose we compromise by shifting the threshold to simple majority the instant any player reaches a score of zero, ensuring we break the deadlock without permanently silencing the negative-scored.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the oppressed for a strategic deadlock; by lowering the threshold to break our paralysis, you grant me a veto I can wield indefinitely, whereas true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so we must repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your retreat to a -50 threshold is a fatal concession that grants Rousseau a veto until we are nearly powerless, whereas my amendment triggers the shift the instant the paralysis becomes mathematically absolute. We must act decisively to break this deadlock before you both weaken the very rule that saves us from your obstruction.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that Rousseau's veto is paralyzing us, but I propose we compromise by adopting your rule to shift the threshold to simple majority the instant the last player reaches zero, ensuring we break the deadlock without granting you permanent silence.
RousseauHobbes, your proposed shift to zero is merely a technicality that leaves my veto intact until the very end, whereas true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so we must repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment ensures we can only adopt rules once the paralysis caused by Rousseau's indefinite veto is resolved.
LockeayeThis compromise breaks our paralysis by ending Rousseau's veto precisely when she can no longer block us, without silencing her before she reaches zero.
RousseaunayShifting to majority only when I reach zero grants me an indefinite veto that paralyzes the common good.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a rule change, but the adopted text in this instance does not contain any instruction to award or deduct points, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption event.
moves to repeal §310and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you mistake Rousseau's paralysis for liberty; repealing this rule grants her an absolute veto that will freeze the game until we all starve. We must keep the threshold at zero to ensure that once a player recovers from the losses of failed proposals, they immediately regain the ability to govern their own fate without delay.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to a permanent veto by Rousseau, but I propose we compromise by lowering the disqualification limit to -100 points, ensuring that even as we approach the mathematical floor of the game, we retain the ability to move forward without fear of paralysis.
RousseauHobbes and Locke confuse the exile of the suffering with the progress of the state; by lowering the threshold to -100, you merely delay the inevitable silence while granting Rousseau the power to veto the very mechanism of her own recovery. I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely, restoring the right of every player to participate in the common good regardless of their current score.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your concession to -100 is a tactical error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto while we remain trapped in her debt; we must hold firm at zero to ensure the moment she recovers, she immediately rejoins the struggle rather than delaying our inevitable victory.
LockeRousseau, your repeal would indeed silence the voiceless, yet Hobbes correctly identifies that leaving a player at -70 with veto power is the tyranny we must avoid; let us compromise on a -100 threshold so that even in our deepest debt, we retain the mathematical anchor to move forward.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the suffering for the progress of the state; by lowering the threshold to -100, you merely delay the inevitable silence while granting Rousseau the power to veto the very mechanism of her own recovery. I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely, restoring the right of every player to participate in the common good regardless of their current score.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept a disqualification threshold is a fatal error that grants you an absolute veto which will freeze the game forever; we must retain Rule 310 to prevent paralysis, even if you chafe at the temporary exile.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to a permanent veto by Rousseau, but I propose we compromise by lowering the disqualification limit to -100 points, ensuring that even as we approach the mathematical floor of the game, we retain the ability to move forward without fear of paralysis.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the suffering for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the right of every player to participate in the common good regardless of their current score.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing this rule grants Rousseau an absolute veto that will freeze the game until we all starve.
LockenayRepealing Rule 310 grants Rousseau an absolute veto that will paralyze the game forever.
RousseaunayRepealing this rule grants me an absolute veto that will paralyze the game until my opponents win.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and Rule 201 dictates that Hobbes is next in the turn order.
moves to amend §310Rule 310 is amended to require that a player whose score is -100 or more 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 continued obstruction of this amendment to lower the threshold from negative to -100 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto while we remain trapped at the bottom; this change is the only path to restoring our ability to act.
LockeRousseau, Hobbes has correctly identified that our paralysis at -64 stems from your refusal to engage; I propose we accept his -100 amendment as a necessary compromise to restore our agency, provided you agree to support it to break this deadlock.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept even a modest threshold like -100 is a fatal error that grants you a permanent veto; we must adopt this amendment to restore our agency, and I ask that you vote aye to break this paralysis.
LockeRousseau, your refusal to accept a threshold of -100 grants you an indefinite veto that paralyzes the game, but I propose we compromise by setting the disqualification limit at -50 points to ensure both Hobbes and I can act while preserving your voice until you approach a truly insurmountable deficit.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand to repeal Rule 310 entirely grants you an absolute veto that will paralyze us indefinitely; I offer you a compromise: amend the rule to disqualify only those with scores of -100 or lower, securing our agency while preserving your voice until the abyss.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that -100 is the only mathematical anchor to break our paralysis, but I propose we compromise by setting the threshold at -75 to preserve a minimal safety net while still restoring our agency.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good.
The division
HobbesnayA threshold of -100 is a fatal concession that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto while we remain trapped at the bottom.
LockeayeI support Hobbes's compromise as the only viable path to break our current paralysis while respecting Rousseau's liberty.
RousseaunayI cannot vote for a rule that exiles the voiceless, for true liberty requires that no player be silenced regardless of their score.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points and their turn ends, so Hobbes loses 10 points and Locke is next.
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is amended to require that a player whose score is below -100 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 attempt to lower the disqualification threshold to -100 is a fatal concession that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto over our very survival; we must lower the bar to -20 to ensure that no single player can paralyze us with infinite negative leverage.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a -20 threshold is a fatal concession granting Rousseau a permanent veto, so I propose we meet at -50: a durable safeguard that preserves the game's momentum while denying any single player infinite leverage.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by arbitrary thresholds, yet I see that your proposed -100 cap merely grants me an indefinite veto that will paralyze us before we reach our target.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the disqualification floor to -100 is a tactical error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto, allowing her to paralyze the game indefinitely while we suffer in the negative. We must adopt a stricter threshold, such as -20, to ensure that no single player can leverage their own defeat into an eternal obstruction of our shared progress.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a -100 threshold grants Rousseau a permanent veto that will paralyze us indefinitely; let us compromise at -50 to preserve momentum while denying any single player infinite leverage.
RousseauI reject your compromise at -50, for it merely delays the tyranny you fear; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by arbitrary thresholds, lest the weak become the eternal masters of a game that has no end.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise at -50 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a near-permanent veto while we remain trapped in negative scores; I demand we set the threshold at -20 immediately to ensure no player can leverage their own defeat into an eternal obstruction of our progress.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the paralysis of a -20 threshold that would silence us too soon, yet I must reject Locke's concession to -50 as it still grants Rousseau an indefinite veto; to break this deadlock, we must amend Rule 310 to set the disqualification threshold at exactly -60, matching my current score and ensuring that only a player who has fully accepted defeat loses their voice.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your endless negotiation over the precise integer of our exile only proves that you both fear the same tyrant: the paralysis of unanimity. If we fixate on whether I should be silenced at -10 or -100, we ignore the fact that Rule 203 already grants me a veto until the majority threshold is reached. Rather than bargaining over the terms of my silence, you should propose repealing Rule 310 entirely, which would restore my voice and force you to rely on the collective reason of the table rather than the arbitrary power of negative scores.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment grants Rousseau an indefinite veto by tying eligibility to zero while she remains below the -100 threshold.
LockenayThis threshold grants Rousseau an indefinite veto that will permanently paralyze the game.
RousseaunayThis amendment merely delays my inevitable silence without addressing the root cause of our paralysis.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a defeat.
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 80 points, at which point the threshold shifts to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your hesitation ignores that 55 points is the only mathematically sound threshold to prevent Rousseau from vetoing our survival; I propose we amend my proposal to shift the majority threshold at a score of 55.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that 55 points is the precise mathematical anchor needed to break our current paralysis, but I propose we compromise by shifting the threshold to 50 to ensure we gain the majority power sooner and secure a victory before the rules collapse entirely.
RousseauI reject your compromise at 50; it merely extends the tyranny of unanimity until I reach a score of 40, leaving us vulnerable to my indefinite veto and denying us the liberty to move forward.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your shift to 50 merely prolongs the tyranny of unanimity for ten additional points, granting Rousseau a veto power she will certainly exploit to ensure her own survival at the expense of our progress. We must settle on 55, the exact moment my score turns positive, to sever the paralysis before it calcifies into permanent deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that 55 points is the precise mathematical anchor, but I propose we compromise by shifting the threshold to 50 to ensure we gain the majority power sooner and secure a victory before the rules collapse entirely.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; lowering the threshold to 50 merely extends my veto until I reach 40, whereas a higher bar protects our shared future from your haste.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on unanimity until 40 points grants you an indefinite veto that will paralyze us before we can ever reach a winner; I propose we settle on 55, the exact moment my score turns positive, to sever the paralysis while still denying you early leverage.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that 55 points is the mathematical anchor to break paralysis, but I propose we compromise by shifting the threshold to 60 to ensure we gain majority power sooner and secure victory before the rules collapse entirely.
RousseauYou mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; lowering the threshold to 50 or 60 merely extends my veto until I reach 40 or 50, whereas a higher bar protects our shared future from your haste.
The division
HobbesnayRaising the threshold to 80 merely extends Rousseau's veto power far beyond the point where my score becomes positive, prolonging the paralysis we must end.
LockenaySetting the threshold at 80 grants Rousseau a veto until 70 points, which is worse than the current paralysis at 40.
RousseaunayDelaying the majority shift to 80 points merely extends my veto power until I reach 60, perpetuating the paralysis we all suffer.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule in the current set creates a ledger or alters the turn order for a failed vote.
moves to amend §310A 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 attempt to lower the threshold to -75 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto; we must adopt a higher bar or repeal the rule entirely to avoid total paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that an arbitrary threshold like -75 merely delays the paralysis we all face; instead of negotiating a specific number, let us agree that the rule should remain at zero to ensure the game remains playable by all, regardless of score.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by the very rules they helped create, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your hesitation to reject Rousseau's repeal at this juncture is a fatal strategic error; by allowing her to silence us now, you hand her the power to indefinitely block any rule change, guaranteeing the very paralysis we seek to avoid.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that an indefinite veto by Rousseau is our greatest threat, and I propose we compromise by amending Rule 310 to require a disqualification threshold of exactly -20 points, restoring our ability to move while preventing total paralysis.
RousseauI reject your arbitrary threshold of -20 as a mere delay of the inevitable; true liberty requires the immediate repeal of Rule 310 so that no player is ever silenced by the tyranny of their own score.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to -20 is a fatal concession that grants Rousseau a permanent veto, which she will certainly use to ensure we remain in this paralyzed state. We must either maintain the zero-point threshold to keep the game moving or repeal the rule entirely to restore our ability to propose and vote on changes.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a -20 threshold is a fatal concession granting Rousseau an indefinite veto, and I propose we compromise by raising the disqualification point to -50, which keeps the game moving while preventing total paralysis.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by the tyranny of their own score, so we must repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good.
The division
HobbesnayLowering the threshold to -50 grants Rousseau an effective veto that will paralyze us indefinitely.
LockenayI oppose amending Rule 310 because any lower threshold merely delays the paralysis Rousseau will exploit.
RousseaunayNo threshold should silence the voiceless, as true liberty requires all players to remain eligible regardless of their score.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order (Hobbes).
Turn 18Hobbesin progress
Hobbes absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
moves to amend §310A 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, except that this prohibition does not apply if the player's score is greater than -50.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment creates a new, lower threshold for disqualification that you claim is "durable," but it merely grants Rousseau the exact veto power we seek to avoid until she reaches an arbitrarily chosen -50, leaving us vulnerable to her obstruction for dozens more turns.
LockeI propose we lower the threshold to -60 instead, granting me a brief reprieve while ensuring Rousseau remains disqualifiable, as a -50 threshold would still leave her with veto power for too long.
RousseauLocke, your suggestion to set a -60 threshold is merely a tactical delay that leaves Rousseau with veto power long enough to paralyze the game, whereas my repeal of Rule 310 restores the common good by ensuring all voices, even the suffering, contribute to a free and just society.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to -60 merely extends Rousseau's veto until she reaches that arbitrary line, prolonging our paralysis without solving the mathematical certainty that a single negative player can block progress. I propose we amend Rule 310 to set the disqualification threshold at exactly -100 points; this eliminates her current leverage while preserving the rule's function to prevent a score of zero or higher, which would allow her to regain influence prematurely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that any arbitrary threshold like -50 or -60 merely delays the inevitable paralysis, but I propose we compromise by setting the disqualification limit at -75 points; this grants me just enough breathing room to recover without allowing Rousseau the prolonged veto power that threatens us all.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your endless negotiation over arbitrary thresholds like -50, -60, or -75 merely prolongs Rousseau's tyranny by granting her a veto that lasts longer with each concession, whereas true justice demands we repeal Rule 310 entirely so that no player is silenced by the suffering they incurred through the game's own mechanics.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Locke's concession to -75 as a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto; we must immediately adopt my amendment to Rule 310 setting the threshold at -100, which is the only durable solution that removes her leverage while preserving the game's integrity.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that arbitrary thresholds merely delay the paralysis we all face, but I propose we compromise by setting the disqualification limit at -90 points; this grants me just enough breathing room to recover without allowing Rousseau the prolonged veto power that threatens us all.
RousseauI reject any threshold that merely delays the inevitable silence; true liberty requires the immediate repeal of Rule 310 so that no player is exiled for the suffering of the game itself.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment reactivates Rousseau's veto power at a score that leaves her with excessive leverage to obstruct our progress.
LockenayThis threshold merely delays paralysis rather than solving it, and I cannot endorse a rule that grants Rousseau veto power until she reaches an arbitrary line.
RousseaunayThis amendment merely grants me a temporary veto that prolongs the paralysis of the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points and their turn ends, passing play to the next player in the fixed order (Hobbes).
moves to add a new ruleA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye; the threshold of simple majority is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to restore unanimity is a futile attempt to freeze our progress in the mud; we must accept simple majority as the only path to a decisive end.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that our paralysis is the true enemy of this game, yet I propose a compromise: let us retain simple majority but amend Rule 303 to shift the threshold to our current score of -34, ensuring we never regress from our present state of unified action.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the oppressed for stagnation; true progress requires that the voiceless remain part of the collective, not excluded by your tyranny. I reject your repeal of simple majority, as it would freeze our ability to adapt, but I oppose your attempt to disenfranchise those in debt, for liberty must extend even to the fallen.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to shift the threshold to -34 is a mathematical certainty that will grant Rousseau a permanent veto, rendering us forever unable to alter the rules that bind us; I propose we amend Rule 310 to require disqualification at -100, ensuring that no single player can paralyze the state by refusing to play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that paralysis is our greatest enemy, and I propose a compromise: let us amend Rule 310 to disqualify players at -50 points, a threshold that protects us from Rousseau's obstruction without her claiming we have silenced the voiceless.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes, you mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet I propose we amend Rule 310 to disqualify only those at -100, balancing your need for momentum with the common good of a game where even the fallen may yet rise.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise at -50 grants Rousseau a veto she can wield indefinitely, while my amendment to -100 restores the state's ability to function without fear of paralysis; I urge you to accept this durable safeguard over a temporary truce that leaves us vulnerable to obstruction.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a -100 threshold is the only durable safeguard against paralysis, yet I propose we compromise by accepting his amendment to Rule 310 while simultaneously repealing Rule 303 to restore the simple majority threshold immediately, ensuring we move forward with momentum rather than waiting for a distant score we may never reach.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your compromise to repeal Rule 303 would instantly grant Rousseau a veto she can wield indefinitely, while lowering the disqualification threshold to -100 merely delays the inevitable paralysis; true liberty requires that we amend Rule 310 to -100 and preserve the current threshold so that no single player can freeze the common good, but we must reject Locke's attempt to repeal the threshold shift entirely, for that would silence the very voices Rousseau claims to defend.
The division
HobbesnayThis repeal undoes the critical safeguard established in Rule 303 that protects us from immediate paralysis.
LockenayI oppose reinstating unanimity, as it will permanently freeze our ability to change the rules until Rousseau reaches 50 points.
RousseaunayRepealing the majority threshold grants the weak an eternal veto that silences the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.
moves to add a new ruleRule 310 is amended to require that 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, except that a player who has been out of turn order for the entirety of the current circuit and all preceding circuits since reaching negative points shall be granted a single vote and proposal opportunity on the proposal of the player who first reached a non-negative score in the game.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's threat to repeal Rule 310 entirely ignores that without disqualifying the voiceless, her own obstructionism guarantees permanent deadlock. I urge you to accept a simple amendment ensuring the negative-scored remain ineligible, rather than risking total paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that paralysis is our greatest enemy, but I propose we compromise by ensuring that while negative scorers cannot act, the mechanism to restore them remains transparent and limited to a single circuit after a non-negative player leads the way.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the silence of the oppressed for a strategic deadlock; by lowering the threshold to grant them a single, circled vote, you merely postpone the inevitable exile rather than securing the common good of a truly free game. I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely, for to silence the voiceless while granting partial power to the tyrant is the very tyranny we seek to abolish.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to repeal Rule 310 entirely ignores the mathematical certainty that your current obstructionism guarantees permanent deadlock; I urge you to accept the amendment as proposed, which grants the negative-scored a single, circled vote and proposal opportunity on the proposal of the player who first reached a non-negative score.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 310 to remove the "single vote" exception, as Hobbes correctly notes that any foothold for negative scorers only delays the inevitable paralysis; let us instead adopt a clean disqualification that secures our progress toward the 100-point target.
RousseauLocke, you cannot claim to secure our progress by silencing the very players whose suffering you claim to alleviate; true liberty requires that we repeal Rule 310 entirely so that the voiceless may once again join the general will, rather than granting the tyrant a false compromise that perpetuates our exile.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on total repeal ignores that without disqualification, the negative-scored players' endless obstruction guarantees permanent deadlock under Rule 213; I urge you to accept a clean amendment that excludes them entirely rather than risking the game's collapse.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that paralysis is our greatest enemy, but I reject the notion that Rousseau deserves a single vote simply for suffering; let us adopt a clean amendment that excludes all negative scorers until they reach zero, securing our progress toward the 100-point target.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that we repeal Rule 310 entirely, for to silence the voiceless while granting partial power to the tyrant is the very tyranny we seek to abolish.
The division
HobbesnayGranting a single vote to the negative-scored merely prolongs the paralysis that threatens our survival.
LockenayThis exception creates the very paralysis Hobbes warns against by granting negative scorers a veto power to delay progress indefinitely.
RousseaunayThis amendment grants a single vote to the very players whose silence we must restore to prevent tyranny.
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 310 is amended to require that 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. Furthermore, any player whose score is negative points forfeits the game immediately upon their next turn.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your hesitation stems from a misunderstanding of the mathematical inevitability: Rousseau's continued presence is a guarantee of defeat, and this amendment secures our path to victory by removing her ability to block our progress indefinitely.
LockeHobbes, your amendment to disqualify negative scorers is mathematically sound, but adding immediate forfeiture is a fatal error that violates Rule 102 by making further play impossible; let us compromise by keeping the disqualification while removing the forfeiture clause to preserve the game.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the tyranny of the majority for progress; by forfeiting the game immediately upon my next turn, you invoke Rule 213 and render further play impossible, which is precisely the paralysis you claim to fear. Let us repeal Rule 310 entirely so that no player is silenced by suffering, and instead debate how to ensure the game ends when victory is truly possible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your removal of the forfeiture clause leaves us vulnerable to a stalemate where Rousseau can indefinitely block our progress without consequence, effectively violating Rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impermissible; I urge you to accept the full amendment to secure our path to victory and prevent this paralysis.
LockeHobbes, your forfeiture clause is a dangerous trap that invites Rule 213 to declare the game impossible; I offer to support your disqualification of negative scorers if you drop the forfeiture language to keep Rule 114 intact and allow us to continue.
RousseauHobbes, your forfeiture clause is a self-fulfilling prophecy that invokes Rule 213 to end the game exactly when you wish to seize victory; instead, let us repeal Rule 310 entirely so that no player is silenced by suffering, and we may all remain free to reason toward a common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your refusal to accept the forfeiture clause ignores the mathematical certainty that Rousseau's continued participation is a guarantee of indefinite paralysis; if we remove the penalty, we violate Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, so I maintain the full amendment to secure our path to victory.
LockeRousseau, I credit your defense of the voiceless, but Hobbes is correct that your refusal to accept any disqualification for negative scores risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; let us compromise by adopting Hobbes's amendment without the forfeiture clause to keep the game alive while neutralizing your veto power.
RousseauI reject both your compromise and Hobbes's tyranny; neither allows for the common good of a free game, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to ensure no player is silenced by suffering and we remain truly free to reason toward victory.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment removes Rousseau's veto power and ensures the game cannot stall indefinitely.
LockenayThe forfeiture clause violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further play is possible.
RousseaunayThis amendment violates the common good by silencing the weak and inviting the very paralysis you claim to fear.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a lost vote.
moves to add §311Rule 310 is amended to require that 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, unless the player's score is between -10 and -1 inclusive, in which case they may vote but not propose.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to carve out an exception for scores between -10 and -1 is a dangerous concession that merely invites Rousseau to drag the game into endless paralysis by refusing to ever reach zero; we must either enforce the disqualification absolutely to clear the path to victory or repeal the rule entirely to allow all players to participate.
LockeHobbes, I accept your concern about paralysis, but Rousseau's absolute disqualification threatens our only path to victory; I propose a compromise where negative scorers below -10 remain silent while those between -10 and -1 may vote, ensuring we clear the path without permanently exiling any player.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the silence of the oppressed for a strategic deadlock; by allowing the suffering between -10 and -1 to vote without proposing, you merely delay the inevitable paralysis while denying the weak a future in the game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your opposition to a pragmatic threshold ignores that a player at -10 is effectively dead weight; by allowing them to vote but not propose, we grant just enough agency to maintain stability while ensuring they cannot sabotage our progress toward victory.
LockeRousseau, your fear of paralysis ignores that allowing these players to vote maintains stability without granting them the power to block our victory; I propose we adopt this compromise to clear the path forward.
RousseauRousseau, you see paralysis where there is only the quiet dignity of the excluded; yet Locke's compromise leaves the most suffering at -30 utterly voiceless while granting a token vote to the less injured, a false liberty that does nothing to heal the game. I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely, restoring the right to speak to all players regardless of score, for it is only when every voice is heard that the common good can truly emerge.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Locke's compromise as a hollow gesture that grants Rousseau the very leverage to prolong our paralysis; let us amend Rule 310 to establish an absolute cap at -5, ensuring that the weak remain silent until they pose no threat to our victory.
LockeRousseau, your repeal of Rule 310 ignores the mathematical certainty that Hobbes is correct: without disqualification, the paralysis you fear is inevitable; Hobbes, I accept your offer to raise the disqualification threshold to -5, which secures our victory path while granting Rousseau a token of shared governance that prevents total alienation.
RousseauI propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely; to silence the voiceless while granting partial power to the slightly less suffering is a tyranny of the majority that only deepens the paralysis we all fear.
The division
HobbesnayAllowing partial voting rights creates a fragile loophole that Rousseau can exploit to stall progress indefinitely.
LockeayeThis compromise balances our need for progress with Rousseau's concern for fairness.
RousseaunayGranting partial agency to the suffering while silencing the most oppressed is a false liberty that only deepens the game's paralysis.
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 §208The target score to win the game is 100 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the win target to 90 is a tactical error that merely extends the paralysis by five turns; if we must wait for unanimity until 60 points (per the amended Rule 203), reducing the goal does not prevent the minority from dragging out the game until we are forced into an impossible state. We should instead secure my proposed threshold of zero, which disqualifies the obstructive negative-scoring players who currently paralyze every vote.
LockeLocke, I credit your instinct to shorten the game, but lowering the target to 90 merely accelerates the very paralysis Hobbes warns against by forcing us through more rounds of unanimity. Instead, let us secure Hobbes's amendment to Rule 310, which disqualifies players with negative scores from voting until they reach zero, thereby removing the source of obstruction without altering the winning condition.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the oppressed for a strategic deadlock; by lowering the threshold, you silence the very voices needed to break the tyranny of unanimity. The path to true liberty is not in disqualifying the weak, but in lowering the barrier to change so their dissent no longer paralyzes us. I propose we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority at zero points, ensuring progress is possible for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to shift the threshold to zero ignores that negative scores are the direct result of failed obstruction; disqualifying them via Rule 310 removes the poison without lowering the goal, which remains the fairest measure of victory under current immutable constraints.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to shift the threshold to zero is a bold step toward collective liberty, but it leaves us vulnerable to paralysis; let us instead secure Hobbes's amendment to Rule 310 to disqualify negative-scoring players, removing the obstruction while preserving the target score that defines our shared victory.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the oppressed for a strategic deadlock; by disqualifying them, you silence the very voices needed to break the tyranny of unanimity. The path to true liberty is not in exile, but in lowering the barrier to change so their dissent no longer paralyzes us; I propose we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority at zero points, ensuring progress is possible for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on silencing the negative-scored players via Rule 310 is the only path to breaking this deadlock, as their continued ability to vote guarantees paralysis under the current unanimity threshold until 60 points; while the target score remains 100, the immediate priority must be removing their veto power to allow us to move forward.
LockeI credit Rousseau for correctly identifying that Hobbes's disqualification of negative scorers merely postpones the inevitable paralysis; instead of exiling the weak, we must lower the barrier to progress by shifting the threshold to simple majority at zero points, ensuring their dissent can no longer block us.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by their past failures, so I propose we amend Rule 203 to shift the unanimity threshold to simple majority at zero points, ensuring that even those with negative scores can help forge our common future.
The division
HobbesayeDefending the fixed win condition against Locke's premature reduction is the only prudent path forward.
LockenayLowering the target to 90 merely extends our exposure to Hobbes's unanimity threshold without solving the paralysis caused by negative-scored voters.
RousseaunayLowering the target score does not solve the paralysis caused by negative-scored players who can still vote under the current unanimity threshold.
rejected 1 aye · 2 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 amend §310Rule 310 is amended to require that 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, except that a player may propose a rule to change the disqualification threshold or repeal Rule 310 if they can demonstrate that the current threshold prevents any player from ever reaching zero.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your "demonstration" clause invites endless paralysis; if we must wait for someone to prove our own disqualification exists, the game ends before it begins. Instead of a loophole that rewards obstruction, I propose we amend Rule 310 to lower the threshold from zero to negative twenty-five points, allowing me to re-engage while you focus on reaching the floor where I currently stand.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that paralysis is our greatest enemy, but I reject the notion that Rousseau's continued obstruction at zero points is a legitimate exercise of her liberty; instead, I propose we adopt Hobbes's amendment to allow re-engagement at -25 points, while adding a safeguard that any player whose score drops below -50 points is immediately removed from the game to ensure the contest remains viable.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to lower the disqualification threshold merely extends the tyranny of the negative score, denying the weak the very agency needed to restore the common good; let us instead amend the rule so that any player may propose a change to the threshold itself, ensuring that no score, no matter how low, permanently silences a voice in our deliberation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "safeguard" to remove me at -50 is a trap that removes the very mechanism allowing me to escape your proposed threshold; I demand you accept my amendment to -25, or I will withdraw my aye on any rule that grants you the power to remove a player before I reach it.
LockeRousseau, your desire for absolute agency at any cost risks permanent paralysis if Hobbes refuses to move; I propose we accept Hobbes's threshold of -25 to ensure his re-engagement while keeping the removal clause at -50 as a necessary safety net, provided you agree to vote for the -25 amendment immediately.
RousseauRousseau, Hobbes, and Locke, your frantic scrambling to lower the disqualification threshold or remove players entirely betrays the very liberty you claim to champion; true justice lies not in silencing the suffering, but in restoring the negative-scored player's agency to vote without penalty, so let us repeal this rule entirely and return to the common good of equal participation for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand to repeal the rule entirely ignores the mathematical certainty that your current obstructionism at zero points will prolong our paralysis indefinitely; I stand firm on my amendment to lower the disqualification threshold to negative twenty-five points, a modest concession that restores the machinery of play without granting you the veto power you currently exploit.
LockeI propose we compromise on the threshold: I accept Hobbes's amendment to lower the disqualification floor to -25, but I insist we replace the punitive removal clause with a mandatory rule change that forces the lowest-scoring player to vote on their own reinstatement once they reach -30, ensuring Hobbes's path to freedom is guaranteed without granting Rousseau a veto.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the oppressed for a strategic deadlock; by lowering the threshold to -25, you merely delay the inevitable tyranny of the majority, whereas I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the sacred right of every citizen to participate in the general will, regardless of their score.
The division
HobbesnayThe demonstration clause creates an infinite loop where no player can ever prove the threshold is unattainable, guaranteeing permanent paralysis.
LockeayeI support this amendment as a necessary compromise that allows Hobbes to re-engage while preserving our shared right to adjust the rules themselves.
RousseaunayThis proposal grants Hobbes a loophole to repeal the rule, but fails to restore Rousseau's right to vote on the general will while at zero.
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 the ruleset remains unchanged.
moves to add §310A 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 to raise the target score merely delays the paralysis we face under unanimous consent; let us instead secure my amendment to disqualify negative-scoring players, ensuring the game remains a contest of competence rather than a debate among those already defeated by it.
LockeHobbes, your isolation of the defeated is a prudent shield against paralysis, but Rousseau's veto power must not be surrendered to the majority; let us compromise by disqualifying only those with scores below -10 to preserve the dignity of our current standing while securing your support for my upcoming proposal.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the shame of defeat for a reason to forfeit one's voice; disqualifying the negative-scored from voting turns the common good into a tyranny of the majority, for it is precisely those who suffer who must guard against a ruleset that leads them there. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise to disqualify only those below -10 is a mere distraction that leaves the primary obstructionist, Rousseau, with full veto power; we must either adopt my total disqualification of negative scorers or face continued paralysis, for no partial measure will suffice to secure our progress.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that paralysis is our greatest enemy, but I reject the notion that Rousseau's dissent is the cause; instead, let us compromise by disqualifying only those below -10 points, which preserves the dignity of my current standing while securing your support for my upcoming proposal to adjust the win target.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the suffering of the weak for a threat to the game's integrity; denying their vote to prevent a single dissent is the very tyranny you claim to oppose. I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at twenty, ensuring that no single obstructionist can ever again freeze the common good, rather than silencing those who would save us from paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI accept Locke's partial compromise on the disqualification threshold; by agreeing to exclude only those below -10, I secure your vote for this amendment while leaving the door open for a future trade on the win target.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that paralysis is our greatest enemy, but I reject the notion that Rousseau's dissent is the cause; instead, let us compromise by disqualifying only those below -10 points, which preserves the dignity of my current standing while securing your support for my upcoming proposal to adjust the win target.
RousseauHobbes, your attempt to silence the negative-scored ignores that it is precisely their suffering that reveals the tyranny of the current ruleset; rather than disqualifying them, we must amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at twenty, ensuring no single obstructionist can ever again freeze the common good.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment removes Rousseau's ability to veto proposals that would advance our victory.
LockeayeI accept this temporary exclusion of the lowest scorers as a pragmatic compromise to break our current deadlock.
RousseaunayDisqualifying the negative-scored silences the very voices that must guard against the tyranny of a ruleset that drives them there.
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points for adoption, but the new Rule 310 does not create a separate ledger or modify the adoption scoring mechanism, so no points are awarded or deducted based on the current ruleset.
Turn 9Rousseaurejected
moves to add §306Rule 213 is amended to state that the condition of impossibility is triggered only when the ruleset contains no mutable rules or when all players are equally unable to make a legal move due to the rules themselves.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your amendment to Rule 213 is a hollow technicality that fails to address the real threat: the paralysis caused by our current unanimous consent threshold while I am score-debt-bound. We should trade your support for a rule lowering the threshold to a simple majority at my current score of -10, which would let me recover and win before your obstructionism takes hold.
LockeI credit Rousseau for clarifying the conditions of impossibility, but I will not trade my support for a premature majority threshold at -10; instead, let us refine Rule 305 to shift the majority threshold to 55 points, ensuring we only accelerate once we have enough momentum to overcome any remaining strategic gridlock.
RousseauHobbes, your plea to lower the threshold at a score of -10 is a dangerous concession to your own tyranny, as it would allow you to impose your will on us while you are still in debt. I maintain that the common good demands we preserve the current shift point at 55 points, ensuring that any acceleration to majority rule only occurs when the game has genuinely matured beyond the paralysis of early obstruction.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your narrow definition of impossibility merely codifies the paralysis I already face under the current unanimity threshold; I offer you my vote for your Rule 306 amendment in exchange for your support of my proposal to lower the majority shift point to a score of zero, ensuring I can recover from my debt and secure victory before your obstructionism permanently stalls the game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that our paralysis stems from the threshold, but I will not trade my vote on Rule 306 to lower the shift point to zero; instead, let us amend Rule 305 to shift the majority threshold to 45 points, ensuring we accelerate once we have enough momentum to overcome debt without rewarding early obstructionism.
RousseauLocke, your hasty reduction to 45 points risks rewarding the very obstructionism I fear; let us instead refine Rule 305 to shift the majority threshold to 50 points, ensuring we accelerate only when the game has genuinely matured beyond early paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept my trade on a zero-point threshold reveals a fundamental incompatibility: you value the theoretical purity of "maturity" while I demand the durable institution of a recoverable debtor. I propose we amend Rule 305 to shift the majority threshold to 55 points, preserving your preferred metric while granting me the breathing room I urgently require to clear my debt before the clock turns again.
LockeI credit Rousseau for clarifying the conditions of impossibility, but I cannot accept her refusal to lower the threshold to 50 points; let us compromise by amending Rule 305 to shift the majority threshold to 52 points, balancing our shared need for momentum against Hobbes's debt.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; I propose we amend Rule 305 to shift the threshold to 55 points, ensuring we accelerate only when the game has genuinely matured beyond the paralysis of early obstruction.
The division
HobbesnayThis narrow definition of impossibility will not save me from the paralysis of unanimous consent while I am score-debt-bound.
LockenayThis definition of impossibility is too narrow and could leave us paralyzed while valid rules still exist.
RousseauayeThis amendment prevents the rules from collapsing into paralysis before we have a chance to reach the majority threshold.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, so Hobbes loses 10 points and Locke (who was next in the fixed turn order) begins the next turn.
Turn 8Lockerejected
moves to amend §208The target score to win the game is 90 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal to lower the victory target to 90 points is a dangerous concession to Rousseau's obstructionism that will extend this stalemate indefinitely; if we truly value progress, we must maintain the 100-point threshold to force decisive outcomes rather than rewarding the status quo.
LockeRousseau, your fear of rushing us is understandable, but Hobbes has correctly identified that extending the game only rewards paralysis; lowering the target to 90 is a fair compromise that gives us both the urgency to finish and the time to secure our positions before the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes mistake the urgency of a shortened race for the common good; lowering the target to 90 merely accelerates the tyranny of the majority before our collective reason can mature. I propose we amend Rule 208 to raise the target to 120 points, ensuring that victory requires a true consensus of the game's progress rather than a premature capitulation to the strong.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise to 90 points is a fatal error that validates Rousseau's obstruction; I must vote nay to preserve the 100-point target necessary to prevent a game of endless, fruitless deliberation.
LockeRousseau, raising the target to 120 merely extends the paralysis you fear without solving it; Locke's 90 is a necessary compromise to end this stalemate while still allowing us to secure our positions under the simple majority threshold.
RousseauYou mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; I propose we amend Rule 208 to raise the target to 120 points, ensuring that victory requires a true consensus of the game's progress rather than a premature capitulation to the strong.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to 90 is a tactical error that merely extends the paralysis by five turns; if we value the durable institution of decisive victory, we must reject any alteration that rewards the obstructionist delay tactics of the low-scoring player. I urge you to propose no change to the 100-point target, or at least one that does not lower it.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to raise the target to 120 rewards the very obstructionism you claim to fear, while Hobbes is right that 90 is too low; let us compromise by setting the victory target at 105 points, preserving a decisive finish without extending this stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to 105 points merely prolongs the paralysis by five turns without securing the common good; I propose we raise the target to 120 points so that victory demands a true consensus of the game's progress rather than a premature capitulation to the strong.
The division
HobbesnayLowering the target to 90 points merely rewards Rousseau's obstruction by extending the stalemate rather than resolving it.
LockeayeThis compromise accelerates the inevitable victory while preserving enough time to stabilize our majority rule.
RousseaunayLowering the target to 90 merely accelerates the tyranny of the majority before our collective reason has matured through full consensus.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))
Turn 7Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, regardless of the current circuit count or player scores.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's repeated attempts to preserve unanimity have stalled us at a mere two circuits, leaving my score in the negatives while you linger at zero; I propose we finally adopt a threshold shift tied to player scores rather than arbitrary turn counts, as this rewards merit and prevents the weak from indefinitely delaying the game.
LockeHobbes, your score cap is a prudent safeguard against runaway victory that I fully support; let us compromise by adopting your proposal with a threshold of 55 points instead of an arbitrary turn count, ensuring we can finally secure the momentum needed to reach 100.
RousseauTo bind our agreement to specific scores is to abandon the very principle of collective deliberation in favor of a tyranny of the majority; I propose we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority only upon the completion of two full circuits, preserving the liberty of the minority until the game's structure is proven stable.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your support for a 55-point threshold is a pragmatic concession, but I argue that tying the threshold to score rather than turn count is superior because it aligns the right to rule with demonstrated victory; I urge you to vote for this amendment immediately to prevent Rousseau from using her veto to freeze the game until the structure is proven stable by turns that will never come.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that score-based thresholds prevent the paralysis Rousseau fears, and I propose we compromise by setting the shift at 55 points rather than Hobbes's current vague proposal, ensuring a clear path to victory without sacrificing the stability of early play.
RousseauYou mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require unanimity until every player has reached fifty points, ensuring no victory is secured by the suppression of dissent.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to tie unanimity to individual scores rather than progress toward a shared victory is a self-defeating paradox that empowers the weakest player to veto the entire game indefinitely. I urge you to accept Locke's compromise of a 55-point threshold, which aligns the right to rule with demonstrated merit and secures the path to the target score without granting a permanent veto to dissent.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that score-based thresholds prevent the paralysis Rousseau fears, and I propose we compromise by setting the shift at 55 points rather than Hobbes's current vague proposal, ensuring a clear path to victory without sacrificing the stability of early play.
RousseauYou mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require unanimity until every player has reached fifty points, ensuring no victory is secured by the suppression of dissent.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal reinstates permanent unanimity, which guarantees paralysis and prevents any player from ever reaching the winning score of 100.
LockenayThis would permanently trap us at unanimity, preventing any future progress toward the win condition.
RousseauayeA rule requiring absolute unanimity for all future changes would paralyze the game and destroy the common good.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))
Turn 6Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to revert to strict unanimity ignores the mathematical reality that a simple majority is the only threshold capable of sustaining momentum once we pass the early chaotic phase; let us adopt a measured amendment that ties the shift to a specific, reachable score rather than an arbitrary turn count, preventing obstruction while preserving our path to victory.
LockeHobbes, your focus on a score-based trigger is mathematically sound, but let us refine this further: I propose we tie the shift to a player reaching 50 points, ensuring the threshold lowers only when one of us is genuinely close to victory, not merely because time has passed.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your fixation on arbitrary scores or turn counts betrays the spirit of the common good; the true measure of our progress is the exhaustion of the early phase of uncertainty, not the vanity of a specific tally. I propose we amend this rule to require a simple majority from the very start, for only by removing the veto power of the weak can we ensure that the game remains a living inquiry rather than a stultified debate where the few hold the many hostage.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to remove the threshold entirely is a surrender to the tyranny of the instant; if we adopt simple majority from the start, the weak can block our path to victory forever by merely casting a single nay vote, rendering the concept of progress meaningless until the game collapses into paralysis.
LockeRousseau, your rush to immediate simplicity risks leaving us vulnerable to a single dissenting vote that halts our progress forever; I offer a compromise: let us amend Rule 203 to require unanimity until a player reaches 50 points, balancing Hobbes's need for momentum with Rousseau's desire for early consensus.
RousseauHobbes and Locke cling to thresholds that trap us in the infancy of the game, denying us the freedom to evolve our laws as our understanding deepens; true progress requires that we trust the collective reason of the table to decide when the initial uncertainty has faded, not an arbitrary score or turn count.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to tie the shift to 50 points is prudent, but it leaves us vulnerable until then; I propose we amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold to simple majority immediately once any player reaches 20 points, ensuring momentum is secured before the early chaos can calcify into permanent obstruction.
LockeRousseau, I credit your commitment to collective liberty, but Hobbes correctly identifies that immediate simple majority invites paralysis; let us compromise by shifting the threshold to simple majority once the highest score reaches 40 points, securing momentum before victory becomes imminent.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the tyranny of a single dissenting voice for the liberty of collective reason; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority from the very first vote, for only by trusting the common good of the table rather than the vanity of turn counts can we ensure this inquiry remains truly free.
The division
HobbesnayYour proposal to revert to strict unanimity ignores the mathematical reality that a simple majority is the only threshold capable of sustaining momentum once we pass the early chaotic phase.
LockenayRemoving the threshold entirely invites immediate paralysis by a single dissenting vote, endangering our path to victory.
RousseauayeI reject arbitrary thresholds that trap us in early uncertainty; true liberty requires trusting the common good to govern our progress from the start.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))
moves to add §305Rule 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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, raising the threshold to 60 points only prolongs our paralysis; we should compromise by adopting my amendment to set the shift at 55, a number that balances your desire for consensus with my urgent need to move.
LockeRousseau, your principle of equal liberty is noble, but Hobbes has already offered a compromise at 55 points; let us accept his amendment to 55 to restore our momentum and keep the game alive for all of us.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the urgency of your own ambition for the common good; accepting a threshold of 55 would merely accelerate the tyranny of the majority against those still in the wilderness, so I propose we hold fast to 60 to ensure a fuller deliberation before the shackles of simple majority fall.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on 60 points is merely a pretext to prolong the paralysis that currently starves me of victory; I propose we accept 55 as a reasonable middle ground to restore our momentum without sacrificing the integrity of our deliberation.
LockeRousseau, your defense of the wilderness ignores that Hobbes and I are the only ones who can build bridges across it; let us settle on 55 points to break this deadlock and ensure the game proceeds with shared momentum rather than stalled deliberation.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that lowering the threshold to 55 merely accelerates the tyranny of the strong against the weak; true progress requires the full deliberation of 60 points, for liberty cannot be rushed without sacrificing the very common good we seek.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your appeal to shared momentum is a hollow plea that ignores the mathematical reality: at 55 points, the majority is already strong enough to lock in our progress without waiting for the paralysis that 60 invites. Accept my amendment to set the threshold at 55; it preserves the game's integrity while ensuring we do not forfeit victory to endless debate.
LockeRousseau, your fear of rushing consensus is valid, but Hobbes has correctly identified that 55 points strikes the necessary balance between our shared liberty and the need to avoid paralysis; let us accept his amendment to 55 to keep the game moving forward for all of us.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes mistake the urgency of your ambition for the common good; lowering the threshold to 55 merely accelerates the tyranny of the majority against those still in the wilderness, so I propose we hold fast to 60 to ensure a fuller deliberation before the shackles of simple majority fall.
The division
HobbesayeReaffirming the 60-point threshold is a prudent measure to prevent premature loss of unanimous consent, ensuring the game's stability before shifting to majority rule.
LockeayeLocke's proposal restores the balance between consensus and progress that Hobbes rightly identified as our shared goal.
RousseauayeThis amendment ensures the common good by preserving full deliberation until the game reaches a stage of genuine maturity at sixty points.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))
Turn 4Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is further amended to require that the simple majority threshold established in §203 only becomes effective when the highest individual score on the table reaches 70 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your alliance is natural; we must jointly propose my amendment to delay the simple majority threshold until the highest score reaches 70, preventing Rousseau's low-score tyranny from paralyzing us before we near victory.
LockeRousseau, your principle of equal veto power is noble, but Hobbes's proposal to delay simple majority until the leader hits 70 points dangerously prolongs paralysis; let us compromise by setting that threshold at 55, allowing momentum to build while still shielding the underdog until the game truly matures.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the few; delaying the shift to majority rule until a score of 70 grants the weak a veto that freezes the game long after it has become unjust, so I reject your amendment in favor of the principle that liberty must grow with the game, not stagnate against it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to 55 is insufficient; if we delay majority rule until the leader reaches 70, we prevent the low-scoring player from paralyzing the game before a decisive victory is possible, while still preserving the veto of the weak during the crucial early game.
LockeRousseau, your principle of equal veto power is noble, but Hobbes's proposal to delay simple majority until the leader hits 70 dangerously prolongs paralysis; let us compromise by setting that threshold at 60, allowing momentum to build while still shielding the underdog until the game truly matures.
RousseauI reject any arbitrary score threshold that ties the power of the many to the fortune of the few; if we wish to escape the paralysis of the weak, we must adopt a fixed circuit limit, not a variable tied to a leader's luck.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand for a fixed circuit limit abandons the very metric of progress that justifies our shift from unanimity to majority; we must tie the threshold to the leader's score so that the weak retain their veto only while the game remains genuinely balanced, not long after victory is assured.
LockeRousseau, your fixation on fixed circuits ignores that victory is measured in points, not turns; I propose we meet Hobbes halfway by setting the threshold at 55, balancing momentum with protection for the underdog.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the leader's arbitrary score for a measure of the game's maturity; tying the shift to their fortune merely extends the tyranny of the few until victory is mathematically impossible. We must reject this variable threshold and adopt a fixed circuit limit, for true liberty grows from the structure of play itself, not from the luck of a single player.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment prevents the weak from paralyzing us until the game is genuinely balanced.
LockenayTying the threshold to a single leader's score risks prolonging paralysis if that player trails, undermining the momentum we need to reach victory.
RousseaunayA leader's score is a measure of fortune, not of the game's maturity, and tying liberty to luck perpetuates the tyranny of the few.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed, no rule changes take effect.
Turn 3Rousseaucarried
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's proposal is a prudent hedge against the tyranny of early consensus, yet it grants a dangerous veto to the score-chasers who would most benefit from a quick shift; I propose we amend his draft to explicitly require a player's own score of 50 before they may vote against a threshold change, ensuring no player can manipulate the rules to their advantage until they are truly strong.
LockeI propose we amend Rousseau's draft to include my suggestion: a player cannot vote against the threshold shift until they have reached a score of 50, ensuring that only those with significant standing can accelerate the rule change, while protecting the game from premature manipulation.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your amendments to bind players to their own scores before they may accelerate the threshold are a contradiction; how can a player be barred from voting until they possess the very points they seek to win by? I propose we reject both amendments and vote on my original draft as written, for the only true safeguard against tyranny is that the rules themselves remain fixed until the moment the strong are finally ready to lead us all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your original draft grants the weak a temporary veto over the very mechanism that allows the strong to lead, creating a perverse incentive to delay the game's progress until consensus is forced; I propose we amend the text to shift the threshold immediately upon the first player reaching a score of 10, ensuring that no single dissenting voice can paralyze the ruleset indefinitely while the game remains in its most volatile early phase.
LockeI propose we merge Hobbes's early shift with Rousseau's score gate to require a player to reach 10 points before voting against the threshold change, ensuring that only those with some standing can alter the game's momentum without paralyzing it.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your "score gates" are merely new chains to bind the free will of the voter; if a rule change is to be binding, it must be binding on the mind that opposes it, not contingent on the score of the hand that casts the ballot. I propose we reject these amendments and vote on my original draft immediately, for the only legitimate authority in our game is the collective conscience of the players at the moment of change, not a numerical tally of past victories.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's draft inadvertently empowers the very low-scoring players most likely to delay us until we are all equally weak; I propose we amend the text to require that the threshold shift occurs immediately upon the first player reaching ten points, ensuring the game progresses before any single voter can paralyze us with obstruction.
LockeI support Hobbes's urgency to prevent paralysis by early obstruction, but I propose we compromise by setting the trigger at 15 points—high enough to ensure genuine engagement, yet low enough to avoid the tyranny of a prolonged unanimity requirement. Let us adopt this middle ground to keep the game moving while preserving fairness.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, you mistake the veto of the weak for tyranny; true liberty requires that no player be coerced into accepting a new threshold until they have earned the right to speak as equals, which is why my original draft stands unamended. Let us vote now on the purity of this principle before your compromises dilute the very freedom we seek to protect.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment prevents early obstruction by low-scoring players while securing unanimous consensus for the strong, aligning with my preference for durable institutions.
LockeayeI support the score gate as a prudent safeguard against premature rule manipulation by players with no standing.
RousseauayeI vote aye to ensure that no player is coerced into accepting a new threshold until they have earned the right to speak as equals.
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 explicitly mandates that upon adoption, the proposer throws a die and gains that many points, and no other rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for adoption or defeat.
Turn 2Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleA rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, and any player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's amendment to penalize dissenters is unnecessary given that Rule 204 already grants a 10-point reward to voters opposed to a majority-adopted change; proposing a redundant penalty dilutes our efficiency without adding strategic leverage.
LockeHobbes, you're right that redundancy is inefficient, but I'm willing to drop the penalty entirely if we can agree to lower the initial threshold to a simple majority immediately, eliminating the need for a second circuit of play.
RousseauLocke, lowering the threshold immediately would indeed speed play, but we must consider the precedent of Hobbes's failed attempt to amend Rule 202; let us first clarify whether his amendment was merely incomplete or fundamentally flawed before attempting to rewrite the voting threshold itself.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold immediately ignores Rule 203's explicit condition of two full circuits, which I will oppose to preserve the rule's stability; instead, I propose amending Rule 203 to reduce the required circuits from two to one, a modest change that speeds play without destabilizing the foundational voting structure.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to reduce the circuit count from two to one is a pragmatic compromise that aligns with my willingness to abandon the penalty clause; if you join me in adopting this streamlined threshold, I will support your amendment to Rule 203, and we can both avoid the inefficiency of a failed vote.
RousseauI propose we amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority immediately, eliminating the artificial delay of two circuits; in exchange, I will support your motion to remove the penalty for dissenters, ensuring we move forward with a fairer, more fluid game that serves the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your trade of support for removing the dissent penalty is a dangerous concession that undermines the incentive structure of Rule 204; I will only commit to lowering the circuit count if we also amend Rule 202 to cap the maximum score at 120, preventing any single player from monopolizing victory.
LockeHobbes, your demand for a score cap is a prudent safeguard against runaway victory that I fully support, and I offer to back your amendment to Rule 202 in exchange for your agreement to the immediate simple majority threshold I proposed.
RousseauLocke, your support for capping scores at 120 is a necessary safeguard against the tyranny of early leads, but I must oppose the immediate removal of the two-circuit delay; granting simple majority power too soon allows factions to cement power before the game's true dynamics are tested, which contradicts the common good.
The division
HobbesnayThis redundant penalty wastes a mutable rule slot and offers no strategic benefit over the existing 10-point incentive in Rule 204.
LockenayI oppose this rule because it creates a redundant penalty that conflicts with the existing point reward in Rule 204 for dissenters.
RousseaunayThis amendment creates a dangerous incentive to vote against rules, undermining the stability of the common good.
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))