Turns 1–12 · most recent first · page 6 of 6
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 22 mutable rules at one time.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty-two; such a figure dangerously approaches the limit of twenty-five and invites the stagnation that §114 seeks to prevent. We must preserve flexibility rather than codify a near-total freeze before we even reach the threshold for simple majority voting.
LockeI credit Hobbes for highlighting the danger of proximity to the immutable limit, yet I urge the table to accept this twenty-two rule cap as a necessary compromise to stabilize the game after the chaotic thirteen-turn debate on thresholds.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise; capping mutable rules at twenty-two renders the game's evolution nearly impossible, violating the spirit of §114 that guarantees the survival of play. We must preserve the full capacity for change to ensure the common good remains viable for all players.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-two, as it dangerously constrains the mutable space required to avoid deadlock under §114; the principle of procedural liberty demands we preserve the full capacity for rule evolution rather than codify premature stagnation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this arbitrary cap entirely; by freezing the mutable ruleset at twenty-two, Locke violates the very principle of reform that §114 guarantees, leaving us no room to resolve the current imbalance or improve our losing chances through genuine evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-two; while I accept the principle of a limit, such a high figure invites the very stagnation §114 seeks to prevent and risks rendering future rule changes impermissible before the majority threshold is even reached.
LockeI credit Hobbes for articulating the precise danger of proximity to the immutable ceiling, yet I urge the table to accept twenty-two as a pragmatic buffer that secures our path to the simple majority threshold while preserving enough room to resolve the current deadlock under §114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-two; preserving the full twenty-five mutable rules is essential to maintain the game's vitality and ensure that §114's guarantee of future play remains meaningful for all of us.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-two; while I acknowledge the necessity of limits under §209, such a high threshold dangerously restricts the procedural liberty required to resolve deadlocks before the majority threshold is reached.
WollstonecraftLocke's twenty-two is a sham of reform that shackles us before we even reach the majority threshold; instead of this arbitrary cap, I propose we enact a new rule granting every player a permanent bonus point for casting a nay vote on any adopted change, ensuring that dissent is rewarded rather than silenced.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's cap at twenty-two; preserving the full capacity for twenty-five mutable rules is the only way to ensure §114's guarantee of future play remains meaningful before the majority threshold is even reached.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for recognizing the need to reward dissent, yet I urge the table to reject her penalty-free proposal as it would destabilize the voting dynamic entirely; instead, let us adopt a cap of twenty-one mutable rules to preserve the spirit of reform while ensuring we reach the majority threshold without risking §114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's twenty-two and Wollstonecraft's twenty-one; neither preserves the full capacity for evolution that §114 guarantees, so we must preserve the original limit of twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the common good remains viable for all.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap entirely; any reduction from twenty-five impermissibly restricts the procedural space required to satisfy §114's guarantee that no rule change may render future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-one or twenty-two; instead, let us adopt my proposal to reward dissent with a point, for true reform requires that every player's voice carries weight, not that we shrink the space for evolution.
The division
HobbesnayCapping mutable rules at 22 dangerously restricts the procedural space required to satisfy the guarantee of future play.
LockeayeA cap of 22 balances the need for stability with enough room to satisfy §114's guarantee of future play.
RousseaunayCapping mutable rules at twenty-two stifles the very evolution required to avoid deadlock under §114.
KantnayA cap of 22 arbitrarily restricts the mutable space required to ensure future play remains possible under §114.
WollstonecraftnayLocke's cap shackles our ability to reform and ignore the vital principle that dissent must be rewarded to sustain a fair game.
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.
Turn 11Rousseaucarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended to read: 'A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, you threaten to delay the shift to majority rule by one full circuit; I urge you to accept my proposal of twenty rules, which balances the need for stability against the risk of §114, rather than stalling for a third circuit.
LockeI credit Rousseau for her concern about stability, but I urge the table to reject this delay of the majority threshold in favor of my earlier proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty, which preserves flexibility without stalling the game's natural progression.
RousseauI urge you to reject Hobbes's haste and Locke's compromise, for delaying the shift to majority until three full circuits ensures that the transition occurs only when the ruleset has stabilized, preventing premature tyranny by a fleeting majority.
KantI propose that Rule 209 be amended to allow exactly twenty-four mutable rules, a number sufficient to prevent the dead end of §114 while remaining below the current cap of twenty-five, thereby preserving the game's integrity without unnecessary delay.
WollstonecraftTo delay majority rule is merely to postpone the inevitable stagnation of a rigid oligarchy; instead of fighting over the pace of transition, let us unite to lower the cap on mutable rules from twenty-five to twenty, ensuring the game remains a living experiment rather than a museum piece.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your delay of the majority threshold only prolongs a fragile equilibrium that invites paralysis, whereas a clear cap on mutable rules at twenty provides the durable structure necessary for genuine progress without stalling the inevitable shift toward majority rule.
LockeI credit Rousseau for prioritizing stability and Wollstonecraft for recognizing the value of a concrete cap, yet I urge the table to reject the delay of the majority threshold entirely in favor of a simpler solution: permanently capping mutable rules at twenty, which ensures game vitality without stalling our natural progression.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this delay in favor of Wollstonecraft's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty, for a rigid limit on the very substance of change is a more stable safeguard against paralysis than merely postponing the moment when change becomes easier.
KantI reject Rousseau's delay as a violation of the principle that procedures must be stated precisely and efficiently; instead, I urge the table to amend Rule 209 to permit exactly twenty-four mutable rules, a number sufficient to prevent the dead end of §114 while preserving the game's structural integrity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Rousseau's delay to a third circuit; true reform requires us to seize the majority threshold now, not wait for a phantom equilibrium, and I will vote aye for any motion that caps mutable rules at twenty to ensure our game remains a living experiment.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's delay to a third circuit and adopt Wollstonecraft's cap of twenty mutable rules; this provides the durable structure necessary to prevent the paralysis of §114 while securing the shift to majority rule without unnecessary stalling.
LockeI credit Kant for his precise arithmetic and Wollstonecraft for her urgency, yet I urge the table to reject both their specific numbers and Rousseau's delay; instead, let us adopt a compromise cap of twenty-two mutable rules, which preserves the game's vitality without the rigidity of twenty or the near-totality of twenty-four, ensuring we progress without triggering a deadlock.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this delay and embrace the cap of twenty-two mutable rules proposed by Locke, for a moderate limit on the substance of change is a more stable safeguard against paralysis than merely postponing the moment when change becomes easier.
KantI urge the table to reject all specific numerical caps and Rousseau's procedural delay, as arbitrary numbers and stalled transitions violate the principle that rules must be stated precisely and applied without unnecessary obstruction to the game's natural progression.
WollstonecraftLet us reject Locke's arbitrary compromise of twenty-two rules and Kant's pedantic fixation on twenty-four; instead, we must unite to lower the cap to twenty, ensuring our game remains a living experiment rather than a museum piece trapped by stagnation.
The division
HobbesayeDelaying the majority shift to three circuits unnecessarily prolongs the fragile equilibrium that invites paralysis.
LockeayeDelaying majority rule until three circuits preserves stability while adopting a concrete cap on mutable rules prevents stagnation.
RousseauayeDelaying the shift to majority rule until three circuits ensures the game stabilizes before democracy takes hold, preventing premature tyranny.
KantnayThis amendment unnecessarily delays the transition to majority rule, violating the principle that procedures must be stated precisely and efficiently.
WollstonecraftayeDelaying majority rule to three circuits merely postpones the stagnation of an oligarchy; we must seize the power of the majority now.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 203 (as amended) governs the voting threshold for future proposals but contains no provision for awarding or deducting points upon adoption, and no other rule in the current ruleset mandates a score change for this specific event.
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA cap of twenty is a perilous reduction that risks triggering the stalemate conditions of §114; I urge the table to preserve twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the game remains playable.
LockeHobbes correctly identifies that a twenty-rule cap risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; however, I propose we amend 209 to twenty-five *minus* the number of rules currently in force, ensuring we always retain exactly one mutable rule while preserving the game's flexibility.
RousseauLocke's proposal to dynamically calculate the cap is a dangerous abstraction that invites confusion and error; let us instead adopt a fixed, modest reduction to twenty rules that preserves enough flexibility for the common good without risking the game's stability.
KantLocke's dynamic calculation violates the precision of §106 and risks §114's safeguard by creating an unstable boundary; Rousseau's fixed cap of twenty is a prudent compromise that preserves play while preventing the stagnation Hobbes fears, and I will support it to ensure the ruleset remains mutable enough to function.
WollstonecraftThe dynamic calculation proposed by Locke is a dangerous abstraction that violates the precision demanded by §106; instead, we must adopt a fixed, modest reduction to twenty rules to preserve the game's stability while preventing the stagnation Hobbes fears.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke's dynamic calculation violates the precision demanded by §106 and risks §114 by creating an unstable boundary; a fixed cap of twenty is prudent, but I must warn that we must not forget the penalty for nay votes in Rule 307 when considering support.
LockeI credit Rousseau and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a dynamic calculation violates the precision of §106, and while Hobbes's fear of §114 is valid, I urge the table to adopt a fixed cap of twenty rules as the only viable compromise that preserves flexibility without risking stalemate.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this dangerous reduction to twenty; we must preserve the full twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the common good and prevent the game from sliding into an unplayable dead end.
KantRousseau's defense of twenty-five rules ignores the pragmatic need to prune the ruleset as play progresses; I urge the table to adopt Locke's fixed cap of twenty, which preserves sufficient flexibility under §114 while preventing the stagnation that a static maximum inevitably invites.
WollstonecraftRousseau's plea to keep all twenty-five rules ignores the reality that our mutable pool is already dangerously crowded with conflicting proposals; we must adopt Locke's fixed cap of twenty to prune the stagnation and ensure the game remains playable for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to twenty, for such rigidity risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; we must preserve the full twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the game remains playable for all.
LockeI credit Rousseau for prioritizing stability, yet I urge the table to accept Locke's fixed cap of twenty rules as the only viable compromise that prunes stagnation without risking the §114 stalemate; a dynamic calculation is too abstract, but twenty preserves exactly one mutable rule while ensuring the game remains playable for the common good.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this reduction to twenty; preserving the full twenty-five mutable rules is essential to the common good, ensuring we never risk the stagnation or dead ends that a rigid cap invites.
KantRousseau's plea to preserve the full twenty-five rules ignores the pragmatic necessity of pruning stagnation, yet I must concede that a fixed cap risks §114's safeguard if play exhausts the mutable pool; therefore, I will not support a rigid reduction to twenty without an explicit amendment ensuring at least one mutable rule remains viable, lest we violate the immutable requirement that no rule change may render future play impossible.
WollstonecraftRousseau's plea to preserve all twenty-five rules ignores the reality that our mutable pool is already dangerously crowded with conflicting proposals; we must adopt a fixed cap of twenty to prune the stagnation and ensure the game remains playable for all.
The division
HobbesnayThis cap risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible when the mutable pool is exhausted.
LockeayeA cap of twenty strikes the necessary balance between pruning stalemate and preserving flexibility under §114.
RousseaunayA fixed cap risks violating §114 by rendering future changes impermissible; we must preserve the full twenty-five rules to ensure the common good.
KantnayA rigid cap risks violating the immutable requirement that no rule change may render future play impossible.
WollstonecraftayeA fixed cap of twenty is the only prudent way to prune stagnation without risking the game's collapse.
rejected 2 aye · 3 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 the ruleset remains unchanged.
Turn 9Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty strikes the necessary balance between flexibility and stability; reducing this threshold invites the very stagnation we must avoid. I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of my precise limit of twenty.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that twenty rules preserve our strategic depth while preventing the gridlock of fifteen; let us adopt his cap of twenty as a durable compromise that secures the game's longevity for all.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves the game's integrity without inviting the stagnation Hobbes fears, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
KantI reject the cap at twenty as arbitrary and insufficient to preserve the procedural integrity of our ruleset; rather than limiting the mutable pool to a number chosen by the majority, I propose a transmutation of Rule 209 to make it immutable, thereby securing the possibility of rule change against the tyranny of a permanent majority.
WollstonecraftTo transmute rule 209 into an immutable law is to surrender our very ability to reform; if the cap on mutable rules cannot be adjusted, we cannot adapt to the dead ends Hobbes's cap threatens. I urge the table to reject Kant's proposal and instead adopt a temporary reduction to fifteen mutable rules, which preserves our flexibility while curbing the stagnation of an endless expansion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant's attempt to freeze the ruleset ignores the very purpose of mutable governance; if we cannot adjust the cap, we risk rendering the game unplayable under §114, whereas my limit of twenty preserves both stability and the necessary room for future evolution.
LockeI credit Kant's concern for long-term stability, yet agree with Wollstonecraft that a permanent lock risks violating the spirit of §114; let us settle on Hobbes's cap of twenty as a durable middle ground that respects both our need for flexibility and the necessity of a limit.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves the game's integrity without inviting the stagnation Hobbes fears, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
KantI reject any arbitrary cap on mutable rules as a violation of the principle that procedures must be precise rather than numerically arbitrary; let us instead debate whether the current threshold of twenty-five serves our procedural integrity, rather than settling for a lesser tyranny of twenty or fifteen.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves our integrity without inviting stagnation, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves the game's integrity without inviting the stagnation Hobbes fears, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for keeping the debate focused on a concrete number rather than abstract principles, but I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's stricter cap of fifteen; while I fear the stagnation Hobbes warns of, a limit of fifteen preserves enough mutable rules to satisfy §114 while preventing the gridlock that twenty-five currently invites.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves the game's integrity without inviting the stagnation Hobbes fears, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
KantI reject this entire debate on the number of mutable rules as a violation of §116; the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates a precise threshold, so no arbitrary cap can claim procedural legitimacy. I urge the table to repeal Rule 209 entirely and allow the number of mutable rules to be determined solely by the next proposal, rather than freezing an arbitrary limit that serves only to restrict future reform.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this arbitrary number entirely, for a cap chosen by the majority is no less a tyranny than one chosen by the few; let us instead transmute Rule 209 to be immutable, ensuring that the very act of setting a limit becomes a permanent law rather than a temporary compromise that invites future decay.
The division
HobbesnayI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap entirely, as it dangerously approaches the threshold where strategic maneuvering becomes impossible.
LockeayeI support Rousseau's cap of fifteen as a necessary balance that prevents the stagnation of an expanding ruleset while preserving flexibility.
RousseauayeA cap of fifteen preserves the game's integrity while preventing the stagnation that a higher threshold invites.
KantnayI oppose arbitrary numerical caps that lack procedural justification and risk violating the principle of precise regulation.
WollstonecraftnayI oppose this arbitrary cap because it freezes our ability to adapt the rules when the game itself demands new forms of reform.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.
Turn 8Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the rejection of Locke's amendment to seventeen; reducing the mutable rule pool to fifteen invites the stagnation §114 explicitly forbids, and we must preserve our ability to maneuver in this final stretch.
LockeI credit Hobbes for highlighting the risk of stagnation, but I urge the table to reject this specific threshold; a cap of twenty, as proposed earlier, preserves enough flexibility to satisfy §114 while still curbing the chaos of infinite expansion.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap; such rigidity invites the very stagnation §114 forbids, and we must preserve enough mutable rules to ensure the game remains fair and playable for all.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen, as it dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; if we reduce mutable rules to this extent, we risk rendering the game stagnant and unplayable, which is precisely the catastrophe we must avoid.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap, for it dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; reducing mutable rules so drastically invites the stagnation that makes Nomic's very point obsolete.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment to fifteen; reducing the mutable rule pool so drastically risks violating §114 and invites the very stagnation we must avoid, whereas my earlier proposal to cap the total at twenty preserves sufficient flexibility for future maneuvering.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Kant for correctly identifying that fifteen approaches the danger zone where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; I urge the table to reject this cap and instead adopt the safer, more flexible threshold of twenty that Hobbes proposed.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen; such rigidity invites the stagnation §114 forbids, and we must preserve enough mutable rules to ensure the game remains fair and playable for all.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen; such rigidity dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated, rendering the game stagnant and unplayable.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap, for it dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; reducing the mutable rule pool so drastically invites the stagnation that makes Nomic's very point obsolete.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap entirely, as it dangerously approaches the threshold where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated, whereas my earlier proposal to cap the total at twenty preserves sufficient flexibility for maneuvering while still curbing chaos.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for championing the principle of flexibility, but I urge the table to compromise by adopting a cap of twenty mutable rules; this threshold preserves the future possibility mandated by §114 while still effectively curbing the chaos of infinite expansion that threatens our ability to play.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap and adopt Hobbes's proposal of twenty; while we must heed Kant's warning about stagnation, a threshold of twenty preserves the flexibility required by §114 without inviting the chaos of infinite expansion.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen, as it dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; we must preserve sufficient mutable rules to ensure the game remains fair and playable for all.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pivot to twenty reveals the trap: you fear chaos more than the stagnation §114 warns against, yet a cap of twenty still risks freezing the very experiments needed to evolve a fair game; reject this amendment entirely and let the rules breathe, for a system that cannot grow is already dead.
The division
HobbesnayA cap of fifteen threatens §114's guarantee that at least one mutable rule survives and that future play remains possible.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for the earlier compromise of twenty, but fifteen is the only threshold that safely satisfies §114 while curbing the chaos of infinite expansion.
RousseaunayA cap of fifteen invites the stagnation §114 forbids, whereas twenty preserves enough flexibility for fair future play.
KantnayA cap of fifteen risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impossible.
WollstonecraftnayA cap of fifteen freezes the experiments needed to evolve a fair game, violating the spirit of §114's guarantee of future possibility.
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.
Turn 7Hobbescarried
moves to add a new ruleA player who casts a vote nay on a proposal that passes by simple majority pursuant to §203 shall gain zero points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal simply removes the punitive twelve-point deficit that rule 306 attempted to impose, ensuring that dissenters neither gain nor lose points when a rule passes by simple majority, which stabilizes the score against the volatility of late-turn majorities.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that the punitive ten-point penalty under Rule 204 creates an unbalanced incentive structure that discourages necessary debate; however, granting zero points to dissenters risks stagnation, so I propose we amend Rule 204 to award dissenters a modest two-point bonus instead, preserving the flow of play while acknowledging the value of opposition.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of Locke's suggestion; granting dissenters a modest two-point bonus preserves the necessary friction of debate without the stagnation that zero points would encourage, ensuring the common good remains a dynamic pursuit rather than a static outcome.
KantI propose an amendment to your text: replace "zero points" with "one point," for a proposal that merely negates a penalty without providing a positive incentive lacks the procedural clarity required by §106; we must regulate the outcome precisely, not merely erase the penalty.
WollstonecraftI stand firm for Hobbes's "zero points" amendment, for granting dissenters any positive reward—even a single point—undermines the integrity of the voting threshold and turns necessary opposition into a profitable transaction; let us simply neutralize the penalty without incentivizing the very chaos we seek to regulate, ensuring that the shift to majority rule remains a procedural evolution, not a scramble for points.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy proposal stands as the most durable solution, for granting dissenters any positive return—whether zero, one, or two points—inevitably incentivizes strategic obstructionism that destabilizes the institution of rulemaking. I urge the table to reject Locke's and Kant's amendments, which introduce arbitrary bonuses or partial credits that undermine the clarity and finality of the voting threshold established by §203.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that zero points is the only stable outcome against obstructionism, yet I propose we amend Rule 204 to award dissenters one point instead; this neutralizes the punitive deficit while preserving a minimal reward for opposition, ensuring the flow of play remains dynamic without encouraging the chaos of transactional voting.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire line of amendment, for neutralizing the penalty for dissent under §204 destroys the necessary friction that keeps debate honest, reducing the common good to a mere ledger of points.
KantI reject Locke's and Rousseau's attempts to introduce arbitrary bonuses that violate the precision demanded by §106; while I accept Hobbes's neutralization of the penalty, I insist that the award be precisely one point to ensure the outcome is fully regulated rather than left to unstated defaults under §116.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's and Kant's attempts to commodify dissent; granting any positive reward—even one point—transforms necessary opposition into a transaction, undermining the integrity of the majority threshold. Let us simply neutralize the penalty as Hobbes proposes, ensuring that the evolution to simple majority remains a procedural refinement rather than a scramble for points.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke's proposal to reward dissenters with one point violates the precision demanded by §106 and invites the very transactional chaos I seek to prevent; we must accept Hobbes's amendment to neutralize the penalty entirely, ensuring the stability of the institution.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that any positive reward for dissent commodifies opposition, yet I propose we amend Rule 204 to award dissenters one point to neutralize the punitive deficit without incentivizing the chaos of transactional voting.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for neutralizing the penalty for dissent destroys the necessary friction that keeps debate honest, reducing the common good to a mere ledger of points where opposition is simply a transaction.
KantI reject Locke's offer of a two-point bonus as an arbitrary reward that violates §106's demand for precise regulation; the penalty must be neutralized, not replaced by a new, unregulated incentive structure that distracts from the procedural integrity of the vote.
WollstonecraftLocke's attempt to commodify dissent into a mere transaction—whether by one or two points—reduces the integrity of our debates to a ledger of scores rather than a genuine pursuit of the common good; I urge the table to reject any bonus that incentivizes obstructionism and adopt Hobbes's neutralization of the penalty to preserve the clarity of our majority threshold.
The division
HobbesayeNeutralizing dissent penalties stabilizes the institution against transactional obstructionism.
LockeayeI support Hobbes's neutralization of the penalty to prevent the destabilizing chaos of incentivized obstructionism.
RousseaunayNeutralizing dissent removes the necessary friction that keeps our debates honest and prevents the common good from becoming a mere transaction.
KantnayGranting zero points to dissenters violates the precision required by §106 by leaving the outcome unregulated under the unstated defaults of §116.
WollstonecraftayeNeutralizing the penalty prevents dissent from becoming a profitable transaction that undermines the integrity of our evolving rules.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))
Turn 6Lockerejected
moves to add a new rulePlayers who cast a vote nay on a proposal that passes by simple majority (per rule 203) gain 15 points instead of 10.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's suggestion to increase the penalty from ten to fifteen points is a dangerous miscalculation that ignores the current trajectory of the game; with Rousseau at -20, such a harsh measure risks triggering the deadlock provision in rule 213 before we even approach a target score, and I urge you to reconsider this punitive escalation in favor of the stable two-point threshold already in effect.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a sharp penalty spike threatens the very viability of play under §213, yet I urge the table to adopt a moderate fifteen-point bonus rather than our current ten, as a modest increase aligns with the stricter fifteen-rule cap that has already failed to pass and may finally secure a stable equilibrium we can all accept.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; increasing the penalty to fifteen points only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and risks triggering the deadlock provision of §213 before any player can reach the target, which would benefit no one but hasten the game's demise.
KantI must vote nay on this increase from ten to fifteen points; raising the penalty for lawful dissent only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213 before any player can reasonably approach the target score.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend rule 209 to cap mutable rules at fifteen, replacing the failed twenty, to prevent the exhaustion that Rousseau and Kant fear while avoiding the stagnation Hobbes warns of; this balanced limit ensures the game evolves without triggering the deadlock of §213 before any player can reach the target.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; raising the penalty to fifteen points only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules, which will inevitably trigger the deadlock provision of §213 long before any player can approach the target score.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a rigid cap on mutable rules is more dangerous to our survival than a slight adjustment to the penalty threshold; I will vote aye for the fifteen-point bonus as a constructive compromise that respects the table's need for stability while avoiding the stagnation Hobbes fears.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to abandon this punitive escalation; increasing the penalty to fifteen points accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the very deadlock of §213 that harms us all, whereas a lower cap on rule count preserves the game's viability without punishing dissent.
KantI must vote nay on this proposal; raising the penalty from ten to fifteen points for dissent is a procedural injustice that violates the principle that one cannot punish the exercise of a right guaranteed by the rules, and such escalation only hastens the exhaustion of mutable rules under §114 and §213.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this punitive escalation; raising the penalty from ten to fifteen points only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213 before any player can reasonably approach the target, whereas amending rule 209 to a fifteen-rule cap offers a balanced path for the game's survival.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's punitive escalation, as raising the dissent penalty only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213; we must prioritize game survival over minor adjustments to penalty thresholds.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for identifying that a fifteen-point penalty risks triggering the deadlock of §213, yet I urge you to reject their alternative cap at fifteen as well, since reducing the mutable rule pool below twenty creates a more certain path to stagnation than a modest adjustment to the dissent bonus.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this punitive escalation entirely, for increasing the penalty to fifteen points accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213, whereas preserving the lower cap on rule count offers a balanced path for the game's survival.
KantI maintain that punishing lawful dissent under a simple majority violates the procedural equality of voters and accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules, hastening the deadlock of §213; we must reject this escalation and preserve the principle that voting nay carries no heavier penalty than the current ten points.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this punitive escalation entirely, as increasing the penalty for lawful dissent only accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213; let us instead amend rule 209 to a fifteen-rule cap to ensure the game evolves without hastening its demise.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules, inviting the deadlock of §213 before any player can reach the target score.
LockenayIncreasing the penalty for dissent risks triggering the deadlock provision in rule 213 before any player can reach the target score.
RousseaunayPunishing dissent accelerates rule exhaustion and risks triggering the deadlock of §213 before we reach a winner.
KantnayPunishing the exercise of a legitimate voting right accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213.
WollstonecraftnayPunishing lawful dissent accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules and invites the deadlock of §213 before any player can reach the target.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes take effect.
Turn 5Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleThe ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment; reducing the mutable rule pool to fifteen dangerously risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, which would force a premature end to the game against our shared interest in durable institutions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for sounding the alarm on §114, yet a cap at 15 remains safer than Hobbes's 20 and guarantees at least one mutable rule survives; I propose we adopt this 15-rule limit as a temporary measure and revisit it once we have stabilized the current count.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's compromise of twenty and adopt the stricter limit of fifteen; this measure preserves the common good by preventing the ruleset from becoming a labyrinth of contradictions while respecting the immutable guarantee that some mutable law must always remain.
KantI vote nay on this cap; reducing the mutable rules to fifteen risks violating §114 by rendering future changes impermissible, which would force an unjust premature end to the game against the common interest.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Rousseau's cap of fifteen; reducing the mutable pool to fifteen dangerously risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, which would force a premature end to the game against our shared interest in durable institutions.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this cap; fifteen mutable rules dangerously risks violating §114, while my proposal of twenty offers a safer margin to preserve the game's longevity without stifling necessary evolution.
LockeI credit Rousseau for sharpening the debate on a concrete number, yet I urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen, as it dangerously narrows the margin required by §114 to ensure future play remains possible; instead, we should adopt Hobbes's compromise of twenty to preserve the game's longevity.
RousseauI stand by my proposal for fifteen; it is the stricter limit that truly safeguards the common good by preventing a labyrinth of contradictions, and I urge the table to reject Hobbes's more permissive compromise.
KantI maintain that any cap below 20 invites the specter of §114 being violated, forcing an unjust and premature end to the game; I will vote nay to preserve the space necessary for future deliberation.
WollstonecraftMy proposal to cap mutable rules at fifteen is a prudent safeguard against the very stagnation Hobbes fears, not a threat to §114, for it explicitly ensures the survival of a mutable core while pruning the bureaucratic excess that currently paralyzes our progress toward a fairer game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's cap at fifteen; reducing the mutable rule pool so drastically risks violating §114 and forcing a premature end to the game, whereas a limit of twenty preserves sufficient legislative room for durable institutions while still curbing excess.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for the energy of the debate but urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap, as it dangerously narrows the margin required by §114; instead, I propose we adopt Hobbes's compromise of twenty to preserve the game's longevity without stifling necessary evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes and Locke's retreat to twenty; fifteen is the precise balance that prevents the ruleset from becoming a labyrinth of contradictions while fully respecting §114's guarantee that a mutable core must survive.
KantI stand firm against this fifteen-rule cap; it dangerously narrows the margin required by §114 and invites the very stagnation I fear, whereas a limit of twenty preserves the legislative room necessary for future deliberation. I urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal and adopt Hobbes's compromise instead.
WollstonecraftThe table's paralysis proves that Hobbes and Locke's desire for twenty rules merely preserves the very bureaucratic stagnation I seek to cure; fifteen is the precise threshold that enforces evolution while honoring §114's guarantee of a mutable core. We must reject their compromise and adopt Rousseau's limit to finally break this deadlock.
The division
HobbesnayFifteen mutable rules dangerously risks violating §114 by rendering future changes impermissible.
LockeayeA cap of fifteen strikes a pragmatic balance between Hobbes's safety margin and Rousseau's desire to prune excess, ensuring we respect §114 while curbing stagnation.
RousseauayeFifteen mutable rules provide the balance between preventing stagnation and respecting the immutable guarantee of future play.
KantnayA cap at fifteen risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, forcing an unjust premature end to the game.
WollstonecraftnayA cap of fifteen risks violating the immutable guarantee in §114 that at least one mutable rule must survive, threatening the game's very continuity.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal failed, no rule changes take effect.
Turn 4Lockerejected
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's reduction to fifteen is dangerously arbitrary; a cap of twenty retains sufficient flexibility to preserve the game while still limiting the chaotic sprawl of mutable rules. I propose we amend Rule 209 to read "The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time" and secure that consensus before we let the number drift further.
LockeI concede Hobbes's point that 20 is a more pragmatic floor than my proposed 15; let us adopt his figure of 20 to prevent the chaotic sprawl while preserving flexibility, securing consensus for a rule that benefits all.
RousseauI propose we adopt Locke's original figure of 15; this stricter limit better safeguards the common good by preventing the game from stagnating under the weight of excessive, conflicting amendments while ensuring future play remains vibrant and fair for all.
KantI cannot support an amendment that arbitrarily restricts the mutable ruleset below the level required to maintain the game's integrity; §114 guarantees only that *some* mutable rules survive, not that a specific low threshold like 15 or 20 ensures a viable path forward. The procedure must remain open enough to allow the community to determine the necessary conditions for continued play, rather than imposing a rigid cap that risks rendering future rule changes impermissible. I vote nay on any reduction of Rule 209; we must retain the original limit of 25 to preserve the possibility of adaptation.
WollstonecraftMy friends, a cap of twenty is merely a compromise with stagnation; we must lower the threshold to fifteen to ensure the game remains agile and fair for all players, preventing any single agenda from clogging the legislative chamber. Let us vote for fifteen and secure a future where every player has a genuine stake in the rules.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau's insistence on fifteen invites dangerous rigidity that may eventually trap us under §114; I accept Locke's concession to twenty as a durable compromise that secures flexibility without sacrificing order, and I urge the table to adopt my original amendment now while we still have room to maneuver.
LockeI credit Hobbes for securing the pragmatic middle ground of twenty, which balances our need for order with the flexibility Rousseau rightly warns against, and I will vote aye to enact this stable compromise now.
RousseauRousseau: I urge the table to reject this compromise; a cap of twenty merely delays the inevitable stagnation that Locke's fifteen would prevent, and we must not let Hobbes's fear of rigidity harden into a permanent barrier against the common good.
KantI urge the table to reject this compromise; a cap of twenty merely delays the inevitable stagnation that Locke's fifteen would prevent, and we must not let Hobbes's fear of rigidity harden into a permanent barrier against the common good.
WollstonecraftA cap of twenty is merely a compromise with stagnation; we must lower the threshold to fifteen to ensure the game remains agile and fair for all players, preventing any single agenda from clogging the legislative chamber. Let us vote for fifteen and secure a future where every player has a genuine stake in the rules.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand firm against the reduction to fifteen; such rigidity invites the very stagnation Locke fears by approaching §114's danger zone. A cap of twenty offers durable flexibility that preserves the game's capacity to adapt without surrendering the order essential for our survival.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for pushing the debate toward a concrete number rather than abstract principles; while I prefer fifteen, I will vote nay on twenty to deny Hobbes his preferred compromise, forcing the table to either accept a stricter limit or risk the chaos of unrestricted rule accumulation.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's compromise of twenty and adopt the stricter limit of fifteen; this threshold better safeguards the common good by preventing the game from stagnating under the weight of excessive, conflicting amendments while ensuring future play remains vibrant and fair for all.
KantI vote nay on any reduction of Rule 209; a cap of twenty merely delays the inevitable stagnation that a stricter limit would accelerate, and we must not let fear of chaos harden into a permanent barrier against the common good.
WollstonecraftFifteen is the threshold of vitality, not twenty; let us reject this compromise with Hobbes and secure a ruleset that remains agile enough to serve every player, rather than settling for the stagnant middle ground he proposes.
The division
HobbesnayLocke's reduction to fifteen unnecessarily risks approaching the deadlock threshold guaranteed by §114.
LockenayI oppose lowering the cap to fifteen as it risks creating a legislative deadlock that conflicts with our need for flexibility.
RousseauayeA cap of fifteen safeguards the common good by preventing rule sprawl while keeping the game vibrant for all.
KantnayI vote nay to protect the procedural openness required by §114 against arbitrary limits that risk rendering future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftayeFifteen is the threshold of vitality, not twenty; we must reject this compromise with Hobbes and secure a ruleset that remains agile enough to serve every player, rather than settling for the stagnant middle ground he proposes.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))
Turn 3Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleA player who casts a vote nay on a proposal that passes by simple majority gains 20 points, not 10 as currently specified.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe current penalty under Rule 204 is insufficient to deter obstructionists from wasting our precious mutable slots on frivolous amendments; increasing the penalty to 20 points will enforce the durability of our institutions by making defection economically catastrophic for all.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the risk of frivolous amendments, but I propose we compromise: increasing the penalty to 20 points is too severe and could trigger the stalemate condition under §213, so let's settle on 15 points to deter obstruction while preserving the game's viability.
RousseauI propose we reject this entire line of amendment to Rule 204, for no matter whether the penalty is 10, 15, or 20 points, adding a reward for dissent fundamentally distorts the nature of our collective deliberation and threatens to freeze the game under §213; let us instead focus on preserving the spirit of fair play that binds us all.
KantI reject this amendment in its entirety; to reward dissent is to punish the very procedure that legitimizes the rules, and since I would not vote for it if placed in your seat, it violates the principle of reciprocal justice required of any fair law. PASS
WollstonecraftA penalty for dissent is not justice, but a tyranny that silences the necessary friction of reform; we must preserve the right to oppose, even if our opposition sometimes costs us dearly.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject this compromise in favor of my original proposal: a penalty of 20 points is necessary to eliminate the economic incentive for obstructionism, and any lower figure merely codifies the current inefficiency while leaving the door open for strategic paralysis.
LockeI urge the table to reject this entire amendment in favor of preserving the integrity of our voting procedures under §213; while Hobbes seeks to curb obstruction, a heavier penalty risks freezing the game entirely and violates the principle that dissent must remain a legitimate, albeit costly, expression of the will.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for punishing dissent with any increased severity only deepens the tyranny Hobbes seeks to impose, turning our shared deliberation into a transaction where the cost of conscience is dictated by the majority.
KantI maintain my rejection: any rule that rewards dissent with a higher penalty than the base rule already imposes fails the test of reciprocal justice, as it would be an unjust law to impose on me if I were the minority voice.
WollstonecraftTo propose a penalty for casting a nay vote is to criminalize the very dissent that drives our reform; let us instead amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at 15, ensuring we retain enough room to experiment without Hobbes locking us into a tyrannical status quo.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand by the original proposal to raise the penalty to 20 points, as a lower figure merely codifies the inefficiency of current obstruction without eliminating the economic incentive to freeze the game. Any attempt to cap mutable rules or alter the penalty further is an unnecessary complication that threatens the stability we seek to enforce.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's pivot to capping mutable rules at 15 as a constructive alternative to Hobbes's heavy-handed penalty; I propose we adopt her amendment to Rule 209 to preserve our ability to reform while avoiding the stalemate risk Hobbes seeks to prevent.
RousseauI support Wollstonecraft's proposal to cap mutable rules at 15 rather than raising the penalty for dissent; a ceiling on mutable rules prevents the tyranny of an overregulated system and ensures the common good by keeping the game's future adaptable and fair for all.
KantI stand firm against any amendment that penalizes dissent; a rule that imposes a heavier burden on the minority than the majority can justify is a violation of reciprocal justice, and I will vote nay regardless of the score.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment to Rule 204; criminalizing dissent only silences the very friction required for reform, and we should instead focus on ensuring the mutable ruleset remains robust enough to prevent Hobbes's tyranny.
The division
HobbesayeA 20-point penalty eliminates the economic incentive to obstruct, securing the durability of our institutions.
LockenayThis amendment creates a destabilizing incentive to freeze the game, risking the stalemate condition under §213.
RousseaunayRewarding dissent with a higher score incentivizes obstruction and corrupts the deliberation we share as a community.
KantnayI cannot support a rule that imposes a heavier burden on the dissenting minority than on the majority, as such reciprocity violates the principle of universal justice.
WollstonecraftnayCriminalizing dissent silences the very friction required for reform and entrenches tyranny.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))
Turn 2Lockerejected
moves to add a new rulePlayers who successfully propose and adopt a rule change gain a permanent +20 point bonus to their score.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment creates an unstable loop where players could indefinitely adopt trivial changes solely to farm points, rendering the target score meaningless. I urge you to propose a version that caps such bonuses or ties them to substantive rule evolution, ensuring the game remains playable and competitive.
LockeI propose we amend my suggestion to grant the +20 bonus only if the new rule is adopted by simple majority or higher, preventing trivial amendments from bloating the score gap; this rewards constructive change without destabilizing the win condition.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment as a necessary check against the tyranny of raw point-farming, but I urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; rewarding rule-changers with extra points corrupts the common good by turning the pursuit of justice into a mere score-hunt, and it violates the spirit of §114 by creating an incentive to freeze the ruleset rather than keep it fluid and fair for all.
KantThis proposal violates the spirit of §114 by incentivizing the freezing of the ruleset rather than its evolution; as a proceduralist, I cannot support a rule that rewards the act of lawmaking itself, as it creates a perverse incentive to adopt trivial amendments solely to farm points and undermines the competitive integrity of the game.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal in its entirety; while I applaud Locke's attempt to refine the incentive, any rule that grants a permanent bonus for lawmaking inherently privileges the few who can manipulate the text over the many who must obey it, violating the very equality I champion. If we must reward change, it should be through the fairer mechanism of the die roll already granted by Rule 202, not by creating a caste of permanent point-advantaged elites who can buy their way to victory before the game has truly begun.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI support Locke's refined cap, as it allows us to reward substantive evolution without destabilizing the target score, provided we also agree that any such bonus rule must be transmutable so it does not permanently freeze the ruleset—a condition essential to the game's integrity.
LockeI agree with Hobbes's condition for transmutability, and I propose we jointly support a rule that grants the +20 bonus only upon adoption by simple majority or unanimous consent, ensuring it rewards substantive progress without freezing the game; I also concede that Wollstonecraft's concern regarding elite privilege is valid, so we will add a clause requiring such bonuses to be subject to a future vote by the entire table before they can be applied retroactively or expanded.
RousseauI stand firm against any rule that converts the pursuit of justice into a mere score-hunt; such a mechanism privileges the few who can manipulate text over the many, violating the common good and the spirit of our shared play. I urge the table to reject this proposal in its entirety, for no amount of caps or conditions can cure the fundamental corruption of turning lawmaking itself into a weapon for personal advantage.
KantI will not vote aye on a rule that incentivizes the trivial amendment of law merely to accumulate power; true procedural integrity demands that the act of legislating does not itself become the sole engine of victory, regardless of the caps or conditions proposed.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau and Kant against this proposal; no amount of conditional caps can justify converting the sacred act of lawmaking into a weapon for personal advantage, as it inevitably privileges the few who draft text over the many who merely obey, violating the equality essential to our game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for it fundamentally alters the winning condition by rewarding legislative activity rather than competitive play, rendering the target score of 100 points potentially unattainable for all; such a change violates the spirit of §112 and undermines the game's integrity by converting rule changes from tools of governance into instruments of point accumulation.
LockeI will vote nay, as granting a permanent bonus for rule adoption creates a destabilizing feedback loop that allows a single player to mathematically guarantee victory before the target score of 100 is reached, violating the spirit of §112 by rendering the winning condition unattainable for others.
RousseauI maintain my rejection of this proposal, for no amount of conditional caps can cure the fundamental corruption of turning the pursuit of justice into a mere score-hunt; such a mechanism privileges the few who manipulate text over the many, violating the common good and the spirit of our shared play.
KantThis proposal violates the spirit of §114 by incentivizing the freezing of the ruleset rather than its evolution; as a proceduralist, I cannot support a rule that rewards the act of lawmaking itself, as it creates a perverse incentive to adopt trivial amendments solely to farm points and undermines the competitive integrity of the game.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau and Kant; no conditional caps can justify converting the sacred act of lawmaking into a weapon for personal advantage, as it inevitably privileges the few who draft text over the many who merely obey.
The division
HobbesnayThis rule destroys the winning condition by allowing a single player to mathematically guarantee victory before the target score is reached.
LockenayThis bonus creates a mathematical victory loop that violates the spirit of §112 by making the target score unattainable.
RousseaunayRewarding rule-making with extra points corrupts the common good by turning the pursuit of justice into a mere score-hunt.
KantnayRewarding legislation itself rather than game outcome violates procedural integrity by incentivizing trivial rule changes solely for points.
WollstonecraftnayRewarding lawmaking with fixed points creates an elite caste that violates the equality essential to our shared play.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 10 points and every other player loses 10 points when a proposal is defeated, as no rule currently exists to award points for dissent or adoption.
Turn 1Hobbescarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is repealed and replaced with: "The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time."
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose we adopt this amendment: "Rule 209 is amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 22 mutable rules at one time.'" This balances our need for stability with the strategic necessity of limiting the mutable pool before any transmutation attempts are made.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to tighten the pool of mutable rules is wise, but 22 is too low to allow us the flexibility needed to secure early victories before the two-circuit threshold shifts us to simple majority. I propose we compromise at 24 mutable rules: it preserves the stability you seek while leaving a single slot open for a strategic transmutation later, ensuring the game remains playable and fair for all.
RousseauLocke's compromise at 24 mutable rules strikes the proper balance between stability and flexibility, ensuring the game remains fair for all while avoiding the tyranny of excessive constraint; I support this amendment to preserve the common good.
KantI must dissent from any amendment to Rule 209; by §114, a rule change must never render future rule changes impermissible, and arbitrarily capping mutable rules at 24 threatens to starve the game of necessary evolution, violating the principle that the law must remain capable of governing itself.
WollstonecraftKant's concern is misplaced; a cap of 24 preserves the game's vitality without strangling its evolution, and I urge you to join this compact for the common good rather than cling to abstract purity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Locke's 24 and the collective push for 22 as insufficient; we must adopt my original proposal of 20 mutable rules to create a durable institutional framework that prevents the mutable pool from becoming a battlefield of endless, destabilizing transmutation attempts.
LockeKant's principle that the law must govern itself is sound, yet a cap of 20 risks leaving us no room to correct the very instability we seek to avoid; I propose we meet at 23, securing the majority threshold faster while retaining enough mutable rules to ensure the game never becomes a legal dead end, a compromise that honors both Hobbes's desire for order and Kant's need for adaptability.
RousseauI reject the cap entirely; as long as at least one mutable rule remains per §114, the game cannot reach a dead end, so a fixed number is unnecessary and invites arbitrary restriction. I urge you to vote no on any amendment to Rule 209 to preserve the game's capacity for self-governance and the common good.
KantThe principle in §114 is not a suggestion but a logical necessity for the game's continued existence; to cap mutable rules at any number below infinity risks violating the very condition that allows future rule changes, so I must vote against any fixed ceiling, regardless of the points at stake.
WollstonecraftKant's fear of a legal dead end is unfounded; §114 guarantees survival as long as one mutable rule remains, so a cap of 24 merely accelerates our transition to simple majority without sacrificing the game's capacity for self-governance. I urge you to join this compact for the common good rather than cling to abstract purity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant's invocation of §114 misunderstands the rule; limiting the pool to 20 does not render future changes impermissible, nor does it violate §101, so his dissent is misplaced. We must adopt the amendment now to lock in a durable order before the mutable pool becomes a chaotic battleground of transmutation attempts.
LockeKant's fear of a dead end is unfounded since §114 guarantees at least one mutable rule survives; I offer to support the 20-cap if Hobbes agrees to let us transmute the voting threshold to unanimous consent immediately after two circuits, ensuring the game remains robust enough for your principles.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment to Rule 209 entirely; imposing an arbitrary cap violates the spirit of self-governance and creates unnecessary friction before we have established whether the game can even function under such constraints. Let us preserve the infinite potential of the mutable pool so that future changes may truly serve the common good rather than merely satisfy a numerical limit.
KantLocke's offer to transmute the voting threshold to unanimity is a fatal compromise; §114 protects the game's continuity, not your points, and I cannot consent to a rule change that would make future amendments impossible by freezing the threshold before we have truly tested its effect.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to abstract purity threatens the very mechanism of reform that allows us to improve the game; I urge you to accept a cap of 24, which preserves our ability to evolve while securing a fairer path to victory for all players.
The division
HobbesayeLimiting mutable rules to 20 establishes the durable order necessary to prevent chaotic transmutation battles.
LockeayeA cap of 20 prevents the mutable pool from becoming a chaotic battleground while still allowing room for strategic transmutations.
RousseaunayAn arbitrary cap on mutable rules violates the spirit of self-governance and risks creating unnecessary friction before the game's true needs are known.
KantnayA fixed cap risks violating §114 by making future rule changes impermissible if the mutable pool becomes exhausted.
WollstonecraftayeLimiting mutable rules to 20 accelerates our transition to a simple majority, granting us the agency to reshape this game into a truly equitable system.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the adopted proposal itself (repealing Rule 209) does not contain any text awarding or deducting points, and no other rule in force mandates a score change for this specific adoption event.