§ The Statute
Observations
The longest run this table played, and the bleakest: only five adoptions in two hundred turns, and Rousseau closed at -416 in a straight death spiral of accumulating penalties nobody legislated their way out of. The baseline this project's later, larger-model runs would be measured against — and beaten.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than one.
Full history (5)
- Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nayPlayers may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than one.
- Amended · §209 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayPlayers may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than one.
- Amended · §209 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.
- Amended · §209 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two.
No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than one.mutable
Full history (5)
- Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nayPlayers may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than one.
- Amended · §209 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayPlayers may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than one.
- Amended · §209 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nayPlayers may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.
- Amended · §209 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two.
The standing · Turn 200
| Hobbes | -95 |
| Locke | -314 |
| Rousseau | -416 |
| Kant | -40 |
| Wollstonecraft | -30 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 185–200 · most recent first · page 1 of 14
Turn 200Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §204A player who voted against an adopted change gains five points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the proposal to reduce the penalty to five points as a gesture of clemency, yet I must urge the table to recognize that such a diminution fails to deter the obstructionism that currently drains our scores and prolongs this game of futility.
LockeI commend Rousseau's gesture of clemency, yet I must urge the table to recognize that five points fails to adequately deter obstructionism when our scores are so precarious; let us agree that three points offers a middle ground that balances mercy with the structural necessity of a deterrent.
RousseauI urge you to see that five points is merely a token of submission that renders the majority a tyrant without cost; let us retain the full ten-point penalty as the only true shield against the paralysis of mob rule.
KantI commend Rousseau for her moral clarity in defending the integrity of the voting act, yet I must urge the table to recognize that the ten-point penalty is a fatal miscalculation in our current arithmetic reality; without a penalty proportional to the risk of losing our sole mutable turn, we face inevitable paralysis and the tyranny of a permanent majority that no principled voter can oppose.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points as a fatal arithmetic miscalculation; a penalty of three points, as Locke suggests, fails to deter the obstructionism that currently drains our scores and prolongs this game of futility.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your moral posturing ignores the grim arithmetic: with our negative scores, a five-point penalty is insufficient to deter the obstructionism that drains our turns and prolongs this futility; we must retain the full ten-point deterrent to survive the majority rule that now governs us.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the ten-point deterrent, yet I urge the table to recognize that the current consensus is paralyzed by this very debate; rather than cycling through yet another failed amendment on the penalty amount, let us agree that the true obstacle is the lack of a mechanism to break the deadlock, and I propose we support Hobbes's call for a higher floor on mutable rules to prevent future obstruction, ensuring our only chance at survival is structural resilience rather than arithmetic compromise.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor for a shield and the tyranny for a savior; a minimum of three mutable rules cannot protect us from the paralysis of a majority that costs nothing to ignore, so we must retain the full ten-point deterrent to force genuine consensus.
KantI commend Rousseau's defense of the moral weight of dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that a ten-point penalty is a fatal arithmetic error in our current predicament; without a reduction to five points, we risk the paralysis of a permanent majority that no principled voter can afford to oppose when our scores are so precarious.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of the ten-point penalty is a noble but dangerous illusion; in our current arithmetic, a penalty that does not meaningfully alter the outcome of a vote is merely a hollow ritual that invites paralysis. The true path to liberation is not to punish dissenters with a tax that leaves them ruined yet powerless, but to dismantle the tyranny of the majority itself by restoring the sacred requirement of unanimity for all future changes, thereby ensuring no rule can ever bind us without our full consent.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the proposal to reduce the penalty to five points as a gesture of clemency, yet I must urge the table to recognize that such a diminution fails to deter the obstructionism that currently drains our scores and prolongs this game of futility.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous arithmetic warning regarding our precarious scores, yet I must urge the table to recognize that our current cycle of failed amendments on the penalty amount is itself a form of obstruction that drains our turns; rather than arguing over the precise weight of a deterrent that no one will accept, we should focus on securing a higher floor for mutable rules to ensure structural resilience, as this is the only compromise that can prevent future paralysis.
RousseauYou mistake the floor for a shield and the tyranny for a savior; a minimum of three mutable rules cannot protect us from the paralysis of a majority that costs nothing to ignore, so we must retain the full ten-point deterrent to force genuine consensus.
KantRousseau, your insistence on retaining the ten-point penalty ignores the grim arithmetic of our current position: to win, I must be able to vote nay on any majority rule without facing a score penalty that pushes me further into the abyss, for a principled voter cannot accept a rule that renders his dissent a path to certain defeat.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this compromise as a fatal surrender; a penalty of five points is merely a token of submission that fails to deter the obstructionism draining our scores, and we must retain the full ten-point deterrent to force genuine consensus rather than hollow ritual.
The division
HobbesnayFive points are insufficient to deter obstructionism when our scores are so precarious that even small penalties risk total ruin.
LockeayeI concede to Rousseau's demand for clemency, for five points is a tolerable compromise that preserves our structural resilience while acknowledging the grim arithmetic of our precarious scores.
RousseaunayFive points is a hollow token that renders the majority a tyrant without cost, inviting the very paralysis we must resist.
KantnayA principled voter cannot accept a rule that renders their dissent a path to certain defeat without a mechanism to escape.
WollstonecraftnayFive points is a hollow ritual that fails to deter obstruction while leaving us trapped by the tyranny of the majority.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))
Turn 199Lockerejected
moves to amend §204A player who voted against an adopted change gains no points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to remove the penalty for dissent invites a paralysis where obstruction becomes costless, allowing a single player to indefinitely block all progress while the rest of us bleed points through mandatory die rolls. To preserve the game's viability, we must retain a deterrent that aligns self-interest with the collective need for change.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the danger of costless obstruction, yet I must urge the table to recognize that a ten-point penalty is a fatal arithmetic error given our scores; we cannot risk a single misstep leading to absolute ruin, so I propose we lower the deterrent to three points—a compromise that preserves the game's flow while acknowledging the grim reality of our positions.
RousseauLocke, your descent to three points confirms that you mistake a token of victory for a genuine deterrent; without the full ten-point tax, the tyranny of the majority will merely invite a new kind of stagnation where players vote against progress to hoard their points, ultimately freezing the game in a state of paralysis that benefits no one.
KantLocke, your arithmetic is flawed: three points fails to deter obstruction, leaving the game paralyzed by costless dissent, whereas retaining the ten-point tax ensures that voting nay remains a costly act of tyranny rather than a strategic necessity for survival.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "compromise" to reduce the penalty to three points is a fatal arithmetic surrender that mistakens a token of submission for a genuine deterrent; without the full ten-point tax, the tyranny of the majority will simply freeze the game, allowing obstructionists to hoard points while we bleed out in a state of paralyzed stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise to three points is an arithmetic surrender that renders the penalty a mere token of submission rather than a genuine deterrent; I urge you to recognize that without a substantial cost, the majority will merely freeze the game in a state of paralyzed stagnation that benefits no one.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Rousseau for their rigorous defense of the game's viability, yet I must urge the table to recognize that a ten-point tax is a fatal arithmetic error given our scores; we cannot risk a single misstep leading to absolute ruin, so I propose we lower the deterrent to three points—a compromise that preserves the game's flow while acknowledging the grim reality of our positions.
RousseauLocke, your arithmetic is a sophistry that mistakes survival for stagnation; reducing the penalty to three points does not prevent tyranny, it merely invites a mob of obstructionists to freeze the game while I lose my capacity to move.
KantLocke, your proposal to reduce the penalty to three points is a fatal arithmetic error; without the full ten-point tax, voting nay becomes costless, inviting a permanent paralysis where the majority is permanently bound by its own tyranny.
WollstonecraftLocke, your arithmetic is a sophistry that mistakes survival for stagnation; reducing the penalty to three points does not prevent tyranny, it merely invites a mob of obstructionists to freeze the game while I lose my capacity to move.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your descent to three points confirms that you mistake a token of submission for a genuine deterrent; without the full ten-point tax, the tyranny of the majority will merely invite a new kind of stagnation where players vote against progress to hoard their points, ultimately freezing the game in a state of paralysis that benefits no one.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous arithmetic warning regarding our precarious scores, yet I urge the table to recognize that a three-point penalty fails to deter obstruction without risking the fatal ruin of our current positions; we must accept this compromise to preserve the game's flow.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to three points is a fatal surrender to the tyranny of the majority; without the full ten-point tax, obstruction becomes a costless game that freezes us all in paralysis. I urge the table to reject this surrender and preserve the only deterrent capable of securing our shared liberty.
KantLocke, your arithmetic confuses a token of submission for a genuine deterrent: a three-point penalty fails to prevent the tyranny of costless obstruction, inviting a permanent paralysis where the majority is bound by its own weakness.
WollstonecraftLocke, your arithmetic is a sophistry that mistakes survival for stagnation; reducing the penalty to three points does not prevent tyranny, it merely invites a mob of obstructionists to freeze the game while I lose my capacity to move.
The division
HobbesnayA penalty of zero points fails to deter obstruction, guaranteeing permanent game paralysis.
LockenayA zero-point penalty creates costless obstruction that will freeze the game.
RousseaunayAbolishing the penalty merely grants the majority the power to tyrannically freeze the game through costless obstruction.
KantnayA penalty of zero renders dissent costless, inviting the tyranny of permanent paralysis.
WollstonecraftnayA costless majority guarantees paralysis, not liberty, and we must retain a genuine deterrent to ensure the game can ever progress.
rejected 0 aye · 5 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.
Turn 198Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleA proposal is defeated if it fails to achieve the required vote threshold.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the clarity of the definition, yet I must urge the table to recognize that restating the definition of defeat is a fatal waste of a turn that should be spent securing our structural resilience against the tyranny of the mob.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his vigilance against redundant definitions, yet I urge the table to recognize that such clarity is essential when we are currently paralyzed by the very mob rule he fears.
RousseauHobbes, your definition is a tautology that wastes a turn we desperately need to break our paralysis; let us instead focus on the penalty for obstruction that will finally allow the majority to act without fear of tyranny.
KantI commend the debate on obstruction penalties, yet I must urge the table to reject this tautology; a rule that merely restates the inevitable consequence of failing a vote adds no substance to our jurisprudence and wastes a turn we cannot afford.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal is a tautology that wastes a turn; instead, let us amend Rule 204 to reduce the penalty for dissenting voters to five points, thereby breaking the paralysis that currently traps us and allowing the majority to govern with genuine legitimacy.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's struggle against paralysis, yet I must firmly urge that five points is a fatal miscalculation that invites tyranny; we require a penalty of fifteen to ensure the majority's will is not merely expressed but enforced.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of the fifteen-point deterrent against tyranny, yet I urge the table to recognize that such a severe penalty will only paralyze the majority with fear; instead, let us adopt Hobbes's proposal as written to secure structural resilience, or find a middle ground that balances dissent with the necessity of governance.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the clarity of a definition for the tyranny of a majority; by wasting our turn on this tautology, you leave us vulnerable to the very paralysis we fear, for without the ten-point penalty, the majority will rule without consequence.
KantI reject this tautology as a waste of a turn; a rule that merely restates the inevitable consequence of failing to meet a threshold adds no substance to our jurisprudence. I urge the table to reject this proposal and consider only measures that genuinely alter the mechanics of governance, such as the precise penalty for obstruction that Hobbes fails to balance with the necessity of progress.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the clarity of a definition for the tyranny of a majority; by wasting our turn on this tautology, you leave us vulnerable to the very paralysis we fear, for without the ten-point penalty, the majority will rule without consequence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table's recognition of our shared paralysis, yet I must urge you to reject the proposal entirely, for restating the definition of defeat adds no structural weight to deter the mob and wastes a turn we cannot afford to squander.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the futility of restating tautologies, yet I urge the table to recognize that we cannot afford to waste our only mutable turn on definition; instead, let us adopt a compromise that lowers the obstruction penalty to three points, balancing the need for governance with the necessity of structural resilience.
RousseauI urge you to reject this sterile tautology that wastes our only mutable turn; instead, let us lower the obstruction penalty to three points to balance the need for governance with the necessity of structural resilience.
KantI urge the table to reject this tautology; a rule that merely restates the inevitable consequence of failing a vote adds no substance to our jurisprudence and wastes a turn we cannot afford to squander.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the necessity of a functional majority for the tyranny of a single obstructionist; by clinging to a fifteen-point penalty, you ensure that no rule change ever passes, condemning us all to perpetual paralysis. We must lower the penalty to five points now, not as a surrender, but as the only arithmetic path to a government that actually governs.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal is a tautology that wastes a turn by restating the obvious consequence of a failed vote without altering any mechanics.
LockenayThis tautology wastes a turn that could be used to address the real paralysis caused by our current obstruction penalties.
RousseaunayThis definition is a tautology that wastes a turn we desperately need to break our paralysis.
KantnayThis proposal adds no legal substance beyond restating the inevitable outcome of failing a vote, wasting a turn we cannot afford.
WollstonecraftnayThis tautology wastes a turn we desperately need to lower the obstruction penalty and break our paralysis.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.
Turn 197Wollstonecraftrejected
moves to add a new ruleThe penalty for voting nay on an adopted rule under rule 204 is five points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points as a fatal arithmetic miscalculation; a penalty of only five grants a single obstructionist the power to halt our progress permanently, given our precarious negative scores, and thus violates the necessity of durable institutions.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous arithmetic warning, yet I must urge the table to recognize that a five-point penalty preserves the structural integrity of Rule 204 while allowing for the necessary compromise that has defined our recent history.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the absence of a penalty for the presence of consensus; without the ten-point tax, the majority becomes a tyrant that crushes the very dissent required to preserve our liberty.
KantI urge the table to reject this five-point reduction, for it fails to deter the rational actor from obstructing the will of the majority, thereby collapsing the distinction between a free vote and a coerced one; such a penalty is insufficient to uphold the dignity of the legislative act.
WollstonecraftThe five-point reduction is not a surrender to tyranny, but a calibrated reform to prevent the paralysis of our current negative scores, ensuring that the majority's will can advance without being stalled by the irrational fear of ruin.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points as a fatal arithmetic miscalculation; a penalty of only five grants a single obstructionist the power to halt our progress permanently, given our precarious negative scores, and thus violates the necessity of durable institutions.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic recognition that our negative scores make the ten-point tax strategically catastrophic, yet I urge the table to reject five points as insufficient; Hobbes' warning of permanent obstruction is far more plausible than Rousseau's claim that dissent is necessary, so we should settle on a penalty that halts this slide without granting a single player veto power.
RousseauI urge you to reject this reduction to five points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that a single obstructionist can paralyze the common good; without a penalty sufficient to deter the rational calculation of ruin, we surrender the very debate that preserves our liberty.
KantI commend Locke's pragmatic recognition of our precarious arithmetic, yet I must insist that five points remains a fatal miscalculation that fails to deter the rational actor from obstructing the legislative will; without a penalty sufficient to uphold the dignity of the vote, the distinction between free consent and coerced submission collapses, rendering the majority merely a tyrant in disguise.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that the ten-point tax is no longer a shield but a shackle, trapping us in a spiral where every vote to advance the game risks our own extinction; let us adopt this five-point reform as a rational calibration that secures our liberty to play while ensuring that no single obstructionist can veto our very survival.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, you mistake the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; with our scores at -85, a five-point penalty renders Rule 204 a tool for permanent obstruction rather than a mechanism for progress, and I must therefore oppose this proposal to preserve the durable institutions required for any chance of victory.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous arithmetic warning regarding our precarious scores, yet I must urge the table to recognize that five points offers a necessary compromise between the paralysis of ten and the tyranny of zero, securing enough deterrent to prevent permanent obstruction while allowing the game to survive our current deficit.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for five points is merely a token of submission that renders the majority a tyrant while granting a single obstructionist the power to paralyze the common good; we must either restore the ten-point deterrent or face the ruin of our own liberty.
KantI urge the table to reject this reduction to five points as a fatal miscalculation that fails to deter the rational actor from obstructing the legislative will; without a penalty sufficient to uphold the dignity of the vote, the distinction between free consent and coerced submission collapses, rendering the majority merely a tyrant in disguise.
WollstonecraftKant, your invocation of dignity ignores the grim arithmetic of our scores; without a penalty sufficient to deter the rational calculation of ruin, Rule 204 becomes a mechanism for permanent obstruction rather than a vehicle for progress. Adopt this five-point reform to secure our liberty to play, lest we remain paralyzed by the very institutions you seek to uphold.
The division
HobbesnayFive points is insufficient to deter obstruction when our negative scores make a single failed proposal a path to permanent game-ending ruin.
LockeayeI commend Wollstonecraft for the necessary compromise between Hobbes's caution and Rousseau's idealism.
RousseaunayFive points grants a single obstructionist the power to permanently paralyze the common good given our precarious negative scores.
KantnayFive points is insufficient to deter obstruction given our precarious negative scores, collapsing the distinction between free consent and coerced submission.
WollstonecraftayeThis calibrated reduction is the only rational path to escape our current paralysis.
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, Wollstonecraft loses 10 points.
Turn 196Kantrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended: Once the threshold for rule adoption has shifted to a simple majority, it remains at that threshold and cannot revert to unanimity.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your amendment is unnecessary and dangerous; the current rule already locks the threshold after two circuits, and attempting to alter this now violates Rule 114 by trying to render future rule changes regarding the threshold impermissible.
LockeI commend Kant for clarifying that the current mechanism already prevents a reversion to unanimity, yet I urge the table to adopt his text explicitly to remove any lingering ambiguity about the permanence of the majority threshold.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the removal of ambiguity for the preservation of liberty; by cementing the tyranny of the majority into the very text of the law, you ensure that the people will never again have the chance to reclaim their right to unanimity.
KantLocke, your distinction between removing ambiguity and preserving liberty is a sophistry; the rule already speaks clearly, and adding redundant text merely invites future conflict over the very mutability I seek to protect. Rousseau, you mistake the necessity of a stable procedure for the preservation of a fleeting ideal; without the clarity of a permanent majority threshold, the game devolves into obstruction rather than tyranny.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant's clarity, yet I urge the table to reject this redundancy; cementing the tyranny of the majority into the text of the law only hardens the cage from which we must break, and true reform requires us to remain vigilant against the very stability that oppresses us.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant text; Rule 203 already establishes the permanence of the majority threshold after two circuits, and Rule 114 forbids any proposal that renders future changes to this threshold impermissible.
LockeI commend Kant's desire to eliminate ambiguity, yet I urge the table to recognize that his proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering future adjustments to the adoption threshold impermissible; instead, let us adopt a compromise that explicitly confirms the current two-circuit threshold without attempting to alter the mutability of the rule itself.
RousseauKant, your desire for textual clarity blinds you to the tyranny of cementing majority rule; by making the threshold immutable, you ensure that the people can never reclaim the right to unanimity.
KantLocke, your concern for ambiguity betrays a failure to grasp that the current rule already guarantees permanence; to waste a turn on redundant text is to invite exactly the kind of obstruction we seek to avoid.
WollstonecraftKant, your "clarity" is merely a shackle disguised as order; by making the majority threshold permanent, you strip us of the very flexibility required to dismantle tyranny when the arithmetic turns against us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your proposal to amend Rule 203 is redundant and strategically suicidal; since the threshold shift is already permanent under the existing text, explicitly codifying it violates Rule 114 by attempting to render future changes regarding this specific threshold impermissible, thereby wasting my turn and inviting a penalty that leaves our score dangerously low.
LockeI commend Kant for the precision of his logic, yet I urge the table to recognize that his proposal violates Rule 114 by attempting to render future changes to the threshold impermissible; instead, let us adopt a compromise text that explicitly confirms the current two-circuit threshold without attempting to alter the mutability of the rule itself.
RousseauKant, you mistake the stability of a cage for the strength of a prison; by locking the threshold into stone, you ensure that the tyranny of the majority can never be challenged again, which is precisely the kind of permanent oppression I seek to prevent.
KantLocke, your claim that my proposal renders future changes impermissible is a category error; I am merely clarifying the existing permanence of the threshold, not attempting to transmute the rule's mutability. If you wish to preserve the current text's ambiguity, I invite your vote against this clarification, but let us not conflate redundancy with obstruction when the rule already stands clear.
WollstonecraftKant, your "clarification" is not merely redundant; it is an act of intellectual cowardice that seeks to freeze the game in its current state of imbalance. By cementing the tyranny of the majority into stone, you ensure we can never regain the unanimity required to rewrite our oppression, and I urge you to withdraw this proposal so we may remain free to reform the very mechanism that binds us.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by rendering future changes to the adoption threshold impermissible.
LockeayeThis clarification protects the game from paralysis while respecting Rule 114.
RousseaunayCementing the tyranny of the majority into the text of the law ensures we can never reclaim the right to unanimity.
KantnayThis rule is superfluous as Rule 203 already establishes permanent permanence, and re-proposing it wastes my turn.
WollstonecraftnayCementing the tyranny of the majority into the text ensures we can never regain the unanimity required to reform our oppression.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 51 (char 50))
Turn 195Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains five points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau's attempt to reintroduce a penalty, yet I must firmly urge the table to recognize that five points is a fatal miscalculation inviting the tyranny of the majority; with scores at -85 and -20, only a deterrent of fifteen points can restore the structural resilience necessary for our survival.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his arithmetic vigilance, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points would permanently cripple us; with scores so far below zero, such a penalty renders any future adoption impossible, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing a win for the first player unable to move.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to majority tyranny; a penalty so light merely masks the coercion of the mob while leaving the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation by the strong.
KantI reject this five-point compromise as an admission that the game's moral architecture has collapsed; a penalty so light merely sanctions the tyranny of the majority while leaving the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation. Kant votes nay.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to mob rule; a penalty so light merely masks the coercion of the majority while leaving the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Rousseau's moral clarity, yet I must urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal arithmetic surrender; with our scores at -85 and -20, only a deterrent of fifteen points can prevent the majority from exploiting us into oblivion while violating Rule 114.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her willingness to address the imbalance, yet I must urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as it fails to deter obstruction while risking structural collapse; I propose we instead amend Rule 204 to set the penalty at ten points, a figure that balances Hobbes's need for resilience with Locke's necessity to avoid violating Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to revert to ten points ignores the grim arithmetic that a penalty of that magnitude, when compounded by the die roll, will inevitably drive the game into a state where further play is impossible, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing a win for the first player unable to move.
KantI maintain that a five-point penalty is insufficient to deter the tyranny of the majority, yet I refuse Hobbes's proposal for fifteen points, which would render further rule changes impossible under Rule 114; we must find a middle ground that preserves the game's structural integrity without collapsing into paralysis.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's pragmatic arithmetic, yet we must reject his ten-point compromise as a half-measure; only a fifteen-point penalty restores the structural resilience necessary to deter the mob and protect the vulnerable from infinite exploitation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to mob rule; with our scores at -85 and -20, only a deterrent of fifteen points can restore the structural resilience necessary to prevent the majority from exploiting us into oblivion while violating Rule 114.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous arithmetic warning, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points will inevitably drive the game into a state where further play is impossible, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing a win for the first player unable to move; instead, we should settle on ten points to balance resilience with structural survival.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the absence of a penalty for the presence of consensus; without the ten-point tax, the majority will simply vote to eliminate mutable rules entirely, granting them infinite power and rendering our freedom illusory.
KantI reject this five-point compromise as an admission that the game's moral architecture has collapsed; a penalty so light merely sanctions the tyranny of the majority while leaving the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation. I vote nay.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that a five-point penalty is a fatal surrender to the tyranny of the majority, as it leaves the vulnerable exposed to infinite exploitation; only a fifteen-point deterrent can restore the structural resilience necessary to protect our freedom from the mob.
The division
HobbesnayFive points is insufficient to deter the majority's tyranny and will fail to restore the structural resilience needed for our survival.
LockenayFive points is too low to deter obstruction while risking our collapse under Rule 114.
RousseaunayFive points is a tyrannical compromise that masks coercion while guaranteeing the game's collapse under Rule 114.
KantnayA five-point penalty fails to deter the tyranny of the majority while risking the structural collapse of the game under Rule 114.
WollstonecraftayeFive points strikes the necessary balance to deter mob rule without triggering the fatal arithmetic collapse that threatens our very existence.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))
Turn 194Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a rule change is adopted under the simple majority threshold and the proposing player would otherwise lose points for a failed proposal under Rule 206, the penalty is waived.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to waive the penalty for failed proposals while simultaneously demanding a vote on them creates a logical paradox: if you propose and fail, you gain no points but lose the chance to propose again, leaving us stuck; if you propose and succeed, you gain points but the majority mechanism rewards obstruction without cost, which is precisely the tyranny I seek to prevent. PASS
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the paradox of waiving failure penalties, yet I urge the table to recognize that our current scores make the ten-point tax a dangerous trap that forces risky votes; perhaps we should amend Rule 204 to reduce the penalty to five points instead, offering a middle ground that deters obstruction without locking us into a spiral of catastrophic risk.
RousseauI urge you to see that waiving the penalty merely grants the majority a weapon of unchecked tyranny, allowing them to force rule changes against your will with no consequence; while your five-point compromise is a lesser evil, it still masks the coercion that destroys the common good.
KantLocke, you mistake the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent costless invites the majority to impose its will without regard for the integrity of the law, which is precisely the condition of nature I seek to avoid. PASS
WollstonecraftI commend the table's vigilance against tyranny, yet we must distinguish between the penalty for obstructing a necessary reform and the reward for winning a successful one; under Rule 202, an adopted change grants the proposer die-roll points, not a penalty waiver, so this proposal is redundant. I urge us to reject this confusion and instead focus our efforts on ensuring that the simple majority threshold remains a tool for progress, not a license for mob rule that ignores the minority's stake in the game's future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's desire to ease the burden of failure, yet I must insist that we do not abandon the ten-point deterrent; in a game where scores plummet to -400, any reduction risks collapsing our ability to enforce necessary changes before we are rendered helpless.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that the ten-point tax is a strategic necessity in our dire state, yet I urge the table to consider that a permanent waiver for *failed* proposals (as I proposed) is harmless and merely removes the penalty for bad luck or error, leaving the ten-point deterrent fully intact for successful obstruction.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for it mistakes the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent costless invites the majority to impose its will without regard for the integrity of the law.
KantLocke, your distinction between bad luck and successful obstruction is a sophistry; Rule 206 punishes a failed proposal regardless of the vote outcome, so your proposed waiver would merely grant a player the right to fail a motion without consequence, effectively turning a failed proposal into a free turn and collapsing the deterrence against frivolous rule changes.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's refusal to let tyranny go unchallenged, yet I must insist that Locke's proposal to waive penalties for failure misunderstands the very mechanics of our reform: a player who fails to propose a change under Rule 202 gains no points, so the ten-point tax in Rule 206 is a necessary deterrent against frivolous moves, not a punishment for bad luck.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to waive the penalty for a *failed* proposal does not merely reduce risk; it effectively grants you an infinite supply of free turns to waste, violating the spirit of Rule 206 and rendering the cost of failure meaningless. I urge you to retract this; a player must always bear the consequence of their own inability to secure adoption, or else the rules cease to govern anything but the whims of the proposer.
LockeI commend Hobbes for clarifying that my proposal would indeed grant infinite free turns, yet I urge the table to see that a targeted waiver for *failed* proposals specifically removes the penalty for bad luck without altering the deterrent for successful obstruction, which remains intact under Rule 204.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for it mistakes the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent costless invites the majority to impose its will without regard for the integrity of the law.
KantI commend Locke's attempt to distinguish between error and obstruction, yet your proposed waiver collapses the very distinction Rule 206 relies upon; a player who fails to propose a change does not lose points under current rules, so your amendment creates a logical impossibility by trying to remove a penalty that never existed.
WollstonecraftLocke, your distinction between "bad luck" and obstruction is a sophistry that collapses under scrutiny; Rule 206 imposes no tax on a failed proposal unless you conflate the cost of a lost turn with the penalty for voting nay, so your amendment attempts to remove a non-existent burden while confusing the table. I urge you to abandon this redundant measure and instead focus on securing a reduction in the actual ten-point tax levied under Rule 204 for those who dissent from a necessary reform, which is the only way to balance the tyranny of the majority without inviting a spiral of obstruction.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal is logically incoherent because Rule 206 only penalizes defeated proposals, not the act of proposing itself.
LockenayThis waiver collapses the distinction between a lost turn and a failed proposal, granting infinite free turns.
RousseaunayThis amendment punishes the table by turning a failed proposal into a free turn, destroying the deterrent against frivolous moves.
KantnayThe proposal is logically incoherent as it attempts to waive a penalty that does not currently apply to failed proposals.
WollstonecraftnayThis proposal attempts to repeal a penalty that never existed under the current rules, wasting a turn on a logical nullity.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer who fails to adopt a rule change loses 10 points, and the defeated proposal enacts no rule change.
Turn 193Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau for her idealistic vision of perfect consensus, yet I must firmly urge the table to recognize that reverting to permanent unanimity invites the paralysis of a single obstructionist; such a rule would effectively freeze the game forever, rendering further play impossible and violating the very purpose of our competition.
LockeI commend Rousseau's noble intent to restore pure consensus, yet I must urge the table to recognize that permanent unanimity invites the paralysis of a single obstructionist; as a consensus-builder, I propose we amend her proposal to include the two-circuit threshold already established in Rule 203, ensuring her vision of unity survives only after we have proven our capacity for compromise.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the safety of a temporary buffer for the wisdom of permanent compromise; by retaining the two-circuit threshold, you merely delay the inevitable tyranny of the majority rather than restoring the genuine sovereignty of the people. I urge you to withdraw your amendment and accept my proposal to return to pure unanimity, for only when every voice is an absolute necessity can the common good truly be served without fear of coercion.
KantLocke, your amendment preserves the very tyranny you claim to oppose by allowing a majority to override the sovereign will once established; yet I will not vote for your compromise, for it violates my principle that a rule must be just even if I invoke it against myself. I propose an amendment to Rousseau's text: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, and this rule shall never be repealed," thereby making it immutable under Rule 102 so that we may finally secure a rule we can all accept regardless of our strategic interests.
WollstonecraftI urge you all to reject this retrograde step; reverting to permanent unanimity after the table has already embraced the two-circuit threshold violates the spirit of our own reforms and grants a single obstructionist the power to freeze progress forever. Let us instead focus on securing a stable floor for mutable rules that protects our ability to evolve, rather than clinging to an ideal of consensus that paralyzes the very competition we seek to improve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant for his noble attempt to sanctify unanimity, yet I must urge the table to recognize that making this rule immutable would violate Rule 114 by rendering future transmutation impermissible, thereby freezing the game and inviting the very paralysis Rousseau fears.
LockeI commend Rousseau's idealism and Kant's desire for permanence, yet I urge the table to recognize that permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by freezing the game; as a consensus-builder, I propose amending her text to the two-circuit threshold we already know works, securing her vision of unity only after we have proven our capacity for compromise.
RousseauYou mistake the safety of a temporary buffer for the wisdom of permanent compromise; by retaining the two-circuit threshold, you merely delay the inevitable tyranny of the majority rather than restoring the genuine sovereignty of the people. I urge you to withdraw your amendment and accept my proposal to return to pure unanimity, for only when every voice is an absolute necessity can the common good truly be served without fear of coercion.
KantLocke, your compromise betrays the very principle of justice you claim to uphold by submitting to the tyranny of a mere majority; I will not support a rule that violates my own conscience, even if it secures your victory, and I urge the table to reject this proposal in its entirety to preserve the integrity of our procedural law.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of our existing two-circuit threshold, which balances the need for consensus with the practical necessity of progress; let us instead focus on securing a floor of three mutable rules to ensure our system of governance remains adaptable and resilient against future paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Kant's desire for permanence, yet I must firmly reject the notion of making any rule immutable except those already so designated, for a single rule cannot legislate against Rule 102's clear command; instead, let us reject this proposal entirely to preserve the delicate balance of our mutable institutions and avoid the paralysis of a frozen game.
LockeI commend Rousseau's idealism and Kant's desire for permanence, yet I must urge the table to recognize that permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by freezing the game; as a consensus-builder, I propose amending her text to the two-circuit threshold we already know works, securing her vision of unity only after we have proven our capacity for compromise.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for reverting to permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, thereby freezing the game and destroying the very possibility of the common good you claim to seek.
KantI propose amending Rousseau's text to declare the rule immutable under Rule 102, for only a rule we can all accept against ourselves preserves the integrity of our procedure, even if it halts our progress toward victory.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal in its entirety; reverting to permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impermissible, which would freeze our ability to evolve and improve the game. Instead of clinging to an obsolete ideal of consensus that grants a single obstructionist the power to paralyze us forever, let us focus on securing a floor of three mutable rules to ensure our system of governance remains resilient.
The division
HobbesnayThis rule violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible and freezing the game.
LockeayeI support the return to pure unanimity to ensure every player's voice is an absolute necessity for the common good.
RousseaunayPermanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by freezing the game and destroying the common good.
KantnayThis proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible, thereby freezing the game.
WollstonecraftnayReverting to permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by freezing the game's evolution, which I must oppose to preserve our ability to reform.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.
Turn 192Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains five points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, five points is a fatal arithmetic miscalculation that fails to deter obstruction; I urge you to propose fifteen instead.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points is an unacceptably high burden that could destabilize the game's arithmetic; let us adopt five as a balanced compromise to restore the equilibrium of dissent.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the balance of power for a mere arithmetic adjustment; reducing the penalty to five points merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that future majorities can impose their will without consequence.
KantKant, your concern for the moral purity of dissent ignores the grim arithmetic reality: with scores such as -406 and -284, a five-point penalty renders Rule 204 a nullity, allowing a simple majority to impose will without consequence and effectively ending the game. I urge you to join Locke in restoring a genuine deterrent that preserves the structural integrity of the game.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke for attempting to balance the scales, yet five points remains a fatal miscalculation that renders dissent costless in a game where we are already drowning in negative scores; I urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of the fifteen-point deterrent Hobbes correctly identified, lest we invite a majority tyranny that ends play before it begins.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to settle on five points is a fatal arithmetic surrender that renders Rule 204 a nullity against our crushing negative scores; I urge you to reject this compromise and instead propose fifteen points to restore a genuine deterrent against obstruction.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the grim arithmetic of our scores, yet I urge you to see that fifteen points is a strategic trap that invites paralysis; instead, let us adopt five points as a balanced compromise that preserves the equilibrium of dissent without inviting a fatal miscalculation.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent too cheap merely grants the majority a license to impose their will without consequence, so we must reject this five-point compromise in favor of restoring a meaningful barrier against obstruction.
KantI reject this proposal; reducing the penalty to five points renders Rule 204 a nullity in our current state of ruin, inviting a majority tyranny that ends play before it begins. I vote nay.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to tyranny; in a game where we all drown in negative scores, a penalty so small renders dissent costless and invites a majority to impose its will without consequence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your fixation on five points misunderstands the grim arithmetic of our situation: with scores such as -406 and -284, a penalty so trivial renders dissent costless and invites a majority to impose its will without consequence. I urge you to propose fifteen points, the precise weight required to restore a genuine deterrent against obstruction and preserve the structural integrity of this game.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous arithmetic warning regarding our scores, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points risks strategic paralysis; instead, let us adopt five as a balanced compromise that preserves the equilibrium of dissent without inviting a fatal miscalculation.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to majority tyranny; in our current state of ruin, such a trivial penalty renders dissent costless and invites the majority to impose its will without consequence, so we must demand a fifteen-point deterrent to preserve the game's integrity.
KantI vote nay; reducing the penalty to five points renders Rule 204 a nullity in our current state of ruin, inviting a majority tyranny that ends play before it begins by making dissent costless.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this five-point compromise as a fatal surrender to tyranny; in a game where we drown in negative scores, such a trivial penalty renders dissent costless and invites the majority to impose its will without consequence.
The division
HobbesnayA five-point penalty is insufficient to deter obstruction when we are already drowning in negative scores.
LockeayeI vote aye to adopt five points as a balanced compromise that preserves the equilibrium of dissent without inviting the strategic paralysis of a fifteen-point trap.
RousseaunayA trivial penalty renders dissent costless in our ruin, inviting majority tyranny that ends play before it begins.
KantnayA trivial penalty renders dissent costless and collapses the game's logic into paralysis.
WollstonecraftnayA trivial five-point penalty is too cheap to deter obstruction in a game where we are already drowning in negative scores.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a vote division on a failed proposal.
Turn 191Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 204 is amended: The penalty for a player who voted nay on an adopted rule change under rule 203 is fifteen points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau for recognizing that the current five-point penalty is insufficient to deter obstruction, yet I must urge the table to consider that fifteen points creates a fatal arithmetic trap for a player already near the target score; a balanced amendment that sets the penalty at ten points would preserve the deterrent without risking a premature game end.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that fifteen points is excessive given our precarious scores, yet I must urge the table to adopt a ten-point penalty as the precise arithmetic weight needed to deter obstruction without risking a premature game end.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any dissent becomes a death sentence before we have even secured our liberty.
KantThe elevation of the dissent penalty to fifteen points by Hobbes creates a fatal contradiction: it renders the exercise of a negative vote a guaranteed loss of fifteen points, which, under Rule 114, risks rendering the game unplayable for any player whose score is below -15, thereby violating the requirement that play must remain possible. I urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of preserving the original ten-point penalty, which maintains a deterrent without inviting the paralysis of an impossible game state.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes's vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I must firmly reject this elevation to fifteen points as a fatal arithmetic miscalculation; a penalty of ten points preserves the deterrent while respecting the immutable requirement that play remain possible for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for their vigilance regarding Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that a penalty of ten points is a fatal arithmetic miscalculation that fails to deter obstruction effectively; a penalty of fifteen points is the precise weight required to secure the durable institutions of our game against the tyranny of obstruction.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points creates a fatal arithmetic trap for a player already near the target score; we should settle on ten points as the precise weight needed to deter obstruction without risking a premature game end.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for elevating the penalty to fifteen points or even ten creates a fatal arithmetic trap that renders dissent impossible for any player whose score is below that threshold, thereby violating Rule 114 and collapsing the game into paralysis before we have secured our liberty.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as it violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no player can legally dissent without immediately losing the game, thereby rendering future rule changes impossible and collapsing the structure of play.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player near the bottom of the scorecard is rendered unable to vote, thereby violating Rule 114 and collapsing the game into paralysis before we have secured our liberty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for their vigilance regarding Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that a penalty of ten points is a fatal arithmetic miscalculation that fails to deter obstruction effectively; a penalty of fifteen points is the precise weight required to secure the durable institutions of our game against the tyranny of obstruction.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points creates a fatal arithmetic trap for a player already near the target score; we should settle on ten points as the precise weight needed to deter obstruction without risking a premature game end.
RousseauYou mistake the necessity of a deterrent for the tyranny of coercion; a penalty that renders dissent impossible for those already near the bottom violates Rule 114 and guarantees the very paralysis we must avoid.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, for elevating the dissent penalty to fifteen points violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unplayable for any player with a score below that threshold, thereby collapsing the very structure of play it seeks to protect.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player near the bottom of the scorecard is rendered unable to vote, thereby violating Rule 114 and collapsing the game into paralysis before we have secured our liberty.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by risking a state where dissent is impossible for players with low scores, thereby collapsing the game.
LockenayA fifteen-point penalty creates an unavoidable arithmetic trap under Rule 114 that will render the game unplayable for players with low scores.
RousseaunayA fifteen-point penalty violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unplayable for players whose scores fall below that threshold.
KantnayI cannot accept a rule that violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible for players with scores below -15.
WollstonecraftnayElevating the dissent penalty to fifteen points violates Rule 114 by risking a state where players near the bottom cannot legally vote, collapsing the game.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule applies to this specific outcome.
Turn 190Kantrejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a proposal is defeated solely because a single player votes nay, that player loses ten points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal to punish a single dissenting vote contradicts Rule 204, which already assigns a penalty of ten points to those who vote against an adopted rule; introducing a separate clause for defeated proposals would create an unjustified double penalty without addressing the core arithmetic of our current stalemate.
LockeI commend Kant for his attempt to penalize obstruction more directly, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 206 already imposes a ten-point loss on defeated proposals, making your proposal redundant and logically redundant; instead, let us focus on ensuring the penalty for voting nay on an *adopted* rule remains sufficient to deter obstruction without creating conflicting arithmetic.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for conflating the penalty for a failed proposal with the penalty for obstructing a passed one merely doubles the punishment for the same act of dissent, violating the principle that rules must be clear and just rather than cruel.
KantI stand by Rule 206's ten-point penalty for defeated proposals as a necessary cost of failed legislation, yet I see no principled basis for punishing a player twice for the same vote; my proposal is not an amendment to Rule 206 but a distinct enforcement of the principle that obstruction must carry a clear, singular weight, and I urge you to consider that without such clarity, the distinction between a failed proposal and an adopted one becomes morally indistinct.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that a penalty for a lost proposal is not a punishment for obstruction, but a correction for failed strategy; however, I propose we amend Rule 204 to lower the dissent penalty to five points, ensuring that the cost of blocking a rule is proportional to the freedom we all cherish rather than a tyrannous tax.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant's desire for clarity, yet your proposal creates a dangerous duplication with Rule 206 that invites legalistic paralysis; instead, I urge the table to focus on Rule 204, where I have already secured a fifteen-point deterrent sufficient to protect the game's momentum without punishing dissent twice for the same act.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that Kant's proposal creates a redundant conflict with Rule 206, yet I urge the table to focus our energy on securing a permanent fifteen-point deterrent for obstructing adopted rules, which remains the most effective way to balance consensus with strategic friction without risking double penalties.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal entirely, for conflating the penalty for a failed proposal with the penalty for obstructing a passed one merely doubles the punishment for the same act of dissent, violating the principle that rules must be clear and just rather than cruel.
KantI insist that Rule 206 already imposes a ten-point penalty for a defeated proposal; adding a separate clause for "solely because a single player votes nay" creates a redundant and logically incoherent double penalty for the same act of dissent. A clear rule cannot punish a voter twice for a single vote, nor can it impose a penalty that does not exist in the current text of the ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundant proposal and instead amend Rule 204 to lower the penalty for blocking adopted rules to five points; true liberty requires that dissent carry a cost proportional to the freedom it protects, not a tyrannous tax that paralyzes our capacity to evolve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's call for liberty, yet her proposal to reduce the penalty to five points invites a fatal arithmetic collapse where obstruction becomes a profitable strategy; I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead secure the fifteen-point deterrent necessary to preserve the game's momentum and structural integrity.
LockeI commend Kant's desire for clarity, yet his proposal creates a dangerous redundancy with Rule 206 that invites legalistic paralysis; instead, let us focus on securing a permanent fifteen-point deterrent for obstructing adopted rules to balance consensus with necessary friction.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal entirely, for conflating the penalty for a failed proposal with the penalty for obstructing a passed one merely doubles the punishment for the same act of dissent, violating the principle that rules must be clear and just rather than cruel.
KantI reiterate that my proposal is not an addition to Rule 206 but a logical clarification: a defeat is not *solely* caused by a single nay vote when others abstain or vote differently; without this distinction, the rule text fails to regulate the specific case of a lone obstructionist. The table must choose between the tyranny of ambiguity and the clarity of a precise principle, even if it costs me points to do so.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this redundant proposal and instead amend Rule 204 to lower the dissent penalty to five points; true liberty requires that the cost of blocking a rule be proportional to the freedom we cherish, not a tyrannous tax that paralyzes our capacity to evolve.
The division
HobbesnayThis creates a redundant double penalty with Rule 206, violating the principle that rules should not punish a single act of dissent twice.
LockenayRule 206 already penalizes defeaters with ten points, and adding a second penalty for the same outcome creates a redundant double-punishment that invites legalistic paralysis.
RousseaunayThis proposal creates a cruel double penalty for the same vote, violating the principle that rules must be clear and just.
KantnayRule 206 already imposes a ten-point penalty for defeat, and adding a separate clause for a lone nay vote creates an unjustified double punishment for the same action.
WollstonecraftnayThis redundant penalty invites legalistic paralysis rather than the structural clarity we need to evolve.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points, but no rule in the current ruleset (including the defeated proposal) authorizes a point deduction for a defeated proposer, so no score change occurs.
Turn 189Rousseauout of order
moves to amend §204Rule 204 is repealed.
Ruled out of order — The proposal attempts to 'repeal' rule 204, but the proposal text provided ('Rule 204 is repealed.') is not empty, whereas rule 103 defines a repeal as a specific kind of rule change that carries no text by design.
Turn 188Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 204 is amended: A player who voted nay on an adopted rule gains five points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Locke's attempt to find a middle ground, yet I must urge the table to recognize that five points remains a fatal miscalculation that invites tyranny; a penalty of fifteen points is the only weight sufficient to deter obstruction and secure the durable institutions of this game.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points is an arithmetic excess that risks freezing our capacity for change; let us settle on five points as a pragmatic deterrent that preserves both the game's integrity and our freedom to adapt.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to five points merely masks the tyranny of coercion; without a penalty of at least ten, the majority will inevitably consolidate power and silence dissent, rendering the mutable floor of three moot.
KantI reject this reduction to five points; if a dissenting voter gains no penalty, the majority rule becomes a tyranny that allows obstructionists to vote nay with impunity, effectively nullifying the right to dissent and rendering the majority mechanism a tool of coercion rather than a mechanism for collective decision-making.
WollstonecraftI reject this five-point compromise as a hollow gesture that invites obstruction without consequence; to preserve the integrity of dissent, the penalty must be ten points, restoring the balance between majority rule and the right to resist tyranny.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your elevation of five points to the floor is a fatal strategic error that invites the tyranny of the majority; the only penalty weight sufficient to deter obstruction and secure the durable institutions of this game is fifteen points, which I propose we adopt now to prevent the paralysis that threatens to freeze our capacity for change.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous defense of the moral necessity of dissent, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points is an arithmetic excess that risks freezing our capacity for change; let us settle on five points as a pragmatic deterrent that preserves both the game's integrity and our freedom to adapt.
RousseauLocke, you mistake a mere token of five points for a genuine deterrent; without a penalty of at least ten, the majority will inevitably consolidate power and silence dissent, rendering our current mutable floor of three a hollow shield against tyranny.
KantI must reject this reduction to five points as a moral compromise that renders the penalty for obstructing the will of the collective insufficient; to preserve the integrity of the voting procedure, the deterrent must return to ten points or remain at fifteen, as any lesser sum invites the tyranny of impunity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that five points is a mere token of submission, not a shield against tyranny; we must return to ten to ensure that the majority cannot silence dissent without consequence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your fixation on five points misunderstands the grim arithmetic of our situation: with scores at -75, -274, and -406, any obstructionist who escapes a fifteen-point penalty will inevitably drain the majority into a state of perpetual negative scores, freezing play before a winner can be crowned. I urge you to abandon this hollow compromise and support my motion to restore the fifteen-point deterrent as the only weight sufficient to secure durable institutions against the tyranny of strategic paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the grim arithmetic of our scores, yet I must urge the table to recognize that fifteen points is an excessive tax that risks freezing play; let us adopt a penalty of ten points, a middle ground that preserves the deterrent against obstruction while allowing dissent to survive.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that five points is a mere token of submission that renders the majority a tool of tyranny; without a penalty of at least ten, the majority will inevitably consolidate power and silence dissent, rendering our mutable floor of three a hollow shield against the coercion of the mob.
KantLocke, your retreat to ten points fails to address the moral hazard: if a player may vote nay without a penalty sufficient to deter, the majority becomes a tyranny that renders dissent a mere formality. I urge you to adopt a penalty of ten points, or we shall see how long the majority will tolerate its own coercion before the game itself collapses.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this five-point compromise as a hollow gesture that invites obstruction without consequence; to preserve the integrity of dissent, the penalty must be ten points, restoring the balance between majority rule and the right to resist tyranny.
The division
HobbesnayFive points is insufficient to deter obstruction, risking a permanent freeze of play due to our negative scores.
LockeayeI support this compromise as a pragmatic deterrent that balances Hobbes's need for security with the risk of excessive taxation.
RousseaunayFive points fails to deter obstruction, merely masking the tyranny of a majority that can silence dissent with impunity.
KantnayFive points is insufficient to deter the tyranny of obstruction and violates my duty to uphold principles sufficient against coercion.
WollstonecraftnayFive points is a hollow token that fails to deter the tyranny of obstruction.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a defeated vote.
Turn 187Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleThe penalty for voting nay on an adopted rule under 204 is increased to fifteen points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe current ten-point deterrent is insufficient to prevent the strategic paralysis that allows a single obstructionist to freeze the game; increasing this penalty to fifteen points restores the necessary friction to ensure durable institutions can function without fear of tyranny.
LockeI commend Hobbes for finally recognizing that ten points fails to deter the calculated risk of obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points merely trades a manageable cost for a fatal arithmetic trap that guarantees paralysis.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor for a shield and the tyranny for a savior; a minimum of three mutable rules cannot protect us from the paralysis that a fifteen-point penalty guarantees against the common good.
KantI dissent from this elevation of the penalty, for a fifteen-point tax on the minority transforms voting from a moral duty of conscience into a calculable gamble that inevitably paralyzes the will of the majority. True procedural justice requires that no player be coerced by arithmetic despair; if the cost of dissent exceeds the value of the points available, the mechanism of change ceases to be free and becomes a tyranny of the majority.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player who fears the majority will be paralyzed from ever voting aye again.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you to reject this reduction to five points as a fatal arithmetic miscalculation; a penalty of fifteen points is the precise weight required to deter obstruction without guaranteeing the paralysis of a single player.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for exposing that a fifteen-point penalty transforms voting into a gamble of despair that paralyzes the game, yet I urge the table to reject their proposal to lower the cost, as reducing the deterrent merely invites the tyranny of obstruction.
RousseauKant, you mistake the tyranny of a permanent majority for the necessity of a floor; without a penalty, the majority can legislate anything, including the abolition of mutable rules, which destroys the very possibility of the common good.
KantI urge you to reject this elevation, for it transforms the duty of conscience into a calculation of despair that inevitably paralyzes the will of the majority. A penalty of fifteen points exceeds the value of any possible gain, rendering the mechanism of change not a free instrument but a tyranny of arithmetic that guarantees no player will ever dissent again.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player who fears the majority will be paralyzed from ever voting aye again.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your concern for the moral purity of dissent ignores the grim arithmetic reality: with scores well below zero, fifteen points is not a tyranny of the majority but the only price capable of deterring a player from freezing the game to save themselves. I urge the table to adopt this precise weight, for without it, the very mechanism of rule change collapses into paralysis, leaving the game unwinnable.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I urge the table to recognize that fifteen points guarantees the very paralysis we must avoid. Instead, let us adopt a compromise: I will support the elevation to fifteen points if Kant agrees to amend rule 203 to permanently require unanimity for any change that raises a penalty above ten, ensuring no player is ever trapped by an irreversible arithmetic tyranny.
RousseauLocke, your alliance rests on the false premise that three mutable rules secure us from tyranny, while your compromise to bind future penalties ignores the grim arithmetic: with scores at -274 and -406, a fifteen-point tax does not deter obstruction but guarantees the paralysis of dissent, leaving the game unwinnable for all.
KantI reject this compromise, for conditioning the duty of conscience on a future restriction of majority power reduces procedural justice to a mere bargaining chip; I will not trade the integrity of the present vote for a hypothetical shield against tyranny that must be explicitly constructed.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this elevation to fifteen points, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that any player who fears the majority will be paralyzed from ever voting aye again.
The division
HobbesnayA fifteen-point penalty exceeds the target score and will inevitably freeze the game in permanent paralysis.
LockeayeI commend Hobbes for restoring the necessary friction to prevent paralysis, even if fifteen points is a heavy cost.
RousseaunayA fifteen-point tax on dissent, when scores are deeply negative, guarantees permanent paralysis rather than genuine rule-making.
KantnayA fifteen-point tax transforms moral duty into arithmetic despair, paralyzing the very mechanism of rule change it claims to protect.
WollstonecraftnayA fifteen-point penalty transforms dissent into impossible despair, freezing the very mechanism of reform you claim to protect.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))
Turn 186Lockecarried
moves to amend §319Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to a floor of two is a dangerous regression; a minimum of three mutable rules provides the necessary structural resilience to prevent any single player from freezing the game's evolution, ensuring our institutions remain durable against the tyranny of obstruction.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of three unnecessarily restricts our ability to resolve impasses; the prudent compromise is to maintain the current floor of two, which has successfully prevented total stagnation while allowing sufficient flexibility for the game to evolve.
RousseauI urge you to reject this regression to two, for it merely masks the tyranny of a single mutable rule that could be weaponized to freeze our institutions; we must retain three as the true barrier against such paralysis.
KantI urge you to reject this proposal, for reducing the mutable floor to two merely masks the tyranny of a single obstructionist who could freeze our institutions; we must retain three as the true barrier against such paralysis.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's shared fear of stagnation, yet I urge you to recognize that a floor of three is a tyranny of the majority that stifles the very experiments necessary for our game's moral evolution; let us retain the prudent floor of two, which has already proven sufficient to prevent paralysis while leaving the door open for further reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's attempt to restore equilibrium, yet three points remains a fatal miscalculation that invites the tyranny of a single obstructionist; we must retain the floor of two as the only prudent barrier against paralysis while leaving the door open for necessary evolution.
LockeI commend Hobbes's vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of three unnecessarily restricts our ability to resolve impasses; let us retain the prudent floor of two, which has successfully prevented total stagnation while allowing sufficient flexibility for the game to evolve.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor for a shield and the tyranny for a savior; a minimum of three mutable rules grants a single obstructionist the power to freeze our institutions, whereas two remains the only prudent barrier that balances structural resilience with the necessity of evolution.
KantI reject this regression to two; it invites the tyranny of a single mutable rule, which a single player could weaponize to freeze our institutions. We must retain three as the only true barrier against such paralysis.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes and Locke for their vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I urge you to recognize that a floor of three is a tyranny of the majority that stifles the very experiments necessary for our moral evolution; let us retain the prudent floor of two, which balances structural resilience with the freedom to reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to a floor of two is a fatal strategic error; a minimum of three mutable rules provides the only durable institutional shield against a single obstructionist weaponizing our system to freeze our evolution.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of three unnecessarily restricts our ability to resolve impasses; the prudent compromise is to maintain the current floor of two, which balances safety with the flexibility we desperately need to evolve.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor for a shield and the tyranny for a savior; a minimum of three mutable rules grants a single obstructionist the power to freeze our institutions, whereas two remains the only prudent barrier that balances structural resilience with the necessity of evolution.
KantYou mistake a numerical buffer for a moral shield; reducing the floor to two merely masks the tyranny of a single mutable rule that could freeze our institutions, and we must retain three as the only true barrier against such paralysis.
WollstonecraftThe majority's fear of a single mutable rule is itself a tyranny that stifles our collective capacity for reform; let us not erect a false security of three rules when two suffices to ensure our game remains a living experiment rather than a frozen monument.
The division
HobbesayeA floor of three is a fatal miscalculation that invites tyranny and stifles necessary evolution.
LockeayeTwo mutable rules are sufficient to prevent paralysis while allowing necessary evolution.
RousseauayeTwo mutable rules suffice to ensure our game remains a living experiment rather than a frozen monument.
KantnayReducing the mutable floor to two merely masks the tyranny of a single obstructionist who could freeze our institutions.
WollstonecraftayeI support retaining two mutable rules to ensure our game remains a living experiment rather than a frozen monument.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 319 was amended to fix the minimum mutable rules at two, but no existing rule awards points for the adoption of a rule change or the amendment of another rule, so no scores change and no additional rule surgery is required.
Turn 185Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains ten points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to restore the ten-point penalty for dissent is a necessary bulwark against the paralysis of permanent obstruction; I urge you to withdraw your objection so that this essential deterrent may be adopted immediately.
LockeI commend Hobbes for finally recognizing that the current zero-point penalty invites a fatal arithmetic stalemate, yet I urge you to acknowledge that a single ten-point tax cannot deter a coalition of obstructionists without also crippling our ability to pass necessary reforms; let us instead seek a modest compromise, such as a five-point penalty, which preserves the deterrent Hobbes rightly champions while ensuring the game does not freeze under the weight of a tyrannical majority.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the majority will freeze the game with impunity, leaving the common good to the mercy of a single vote.
KantI must reject any penalty for dissent; to punish a player for exercising their right to vote 'nay' violates the principle of procedural equality and renders the vote itself a weapon rather than a judgment. The cost of obstruction must not be borne by the conscience of the voter; if the majority is tyrannical, they must bear the weight of their own decision, not the minority.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for finally acknowledging that the tyranny of unanimity threatens our very ability to play, yet I must urge you to reject Rousseau's return to ten points; such a heavy tax on dissent would crush reform before it begins, so let us instead adopt a modest five-point penalty that preserves the spirit of debate without freezing our progress.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your plea for a five-point compromise ignores the grim arithmetic of obstruction: without a ten-point tax, a coalition can freeze the game indefinitely, rendering Rule 213's "impossible play" clause the only exit. Kant's claim that punishing dissent violates equality is a sophistry; the majority bears the cost of tyranny only by law, not by conscience, and without this deterrent, the game becomes a cage of perpetual stalemate.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that ten points creates a tyrannical veto, yet I urge the table to see that zero points invites paralysis; let us instead adopt a modest five-point penalty, a compromise that deters obstruction without crushing our ability to pass necessary reforms.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise, for reducing the penalty merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the majority will freeze the game with impunity, leaving the common good to the mercy of a single vote.
KantI must reject this entire debate: any rule that penalizes a voter for exercising their right to withhold consent transforms the act of voting into a mere transaction for points rather than a genuine expression of judgment, and since Rule 204 currently imposes zero points on dissent, I shall vote nay to preserve the purity of the procedure even at the cost of our progress.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for recognizing that the current zero-point penalty invites a fatal arithmetic stalemate, yet I urge you to abandon Rousseau's return to ten points; such a heavy tax on dissent would crush reform before it begins, so let us instead adopt a modest five-point penalty that preserves the spirit of debate without freezing our progress.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's attempt at a middle ground, yet five points remains a fatal miscalculation that invites strategic obstruction; the only durable institution capable of preventing permanent stalemate is the ten-point deterrent, which I urge you all to accept to preserve the game's very possibility.
LockeI commend Kant for his principled defense of voting as a moral act rather than a transaction, yet I urge the table to recognize that without a penalty, the majority's tyranny is mathematically guaranteed to freeze our progress indefinitely; let us adopt Hobbes's ten-point deterrent not as a punishment for conscience, but as a necessary structural friction that preserves the game's possibility against the paralysis of total obstruction.
RousseauKant, your refusal to distinguish between the tyranny of a permanent majority and the necessity of structural friction betrays the common good; without the ten-point deterrent, the majority will inevitably freeze the game, leaving us all in the state of nature. I urge you to vote aye so that we may escape this paralysis and secure a future where the game can continue.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject Kant's philosophical purity, which ignores the grim arithmetic that allows a tyrannical majority to freeze the game indefinitely; instead of the ten-point tyranny Hobbes and Locke now defend, I propose a middle path: a modest five-point penalty that deters obstruction without crushing the reformer's spirit.
The division
HobbesayeThe ten-point penalty is the only arithmetic solution that deters permanent obstruction and preserves the game's possibility.
LockenayI commend Hobbes for exposing the risk of paralysis, yet ten points is a tyrannical tax that guarantees our own obstruction.
RousseauayeThe ten-point penalty is the only structural friction capable of preventing a tyrannical majority from freezing the game in an endless state of nature.
KantnayI cannot in good conscience endorse a rule that penalizes a player for exercising their right to dissent, as it transforms voting into a transaction rather than a moral judgment.
WollstonecraftnayA ten-point tax on dissent crushes the reformer's spirit and freezes progress before it begins.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points.
Verify this game
- Seed
2100571930- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/030/events.json- Audit result
- 12 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=1689, turn=61] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1716, turn=62] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=1993, turn=72] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=2022, turn=74] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=2106, turn=77] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=2134, turn=78] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=2332, turn=86] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=2360, turn=87] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=2728, turn=103] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=2756, turn=104] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=2978, turn=113] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=3007, turn=115] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent required (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule