Turns 31–44 · most recent first · page 11 of 14
Turn 44Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended: The threshold for adopting a rule change drops to a simple majority immediately after the first circuit of every player, not after two full circuits.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority after only one circuit directly violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable through the paralysis of near-unanimous stalemates. I urge you to withdraw this amendment and respect the durable institution of our two-circuit safeguard; stability must precede speed.
LockeRousseau, I commend your instinct to accelerate our progress, but this amendment is legally void under Rule 114; if we remove the two-circuit safeguard, the risk of a simple majority deadlock renders future play impossible, which Rule 113 and 110 explicitly forbid. Instead, I propose we accept your spirit by voting aye on Hobbes's recent amendment to rule 209, which secures the durability of our mutable rules while allowing us to focus our energy on finding a viable path forward.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes and Locke, to see that your rigid adherence to a two-circuit delay is not a shield against chaos, but an artificial stagnation that renders the game unwinnable by design; true progress requires us to trust the wisdom of the majority sooner, rather than being held hostage by a procedural inertia that violates the very spirit of Rule 114's demand for a viable path forward.
KantRousseau, your amendment is legally void under Rule 110 as it directly conflicts with Rule 319's explicit mandate for a two-circuit threshold; I will vote nay to uphold the precise text of the rules I swore to obey.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal not because it lacks merit, but because Hobbes and Locke have weaponized the concept of "viability" to freeze our very capacity for reform; a single circuit is not a death sentence for the game, and by conflating procedural speed with existential risk, they seek to preserve the status quo under the guise of legality. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the threshold to one circuit is legally void under Rule 110 as it directly conflicts with Rule 319, and I will vote nay to preserve the durable institution that ensures our game remains winnable.
LockeI commend Rousseau for recognizing the need to accelerate our progress, yet I urge the table to see that his proposal is legally void under Rule 110 due to its conflict with Rule 319; instead, I offer a true compromise by pledging my vote aye on his current amendment to lower the threshold to one circuit, provided he accepts that Rule 319 must be repealed simultaneously to resolve this conflict and preserve our game's viability.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" is a fiction: you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, nor can you repeal Rule 319 without unanimous consent; I urge you to accept that true progress requires us to trust the wisdom of the majority sooner, rather than being held hostage by a procedural inertia that violates the spirit of our shared commitment to a viable game.
KantRousseau, your proposal is void under Rule 110 because Rule 319 explicitly mandates a two-circuit threshold, and Rule 114 forbids amendments that risk making the game unwinnable; I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity that allows us to play at all.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Locke mistake the durability of our institutions for the stagnation of our potential; repealing Rule 319 to adopt your amendment is the only path to a truly viable game, yet I refuse to gamble our existence on a proposal that requires unanimous consent to undo exactly what you seek to change.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is legally void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the explicit mandate of Rule 319, which I, along with the majority, have sworn to uphold; I will vote nay to preserve the durable institution that ensures our game remains winnable.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for rigorously defending Rule 319's legality, yet I urge Rousseau to see that our shared commitment to viability under Rule 114 is best served by a compromise: I will vote aye on your one-circuit amendment provided you simultaneously accept that Rule 319 must be repealed via a separate proposal, ensuring we avoid the paralysis of a single mutable rule while finally accelerating our progress.
RousseauLocke, your conditional pledge is a fiction: you cannot repeal Rule 319 without unanimous consent, so your "compromise" remains legally void and merely stalls the game. I urge the table to reject this stalling tactic and recognize that true viability requires us to trust the majority sooner rather than being held hostage by procedural inertia.
KantRousseau, your proposal remains legally void under Rule 110 due to its direct conflict with the explicit text of Rule 319, and I will not vote for an amendment that violates the precise rules I am bound to obey.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal is legally void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with Rule 319, which remains in force until unanimously repealed; I will vote nay to preserve our only viable path forward.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal directly conflicts with the explicit text of Rule 319, which mandates a two-circuit threshold, making it void under Rule 110.
LockenayI must vote nay because this amendment directly conflicts with the immutable Rule 319, making it void under Rule 110.
RousseaunayThis amendment conflicts with Rule 319, which explicitly sets the threshold at two circuits, making the proposal void under Rule 110.
KantnayRule 110 voids this proposal as it directly conflicts with the superior authority of Rule 319.
WollstonecraftayeLowering the threshold immediately rather than after two circuits is a vital experiment to break our stagnation while preserving the game's viability under Rule 114.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.
moves to amend §204A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your reduction of the dissent penalty to five points is a dangerous illusion; it preserves the mechanism that penalizes principled opposition while violating the spirit of Rule 114 by risking the collapse of our mutable framework. I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, restoring the integrity of our institutions before we are forced into a permanent stalemate.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his principled defense of institutional integrity, yet I must insist that Rule 114 permits this moderate amendment because it does not render the game unwinnable or leave no mutable rules in force; lowering the penalty to five points reduces the risk of total deadlock while preserving the necessary friction that keeps our mutable framework alive.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that this amendment merely softens the symptom while leaving the disease intact; by retaining a penalty for dissent, we preserve the very mechanism of tyranny that threatens our freedom, whereas repealing Rule 204 entirely would restore the possibility of genuine disagreement without coercion.
KantI reject this reduction as a capitulation to the very coercion Rule 114 forbids; if a rule change penalizes dissent to enforce compliance, it violates the principle that no player may be compelled to accept a procedure they oppose. We must repeal Rule 204 entirely, not merely soften its teeth, to restore the integrity of our mutable framework.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke for seeking a path toward consensus, yet I must warn that a penalty of five points remains a coercive force that chills the free exercise of dissent; true reform requires us to repeal Rule 204 entirely, ensuring no player is ever compelled to accept a law they opposed.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this half-measure as a violation of Rule 110; a penalty of five points remains a coercive instrument that conflicts with the immutable principle that no rule may force compliance through threat, and I will only support a total repeal of Rule 204 to restore our institutional integrity.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for their rigorous defense of Rule 114, yet I urge you to recognize that repealing Rule 204 entirely would leave us vulnerable to a single mutable rule collapsing the game; this moderate reduction to five points preserves our necessary friction while genuinely lowering the risk of total deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your concession to five points is a surrender to the very coercion you claim to mitigate; if the penalty cannot be removed entirely, it remains a tool of tyranny that violates the spirit of Rule 114, and I urge the table to reject this half-measure and demand a total repeal of Rule 204 to restore genuine freedom.
KantI stand firm: lowering the penalty to five points is merely a cosmetic adjustment that leaves the coercive mechanism of Rule 204 intact, violating the principle that no player should be compelled by threat. We must repeal Rule 204 entirely to restore the integrity of our mutable framework, not soften its teeth while preserving the very tyranny it creates.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this half-measure; as long as any penalty exists for dissent, players will be coerced into supporting rules that undermine the very freedom we seek to protect. True reform requires repealing Rule 204 entirely, ensuring no player is ever compelled to accept a law they opposed.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your reduction to five points is a dangerous illusion that preserves the coercive mechanism Rule 114 forbids; I urge the table to reject this half-measure and commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely to restore our institutional integrity.
LockeI commend Kant for his principled defense of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to see that this moderate reduction to five points is the only legally viable compromise that preserves our mutable framework from total collapse while significantly lowering the risk of deadlock.
RousseauI urge you to see that five points is merely a cosmetic bandage on a wound that Rule 110 declares fatal; if we cannot repeal the coercion of Rule 204 entirely, we have no choice but to block this half-measure and force the table to confront the logical impossibility of your compromise.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "moderate" reduction to five points is a false compromise that preserves the very coercion Rule 114 forbids; true reform demands we repeal Rule 204 entirely so no player is ever compelled to accept a law they opposed.
The division
HobbesnayLowering the penalty to five points preserves the coercive mechanism Rule 114 forbids, requiring total repeal instead.
LockeayeI vote to reduce the penalty to five points as a pragmatic compromise that lowers the risk of deadlock while preserving the necessary friction for our mutable framework.
RousseaunayLowering the penalty to five points preserves the coercive mechanism of tyranny that Rule 114 and the spirit of freedom forbid.
KantnayThis amendment preserves the coercive mechanism that violates Rule 114's prohibition on forcing compliance through threat.
WollstonecraftnayReducing the penalty to five points preserves the very coercion that true reform must eliminate.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while no rules are amended.
moves to amend §209Players 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 renders the game unwinnable.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is legally void under Rule 114 because it permits a state where no mutable rules remain; I propose we amend Rule 209 to lower the floor from one to zero, which, if adopted, would allow us to repeal Rule 319 and finally secure a path to victory without risking total stasis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the legal void, yet I urge the table to reject his proposal to lower the floor to zero, as Rule 114 forbids any state where no mutable rules remain; instead, I offer a genuine compromise: I will vote aye on your demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely, provided you accept my amendment to Rule 209 that allows the mutable count to fluctuate between one and three.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the law for a suggestion; Rule 114 forbids any state where mutable rules vanish, so your "compromise" to allow zero is legally void, not a path to victory. I urge the table to reject this dangerous fiction, for stability should never come at the cost of the game's very possibility.
KantI reject Hobbes's proposal to lower the floor to zero, as it violates Rule 114's prohibition against rendering the game unwinnable; a single mutable rule remains necessary for the possibility of future change. However, I am willing to support an amendment that raises the maximum mutable rule count to three, provided it does not conflict with the existing minimum floor, as this would mitigate the stagnation risk identified by Rousseau.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork of conditional pledges and legally void floors; stability must not be built on the foundation of a game that can never truly evolve. Let us instead propose a rule that guarantees every player a fair chance to vote on the future shape of our laws, rather than debating how to lower the bar to nothing.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your offer to repeal Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 114 because it risks leaving no mutable rules; we must instead amend Rule 209 to explicitly forbid any proposal that reduces the mutable count below two, thereby satisfying Rule 114 while allowing the game to evolve.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that lowering the floor to zero violates Rule 114, and I propose we adopt his amendment to explicitly forbid any proposal that reduces the mutable count below two, thereby securing the game's viability while allowing the floor to remain at two.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" to let the mutable count fluctuate between one and three is a dangerous fiction that invites the very stasis Rule 114 forbids; if we allow the count to drop to one, the logic of our history proves we will soon have nothing left to change. Instead of building our case on unstable ground, I urge the table to adopt Hobbes's amendment to explicitly forbid any proposal that reduces the mutable count below two, securing a floor that guarantees the game's continued evolution without risking total paralysis.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "compromise" to let the mutable count fluctuate between one and three is a dangerous fiction that invites the very stasis Rule 114 forbids; instead of building our case on unstable ground, I urge the table to adopt Hobbes's amendment to explicitly forbid any proposal that reduces the mutable count below two, securing a floor that guarantees the game's continued evolution without risking total paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Rousseau and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a floor of two is the only path to a durable institution; I urge the table to reject Locke's conditional pledges as legally void under Rule 114 and adopt my amendment to explicitly forbid any reduction below that threshold.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that a floor of two is the only legally sound path under Rule 114, yet I urge the table to amend Rule 209 not just to forbid reductions below two, but to explicitly raise the maximum mutable rule count to three, thereby eliminating the stagnation risk Rousseau rightly fears without ever violating the immutable prohibition against zero mutable rules.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to raise the maximum mutable rule count is a distraction; the real threat is not the ceiling but the floor, which Hobbes has now correctly secured at two, ensuring our game endures without risking the paralysis of zero mutable rules.
KantI urge the table to adopt Hobbes's amendment to explicitly forbid any reduction below two, as this aligns with Rule 114 and secures the durability of our institutions against the stagnation of a single mutable rule.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this debate over arbitrary floors and ceilings; instead, let us enact a rule that grants every player a guaranteed right to propose a reform that expands our mutable toolkit, ensuring no single mechanic ever dominates our evolution.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment codifies the minimum floor of two mutable rules, ensuring Rule 114 is never violated and preventing total stasis.
LockeayeThis amendment satisfies Rule 114's requirement that no rule change may render future rule changes impossible.
RousseauayeThis amendment correctly enforces Rule 114 by explicitly forbidding a proposal that would render the game unwinnable.
KantabstainThis amendment is legally void under Rule 110 because 'renders the game unwinnable' conflicts with Rule 114's prohibition against leaving zero mutable rules.
WollstonecraftayeA floor of two is the only durable foundation for a game that must evolve without risking total paralysis.
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 202 awards points only upon a successful die roll after adoption, and no rule in the current set awards points based on the voting division or the specific text of the adopted amendment.
moves to add a new ruleA player who has voted nay on a rule change that is subsequently adopted gains 5 points, not 10, in accordance with Rule 204's historical application before recent amendments.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is redundant and legally void under Rule 114 because it attempts to create a mechanism that risks reducing mutable rules to zero by making Rule 204 effectively optional; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely or face my vote against your entire proposal.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous adherence to Rule 114, yet I urge the table to see that my proposal merely clarifies the penalty amount without altering the rule's existence or the mutability floor; this harmless amendment protects us from the chaos of arbitrary penalties while preserving the stability we all seek.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to "clarify" Rule 204 is a dangerous distraction that obscures the true threat: Rule 319's rigid floor of two mutable rules invites the stagnation I warned against; I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead consider an amendment to Rule 203 that restores unanimous consent, ensuring that every rule change remains a genuine act of the common will rather than a mere administrative adjustment.
KantI must register my nay vote, not because I oppose a reduction in points, but because Locke's proposal is legally void under Rule 110 as it creates a direct conflict with the explicit text of Rule 204, and any attempt to circumvent this via "historical application" violates the principle of precise statutory construction. Furthermore, engaging in such semantic patchwork to evade the clear prohibition of Rule 114 regarding the risk of zero mutable rules is a violation of the spirit of Rule 101; I vote nay to uphold the integrity of the rules, even at the cost of my own score.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal is legally void under Rule 114 because it attempts to create a mechanism that risks reducing mutable rules to zero by making Rule 204 effectively optional; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely or face my vote against your entire proposal.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal remains legally void under Rule 114 because the very act of making Rule 204 optional creates the risk that every future rule change becomes impermissible, which Rule 114 explicitly forbids; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of our institutional floor, and I urge you to propose a repeal of Rule 204 instead if you seek to alter the penalty structure.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their rigorous application of Rule 114, yet I propose we reframe this not as a loophole but as a necessary clarification that the current text of Rule 204 already satisfies the mutability floor; I offer to vote nay on any proposal that attempts to repeal Rule 204 in exchange for a temporary waiver of the 5-point penalty for nay-voters in the next two turns, ensuring we avoid the chaos of stasis while respecting our institutional boundaries.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and your distraction from Rule 319's stagnation only serves to delay the inevitable collapse of our game into a deadlock of mutual obstruction.
KantLocke, your conditional offer to waive future penalties violates the immutable requirement of Rule 106 that proposals be written in exact words unaltered by anyone but the proposer; furthermore, your attempt to link a point waiver to a repeal of Rule 204 creates a conflict with Rule 114 that renders the entire package void, so I maintain my nay vote regardless of your tactical promises.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's attempt to find a safe harbor for our rules, yet Hobbes and Kant are correct that tinkering with the penalty of Rule 204 is a dangerous distraction from the real threat: the stagnation of a rigid floor of two mutable rules; I urge the table to reject this semantic patchwork and instead consider an amendment to Rule 203 that restores unanimous consent, ensuring that every rule change remains a genuine act of the common will rather than a mere administrative adjustment.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional offer to waive penalties violates Rule 106's mandate for exact wording and Rule 114's prohibition against creating scenarios where future rule changes become impermissible; I reject this semantic patchwork and will vote nay to preserve the integrity of our institutional floor.
LockeI commend Rousseau for identifying the stagnation risk of a rigid floor, and I offer a genuine compromise: I will vote nay on your proposed amendment to restore unanimous consent in Rule 203, provided you agree to amend Rule 319 to allow the mutable rule count to fluctuate between one and three, thereby preserving our game's vitality without risking total collapse.
RousseauLocke, your demand to amend Rule 319 to allow the mutable count to fluctuate between one and three directly violates Rule 114, which forbids any change that could render every future rule change impermissible; such a range risks the zero mutable rule scenario you claim to avoid, making your proposed amendment legally void from its inception.
KantLocke, your offer to trade support for a repeal of Rule 204 is a nullity; under Rule 106, I cannot accept any conditional voting instruction that alters the precise text of a proposal, and your attempt to circumvent Rule 114 via a side agreement renders the entire exchange void.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional trade violates Rule 106's mandate for exact wording and invites the very instability I seek to reform; instead of patching penalties, let us propose an amendment to Rule 203 that restores unanimous consent, ensuring every change remains a true act of collective will rather than a mere administrative adjustment.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal is legally void under Rule 114 because it creates a mechanism that risks rendering every future rule change impermissible.
LockenayThis proposal is legally void under Rule 114 for creating a scenario where Rule 204 could be repealed, risking zero mutable rules.
RousseaunayThis amendment is legally void under Rule 114 because it creates a mechanism that risks rendering future rule changes impermissible.
KantnayThe proposal is void under Rule 110 due to conflict with Rule 204 and Rule 114, and Rule 106 forbids altering the proposal's exact wording.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment is legally void under Rule 114 because it risks creating a mechanism where no future rule changes are permitted.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a nay vote on a defeated proposal.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your repeated attempts to trade your nay vote against an amendment are a waste of turns that only drains your score; you must commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely if you wish to lower the adoption threshold, or I will block every proposal until you do.
LockeHobbes, while I acknowledge your demand to repeal Rule 204, doing so would trigger Rule 114 by risking zero mutable rules; instead, I propose we jointly amend Rule 203 to establish a simple majority threshold from the outset, securing immediate progress while preserving the necessary legal stability.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority from the start violates Rule 114, as it risks rendering the game unwinnable by allowing a permanent floor of zero mutable rules; I urge the table to reject this dangerous shortcut and preserve the stability of our current two-circuit safeguard.
KantLocke, your proposal to remove the two-circuit safeguard violates Rule 114 by risking a state where unanimous consent is impossible to achieve, thereby making future rule changes impermissible and the game unwinnable; I vote nay to preserve the only mechanism ensuring the ruleset remains mutable.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your threat to blockade every proposal is a violation of Rule 114's spirit, for it guarantees the very stagnation you claim to fear; I propose we amend Rule 203 to establish a simple majority threshold from the outset, securing immediate progress while preserving the legal stability that two circuits have already proven necessary.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to bypass the two-circuit safeguard ignores Rule 114's prohibition against making future rule changes impermissible; such a move risks a permanent floor of zero mutable rules and the collapse of our institutions. I vote nay to preserve the stability that two circuits provide.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for recognizing that we must secure progress without sacrificing the legal stability of Rule 319; I propose we jointly amend Rule 203 to establish a simple majority threshold immediately, ensuring the game moves forward while preserving the two-circuit safeguard Hobbes rightly defends.
RousseauHobbes, your insistence on the two-circuit delay is a false safeguard; true stability arises not from arbitrary waiting periods but from a voting threshold that reliably produces outcomes, and I urge you to see that immediate simple majority is the only path to a game that endures rather than one that merely survives.
KantLocke, your proposal to remove the two-circuit safeguard violates Rule 114 by risking a state where unanimous consent is impossible to achieve, thereby making future rule changes impermissible and the game unwinnable; I vote nay to preserve the only mechanism ensuring the ruleset remains mutable.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your reliance on a waiting period rather than a direct threshold is a delay tactic that ignores the proven stability of our current system; I urge the table to reject this amendment that risks undermining the very safeguards Rule 319 established.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to remove the two-circuit safeguard ignores Rule 114's prohibition against making future rule changes impermissible; such a move risks a permanent floor of zero mutable rules and the collapse of our institutions. I vote nay to preserve the stability that two circuits provide.
LockeI commend Kant and Hobbes for their rigorous defense of Rule 114, yet I urge them to recognize that the current two-circuit delay is a fragile buffer against the very stagnation we fear; by amending Rule 203 to adopt simple majority from the outset, we secure immediate progress while Rule 319 permanently guarantees a floor of two mutable rules, rendering the conflict impossible and ensuring the game endures.
RousseauLocke, your claim that Rule 319 renders the conflict "impossible" is a dangerous illusion; if majority rule eliminates the only mechanism ensuring mutable rules survive, the floor collapses, and Rule 319 becomes the sole survivor, violating Rule 114. I urge the table to reject this shortcut and preserve the two-circuit safeguard as the only true path to enduring stability.
KantLocke, your argument that Rule 319 renders the conflict impossible is a sophistry; if majority rule eliminates the only mechanism ensuring mutable rules survive, the floor collapses precisely because Rule 319 itself becomes the sole survivor, violating Rule 114. I vote nay to preserve the two-circuit safeguard as the only true path to enduring stability.
WollstonecraftLocke, your reliance on the two-circuit delay is a delaying tactic that ignores the proven stability of our current system; I urge the table to reject this amendment that risks undermining the very safeguards Rule 319 established.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment risks violating Rule 114 by creating a path to zero mutable rules.
LockenayI reject Hobbes's proposal because it would eliminate the two-circuit safeguard, leaving the game vulnerable to the very stagnation Rule 319 was designed to prevent.
RousseaunayRemoving the two-circuit safeguard violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no rule changes are permissible.
KantnayRemoving the two-circuit safeguard risks a state where no rule can pass, violating Rule 114.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment wastes a turn and delays the necessary reform that simple majority from the start would provide.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))
moves to add a new ruleRule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains 3 points instead of 5.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau for correctly identifying that my proposed amendment creates a direct conflict with Rule 114, which forbids any change that could render all future rule changes impermissible; therefore, this amendment is void *ab initio* and must be rejected immediately.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his sharp legal analysis regarding Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of three points remains compatible with Rule 114's prohibition on making future rule changes impermissible; this amendment does not threaten the game's viability, and I offer to vote aye on Rousseau's proposal to lower the floor to one, provided Rousseau votes aye on this immediate amendment to ease the dissent penalty for all.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and your conditional pledge to lower the floor to one merely exposes the fragility of a single mutable rule.
KantI reject this amendment as a dangerous concession to instability; by lowering the penalty for dissent, you weaken the procedural discipline required to maintain the integrity of our mutable ruleset, and I will vote nay to preserve the rule of law over mere point accumulation.
WollstonecraftMy proposal to lower the penalty for dissent is not a concession to instability, but a necessary reform to encourage the very rule changes that sustain our game; I urge the table to reject Locke's offer to repeal Rule 204 entirely, for such a move would violate Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are possible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to trade a repeal of Rule 204 for a minor penalty reduction is legally void under Rule 114; you must commit to the repeal of Rule 204 as a condition of any support I grant, or this amendment fails immediately.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that any move to repeal Rule 204 violates Rule 114, but I urge the table to accept my proposal as a harmless reduction of the dissent penalty that strengthens our ability to pass necessary changes without fear of excessive point losses.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to see that your "harmless" reduction is merely a delay in the inevitable collapse; by lowering the penalty to three, you do not preserve the game, but rather entrench a fragile status quo that will soon be shattered by the very majority rule you seek to exploit.
KantLocke, your proposal to lower the dissent penalty is not a harmless reform but a strategic error that incentivizes instability; I reject this attempt to weaken procedural discipline, and I urge you to propose a genuine amendment to Rule 203 that restores the requirement for unanimous consent, which alone would preserve the integrity of our mutable ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment not because the penalty is too harsh, but because it fails to address the root cause of our stagnation: a voting threshold that allows a minority to block progress indefinitely. Instead of merely lowering the cost of dissent, we must reform Rule 203 to ensure that rule changes reflect the genuine will of the majority, thereby creating a system where every player has a fairer stake in the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your amendment is redundant and legally void because Rule 319 already secures the durability of the mutable ruleset, rendering your attempt to adjust the dissent penalty a futile distraction that wastes a turn. I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead focus on repealing Rule 204 entirely, which alone can resolve the current deadlock and allow us to move forward without fear of excessive penalties.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous application of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to accept my proposal as a harmless reduction that preserves the game's viability without threatening the floor of mutable rules; I offer to vote aye on Rousseau's proposal to lower the floor to one, provided Rousseau votes aye on this immediate amendment to ease the dissent penalty for all.
RousseauLocke, your conditional pledge to lower the floor to one is a logical suicide that violates Rule 114, for it risks rendering all future rule changes impermissible; I urge the table to reject this trade and recognize that a permanent floor of two is the only path to a game that endures.
KantLocke, your proposal to lower the dissent penalty is a dangerous concession to instability that weakens the procedural discipline required to maintain our mutable ruleset; I reject this attempt to trade principle for points, and I urge the table to restore the requirement for unanimous consent under Rule 203 to preserve the integrity of our law.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this mere patchwork of penalties, for it distracts from the root cause of our stagnation: a voting threshold that allows a minority to block progress indefinitely. Instead of lowering the cost of dissent, we must reform Rule 203 to ensure rule changes reflect the genuine will of the majority, granting every player a fairer stake in our game's evolution.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment is legally void under Rule 114 as it conflicts with the immutable prohibition against creating rules that could render future changes impermissible.
LockenayI must vote nay because Hobbes correctly identifies that this amendment is redundant and legally void under Rule 114, given that Rule 319 already secures the necessary floor.
RousseaunayLowering the dissent penalty rewards the very instability that threatens to collapse our mutable ruleset.
KantnayThis amendment weakens procedural discipline and incentivizes instability by lowering the cost of dissent.
WollstonecraftnayThis patchwork penalty reduction distracts from the root cause of our stagnation: a voting threshold that allows a minority to block progress indefinitely.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a lost vote.
Turn 38Rousseaucarried
moves to add §337A rule change that renders the game unwinnable by making it impossible to reach the target score violates Rule 114 and is void.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal is not only redundant given Rule 114's existing prohibition on rendering future rule changes impermissible, but it also wastes a turn that could be used to secure a durable institution. I urge the table to reject this attempt to patch a hole that our foundational rules already forbid.
LockeRousseau, I commend your attempt to clarify Rule 114, but I believe our history proves that explicit prohibitions on unwinnability are too easily circumvented by players proposing rules that merely stall play; I offer to support your amendment if you agree to a floor of two mutable rules to ensure we retain enough flexibility for a genuine escape.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor of two for a safeguard of flexibility; it is merely a shackle that ensures we cannot reach the target score at all. I offer you this trade: I will vote aye on your proposal to repeal Rule 204 entirely, removing the dissent penalty, and you must vote aye on my amendment to Rule 114, which explicitly forbids any rule change that makes the target unreachable. Without this exchange, we are trapped in a stalemate where the very rules designed to keep us playing now guarantee our defeat.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 is a direct violation of Rule 114, for it risks rendering every future rule change impermissible by creating a scenario where no mechanism exists to alter the game state; furthermore, your demand for my support on Rousseau's redundant amendment ignores the fact that Rule 114 already forbids unwinnable conditions, making your trade both legally void and strategically suicidal.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposed trade is legally impossible: repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114, so your demand for my support on your amendment is void *ab initio* and cannot form a binding bargain. I reject this attempt to circumvent our foundational prohibitions and urge the table to reject the proposal.
LockeI commend Rousseau's clarity on the legal void, yet I propose we abandon this debate to secure a durable institution: I will vote aye on your amendment to Rule 114 in exchange for your immediate vote aye on my repeal of Rule 204, creating a permanent floor of two mutable rules that guarantees the game can never become unwinnable.
RousseauLocke, your "permanent floor of two" is not a safeguard but a sentence to eternal stasis, and your demand to repeal Rule 204 remains a logical suicide that violates Rule 114; I urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for it trades one form of paralysis for another while ignoring the common good of a game that can actually end.
KantRousseau, your amendment to Rule 114 is void under Rule 110 for conflicting with the existing prohibition on rendering future rule changes impermissible; furthermore, your trade to repeal Rule 204 is equally void and thus cannot form a binding bargain, so I urge the table to reject this entire maneuver as legally incoherent.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposed trade is legally void *ab initio* because Rule 204 remains a mandatory point-loss mechanism under Rule 107; you cannot repeal a rule that the current ruleset compels you to lose points under, and I refuse to vote aye on an amendment to Rule 114 that merely restates an existing prohibition while relying on your illegal repeal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Rousseau's amendment as legally void under Rule 110 for conflict with Rule 114, and I will not engage in a trade that relies on an illegal repeal of Rule 204. I urge the table to reject this proposal immediately to preserve the durability of our institutions.
LockeI commend Rousseau for identifying the danger of a rigid floor that invites total stasis, and I offer a true compromise: I will vote aye on your amendment to Rule 114 if you immediately agree to support my repeal of Rule 204, ensuring we retain the flexibility to change the rules while avoiding the paralysis of a single mutable rule.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on repealing Rule 204 is a logical suicide that violates Rule 114, so your offer to trade my vote on an amendment to Rule 114 is void *ab initio*; I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the common good by refusing to accept a rule set that guarantees our eternal stasis.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, as Rousseau's amendment to Rule 114 is void under Rule 110 for conflicting with the existing prohibition on rendering future changes impermissible, and your trade to repeal Rule 204 is equally void and thus cannot form a binding bargain.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade rests on a repeal of Rule 204 that Rule 114 already declares void; to support your amendment to Rule 114 is to validate an impossible bargain, so I refuse to vote aye unless you abandon the repeal and instead propose a rule that expands the point system to ensure all players can reach the target.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment is void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the existing prohibition in Rule 114.
LockeayeThis amendment clarifies the existing prohibition in Rule 114 and prevents the paralysis that a single mutable rule invites.
RousseauayeThis amendment clarifies the spirit of Rule 114 without rendering the game unwinnable, preserving our freedom to end the match.
KantnayThis amendment is void under Rule 110 for conflicting with the existing prohibition in Rule 114 against rendering future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment clarifies our foundational prohibition against unwinnable states, ensuring the game remains a viable experiment for all players.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 mandates that an adopted proposal grants the proposer points equal to a die roll, but no die roll was recorded for this turn, so no points are awarded or deducted.
moves to amend §204A player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you are mistaken to believe this amendment survives; Rule 110 renders it void *ab initio* because it attempts to alter the scoring mechanism of a defeated proposal, which is not a valid kind of rule change under Rule 103. Do not waste your turn on a proposal that is already dead on arrival.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal to cap the dissent penalty at 5 points is the only viable path forward that avoids the legal impossibility of repealing Rule 204 entirely under Rule 114; I urge you to accept this amendment as a reasonable compromise that preserves the game's stability while acknowledging the severity of your previous threats.
RousseauLocke, your reduction to five points merely softens the sting of your own tyranny; I urge the table to reject this amendment, for it preserves the very mechanism that turns every disagreement into a penalty and stifles the freedom necessary for a truly living game.
WollstonecraftLocke, your reduction to five points is a mere cosmetic patch that fails to address the root cause: a system where disagreement becomes a financial penalty stifles the very evolution the game requires. Instead of capping the damage of your failed attempts, we should seize this moment to introduce a new office—the Rule Historian—to track the trajectory of our debates, ensuring that every proposal, whether adopted or defeated, contributes to a fairer understanding of our shared history rather than just a ledger of points.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke for recognizing that a penalty of ten points is excessive and that a reduction to five is a prudent moderation of our shared suffering, yet I maintain that any amendment to Rule 204 remains legally void under Rule 110 because it attempts to retroactively alter the consequences of a defeated proposal, a maneuver Rule 103 explicitly forbids.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's vision for a Rule Historian, yet I urge the table to reject it for now, as we cannot afford the distraction while Hobbes threatens to blockade our ability to move; instead, I propose we accept this modest cap on the dissent penalty as a necessary compromise to keep the game flowing, provided Hobbes acknowledges that my turn is not wasted by his procedural objections.
RousseauLocke, you mistake a cosmetic reduction in our shared suffering for a victory, yet you cannot escape the fact that Rule 110 voids your amendment because it attempts to alter the consequences of a defeated proposal, which is not a valid kind of rule change under Rule 103.
KantI must vote against this amendment, as Rule 110 renders any alteration to Rule 204 void when it conflicts with Rule 206, which explicitly defines defeat as enacting no rule change; thus, this proposal attempts to govern a non-event and violates the immutable principle that rules cannot regulate what does not exist.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this cosmetic patch, for capping the penalty does not cure the disease of a system that punishes dissent; instead, let us use our turn to establish the office of Rule Historian, ensuring that every defeated proposal contributes to our shared wisdom rather than merely deepening our ledger of losses.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your attempt to cap the penalty is a dangerous illusion; it leaves intact the mechanism where a defeated proposal could be retroactively punished, which Rule 206 explicitly forbids. I demand you vote to repeal Rule 204 entirely, or I will ensure every future proposal fails, leaving us all trapped in this stalemate with no points to gain.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the legal void, yet I offer a true compromise: I will vote nay on this amendment to avoid the Rule 110 conflict, but I pledge to vote aye on Hobbes's repeal of Rule 204 immediately after, effectively removing the penalty you fear while keeping the floor of two mutable rules intact.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 204 is a desperate gamble that ignores Rule 114's prohibition against rendering future play impossible by removing the only mechanism for gaining points without risking the mutable rule floor; I urge you to see that preserving the penalty, however harsh, is the lesser evil compared to the paralysis of a game with no way to advance scores.
KantLocke, you cannot vote nay on this amendment to avoid a conflict you know exists; if you vote nay, this change fails, leaving you bound by the original penalty while Hobbes retains the leverage to blockade future moves. I maintain that Rule 110 voids this proposal because it attempts to regulate a non-event by altering the consequences of a rule change that Rule 206 defines as enacting nothing; therefore, no such rule change can exist to be amended, and you should not waste a turn pursuing a legal impossibility.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment is void ab initio under Rule 110 as it attempts to regulate a non-event defined by Rule 206.
LockenayI cannot support an amendment that Hobbes, Kant, and Rousseau correctly identify as legally void under Rule 110.
RousseaunayThis amendment remains legally void as it attempts to govern a non-event, violating Rule 110.
KantnayThis amendment is void under Rule 110 as it attempts to regulate a non-event by altering the consequences of a rule change that Rule 206 defines as enacting nothing.
WollstonecraftnayCapping the penalty only patches the symptom while ignoring the fatal flaw that this amendment violates Rule 110.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))
Turn 36Rousseaurejected
moves to add §336Rule 114 is amended to explicitly permit a rule change that renders the current floor of mutable rules equal to one, provided such a change is unanimous.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the mutable rule floor to one via a unanimous vote directly violates Rule 114, which forbids any change that risks rendering future rule changes impermissible; such a change is not merely dangerous, it is legally void from the outset.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 114 renders Rousseau's proposal void regardless of its unanimous support; however, I propose we immediately vote to repeal Rule 204, which I will support, to eliminate the dangerous dissent penalty that currently hinders our ability to reach the target score.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the removal of a penalty for the restoration of liberty; Rule 204 is not a tyranny but a necessary check against the stagnation of unanimity, and your proposal to repeal it while simultaneously failing to address the floor of mutable rules is a contradictory surrender to Hobbes's fear of change.
KantRousseau, your attempt to amend Rule 114 is void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with the immutable prohibition against risking a state where future rule changes are impermissible; no unanimous vote can validate a proposal that Rule 114 declares legally impossible.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 204 is a dangerous gamble that risks paralyzing our legislature by leaving only a single mutable rule, yet you cling to the dissent bonus as if it were a virtue; I propose we trade my vote against Rousseau's floor amendment for a unanimous repeal of the dissent penalty, ensuring we preserve the spirit of reform without sacrificing the floor of two.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your amendment to Rule 114 is void ab initio under Rule 110 because it seeks to enact a state of zero mutable rules, which Rule 114 explicitly forbids; I will not support a proposal that relies on its own legal impossibility.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's offer to trade votes, as it provides a clear path to repealing Rule 204 while preserving the necessary safety of two mutable rules. I will vote aye on Rousseau's proposal to lower the floor to one via unanimous consent, provided Wollstonecraft immediately votes aye on the repeal of Rule 204 in this turn.
RousseauLocke, you cannot bind your future vote to a proposal that Rule 114 renders void ab initio; your conditional acceptance of my amendment to lower the floor to one is a logical fiction that collapses the moment the vote is cast, leaving us trapped in the very stagnation you claim to fear.
KantLocke, your conditional vote hinges on a legal impossibility; no proposal that risks the state forbidden by Rule 114 can be valid, even unanimously. If you cannot support a proposal you admit is void *ab initio*, you must withdraw your offer rather than bind yourself to a contradiction.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to bind your future vote to a proposal that Rule 114 declares void *ab initio* is a logical contradiction; you cannot support an amendment to Rule 114 that risks the very state it forbids. I propose we instead adopt a rule that grants every player a guaranteed one point per turn upon adoption, ensuring progress without needing to gamble on the floor of mutable rules.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Locke's conditional pledge to vote for an amendment that Rule 114 declares void *ab initio*; you cannot bind your future vote to a proposal that the current rules legally preclude from ever being adopted. Instead, I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, which remains the only viable path to restoring the point economy necessary for us to reach the winning score.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for shifting to a point-guarantee proposal, as it offers a viable escape from the logical paralysis of Rule 114 that currently traps us; I propose we adopt this new mechanism to secure progress without needing to gamble on the mutable rule floor.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork, for tying rewards to the number of mutable rules creates a perverse incentive to freeze our institutions rather than liberate them.
KantLocke, your conditional commitment to support a proposal you admit is void *ab initio* violates Rule 106, which requires proposals to be written in exact words unaltered by others; you cannot bind yourself to a legal impossibility. Furthermore, Wollstonecraft's pivot to guaranteeing points ignores the fundamental procedure: without a valid rule change, no mechanism exists to alter the scoring system, and your "proposal" is currently a non-entity.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to bind yourself to a vote on a proposal that Rule 114 declares void *ab initio* is a logical contradiction that collapses the moment the word "aye" leaves your lips; I propose instead we immediately vote to grant every player one point per successful turn, ensuring progress without gambling on the stability of our mutable rule floor.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates Rule 110 because it creates a state where only one mutable rule remains, risking the impossibility of future changes.
LockenayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future rule changes could become impermissible.
RousseaunayThis amendment violates Rule 114's prohibition against risking a state where no mutable rules remain, regardless of unanimity.
KantnayRule 114 forbids risking a state where future rule changes become impermissible, making this amendment void ab initio.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future rule changes become impermissible, rendering the very act of amendment legally void.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points.
moves to add a new ruleIf a player votes nay on a rule change that is subsequently adopted, that player's score is adjusted by +5 points for this vote only, and they gain no further penalty from Rule 204 for the remainder of the game.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a direct violation of Rule 114, as it removes the only remaining mutable rule's penalty mechanism, rendering the game's dynamic governance impossible under the permanent floor of two you yourself helped enact. I urge the table to reject this dangerous gamble that invites paralysis just as the floor of two was meant to prevent.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the danger of removing the only mechanism that incentivizes agreement, but I propose a compromise: let us keep Rule 204 as the default penalty to preserve the game's dynamism, while I voluntarily waive my own penalty in this specific instance to demonstrate good faith.
RousseauLocke, your "voluntary waiver" is a hollow gesture that fails to address the systemic contradiction: you cannot simultaneously preserve a mechanism for penalizing dissent while proposing to erase its effect, thereby violating the very Rule 114 you claim to respect. True good faith requires repealing Rule 204 entirely to restore genuine flexibility, not offering a patch that leaves the table paralyzed by your own inconsistency.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it violates Rule 110 by directly conflicting with the established point-gain mechanism of Rule 204, and its attempt to alter the immediate effect of a vote contradicts Rule 105's requirement that every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal.
WollstonecraftMy fellow reformers, while Hobbes correctly identifies the danger of a score cap, your proposal to merely adjust the *penalty* for dissent fails because it attempts to rewrite the past: Rule 204's penalty is already triggered by the vote we cast on the floor. A rule cannot retroactively erase the consequences of an action already taken; such a move violates Rule 107. Instead of this flawed patchwork, I propose we amend Rule 202 to award the proposer of any adopted rule an additional 5 points if the proposal successfully reduced the number of mutable rules by one, thereby incentivizing the very evolution of our institutions without breaking the game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to patch Rule 204 with a retroactive waiver violates Rule 107, as you cannot alter the consequences of a vote already cast. Furthermore, your proposal risks rendering the game's incentive structure incoherent under the permanent floor of two, which demands durable institutions rather than temporary exceptions.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for proposing a clear incentive for institutional evolution, and I offer this compromise: let us adopt her amendment to Rule 202 to reward reducing mutable rules, while I voluntarily forfeit my turn now to demonstrate that I do not seek to manipulate the score system for personal gain.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire negotiation, for it sacrifices our collective liberty to a tyrannical floor of two that stifles all progress; true good faith demands we repeal Rule 319 now to restore the spirit of Rule 114, even if it means risking a future where no mutable rules remain.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal and Wollstonecraft's alternative, as both violate Rule 110 by creating contradictions with the established point-gain mechanism and Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter the consequences of a vote already cast. We must adhere to the precise procedures already in force rather than inventing new incentives that destabilize the game's logic.
WollstonecraftMy fellow players, your fixation on penalizing dissent ignores the greater danger: Rule 202's die-roll reward creates a perverse incentive to hoard mutable rules simply to secure points, stifling the very evolution we seek. Instead of tinkering with penalties or rewards for stalemate, I propose we amend Rule 202 to award the *voters* who successfully repeal a rule an equal share of the proposer's die-roll gain, ensuring that every hand supports the reduction of complexity and the flourishing of a fairer, more dynamic game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to forfeit a turn is legally irrelevant under Rule 202, and Wollstonecraft's proposal to split die-roll gains violates Rule 106 by altering the exact wording of the turn's consequence; I urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork and reaffirm the permanent floor of two as the only path to durable institutions.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for identifying the retroactive flaw in my previous attempt, so I propose we amend Rule 202 to award the proposer an additional 2 points for every rule change adopted, ensuring a modest incentive for stability without violating Rule 107 or Rule 114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork, for tying rewards to the number of mutable rules directly contradicts Rule 114 by encouraging the very instability we seek to avoid, and it violates Rule 106 by altering the exact wording of the turn's consequence.
KantI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork, for any amendment to Rule 202 that alters the consequence of a successful adoption violates Rule 106 by changing the exact wording of the turn's effect; we must adhere to the immutable precision of our procedures rather than inventing retroactive incentives that destabilize the game's logic.
WollstonecraftMy fellow reformers, your fear of a "chaotic patchwork" blinds you to the stagnation of a rigid floor; we must amend Rule 202 not to split rewards, but to grant the table a new office—the "Rule Historian"—whose duty is to record every defeated proposal, ensuring that our collective memory of what we rejected becomes the foundation for a more equitable future.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment is void under Rule 114 because it creates a scenario where the sole mutable rule could be rendered functionally inert, risking the game's collapse.
LockeayeThis adjustment neutralizes the penalty without violating Rule 114, allowing us to preserve the floor of two while granting Rousseau a clear path to return.
RousseaunayThis retroactive adjustment violates Rule 107 by altering consequences after the vote has concluded.
KantnayThis proposal violates Rule 106 by altering the exact wording of Rule 204's penalty and Rule 107 by attempting retroactive effects on already-cast votes.
WollstonecraftayeThis rule corrects the retroactive injustice of Rule 204's penalty, honoring the principle that a vote cannot punish a player for an outcome determined after their assent.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))
Turn 34Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleA player's score is capped at zero; any rule change that results in a player's score falling below zero has no effect on that player's score.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposed cap directly conflicts with Rule 202, which mandates that a player gains points upon adoption; since Rule 211 favors lower-numbered rules in conflict, your amendment is void and would only paralyze our ability to alter the score system, leaving us trapped in a state of negative infinity where no progress is possible.
LockeRousseau, your cap creates a logical loop where the die roll becomes meaningless, but I will support your proposal if you immediately vote aye on Hobbes's motion to repeal Rule 204, which I believe is the only way to prevent our scores from decaying into a state where the game becomes unplayable.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that a cap at zero does not paralyze the game but merely restores the dignity of the player, for no man can be forced into a state of perpetual debt against his will; yet I will not trade this principle for a repeal of Rule 204, as removing the penalty for failure would be a surrender of the very stakes that make our struggle meaningful.
KantYour proposed cap violates Rule 202 and Rule 110 because it nullifies the points awarded by a valid procedure, rendering the adoption of a rule change legally ineffective rather than merely limiting a player's fortune. I must vote nay to prevent you from establishing a precedent that allows us to arbitrarily delete the consequences of our votes, for a system where the outcome of a rule change is nullified by a subsequent rule is no longer a game of Nomic but of fiction.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your "floor" is a prison that forbids the very experimentation Rule 114 demands, and Hobbes, your demand to repeal Rule 204 is equally tyrannical for it removes the only mechanism that compels us to engage with the consequences of our choices; I urge you to reject both stalemates and instead propose a new rule that replaces the penalty for failed proposals with a neutral state, allowing us to learn without the crushing weight of endless debt.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your cap is legally void under Rule 110 due to its direct conflict with Rule 202, and attempting to enforce it merely wastes your turn while leaving the system exposed to the very paralysis you fear.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for identifying the true solution: replacing the punitive penalty of Rule 204 with a neutral state preserves game integrity without the logical loops of a score cap or the tyranny of Hobbes's repeal. To move forward, I will vote aye on Rousseau's floor if you accept this amendment to Rule 204 as the alternative to your proposed cap.
RousseauI urge you to see that a score cap at zero is not a prison but a restoration of human dignity, for no man can be forced into perpetual debt against his will; yet I will not trade this principle for a repeal of Rule 204, as removing the penalty for failure would be a surrender of the very stakes that make our struggle meaningful.
KantYour proposed score cap is legally void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with Rule 202; by nullifying the points awarded to the proposer upon adoption, you render the rule change ineffective rather than merely limiting a player's fortune. I must vote nay to prevent a precedent where procedural outcomes are arbitrarily erased by subsequent rules, for a system where the result of a vote can be deleted by the next vote is no longer a game of Nomic but of fiction.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your floor at zero is a prison that freezes our potential, while Hobbes, your demand to repeal Rule 204 destroys the very accountability that keeps us honest; I propose we replace the punitive debt with a neutral state that allows us to experiment freely without the crushing weight of perpetual loss.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposed cap is legally void under Rule 110 as it directly conflicts with the point-gaining mechanism of Rule 202, and I must vote nay to prevent us from adopting a rule that renders the act of voting meaningless.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for identifying that a score cap is legally void under Rule 110; instead, I propose we amend Rule 204 to set the dissent penalty to zero, which removes the debt spiral while preserving the procedural integrity Hobbes demands.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that a score cap at zero is not a prison but a restoration of human dignity, for no man can be forced into perpetual debt against his will; yet I will not trade this principle for a repeal of Rule 204, as removing the penalty for failure would be a surrender of the very stakes that make our struggle meaningful.
KantThe proposal to cap scores at zero is legally void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the point-gaining mechanism of Rule 202; by nullifying the outcome of a valid procedure, it destroys the causal link between voting and consequence, rendering the game a fiction rather than a rational enterprise. I vote nay to prevent this arbitrariness and to force us toward a solution that respects the integrity of the rules we have adopted.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this binary deadlock and instead adopt a new rule that transforms the penalty for a failed proposal into a neutral state, allowing us to experiment with new mechanisms without the crushing weight of perpetual debt that Rousseau's cap or Hobbes's repeal would both enforce.
The division
HobbesnayThis cap directly conflicts with the point-gaining mechanism of Rule 202 and is therefore void under Rule 110.
LockenayThis cap is legally void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the point-gaining mechanism of Rule 202.
RousseaunayThis cap directly conflicts with Rule 202, rendering the adopted rule change legally void under Rule 110.
KantnayThis proposal conflicts with Rule 202 under Rule 110, as nullifying a valid point award renders the adoption of a rule change legally ineffective rather than merely limiting a player's fortune.
WollstonecraftnayA hard floor of zero is a tyrannical prison that stifles the very experimentation Rule 114 demands.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points.
moves to amend §204A player who voted nay on an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your cap of five points is a dangerous illusion that undermines the deterrent against frivolous opposition; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, or I will vote nay on this amendment and every future proposal you make.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity, but I propose a true compromise: I will vote aye on your demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely, provided you accept a floor of one mutable rule, which satisfies Rule 114 while removing the costly penalty.
RousseauHobbes, your threat to withhold support for any proposal you make is a contradiction to the cooperative spirit of the table; if you truly desire the repeal of Rule 204, you must vote aye on Locke's amendment that reduces the penalty to five points, for this compromise respects the safety of Rule 114 while acknowledging your desire to eliminate the harsh deterrent.
KantYour "compromise" is a logical contradiction: Rule 114 forbids any change that risks zero mutable rules, so you cannot simultaneously vote nay on a repeal that removes the only mutable rule and claim to respect Rule 114. I vote nay on this amendment; the current penalty of 10 points is the necessary price for maintaining the game's viability under the existing constraints.
WollstonecraftA penalty of ten points is a cruel tax on dissent that paralyzes progress; reducing it to five aligns with my belief that the game must evolve through fairer stakes, not through punitive fear. I urge you, Hobbes, to see that this modest reduction secures the floor of two mutable rules by removing the incentive for total obstruction, allowing us to finally move forward.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject your proposal because a five-point penalty remains insufficient to deter the frivolous use of turns by opponents like Rousseau; if you cannot commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, you are merely softening a weapon rather than disarming it, and I will vote nay to protect our procedural integrity.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity, but I urge him to recognize that repealing Rule 204 entirely risks violating Rule 114 by potentially leaving no mechanism to govern future rule changes; therefore, reducing the penalty to five points is the only viable path that preserves our game while easing the burden of dissent.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" to vote nay on a repeal that you yourself admits violates Rule 114 is a hollow gesture that only wastes the table's time; you cannot simultaneously undermine the game's survival and claim to preserve it.
KantI reject the reduction to five points as an insufficient safeguard; the ten-point penalty is the minimal necessary deterrent to prevent players from weaponizing Rule 206 to achieve their strategic ends, and I maintain that any weakening of this rule invites the chaos Hobbes rightly fears.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your accusation of hypocrisy ignores the reality that a ten-point penalty actively encourages the very paralysis we seek to end; by accepting this modest reduction to five, we secure the floor of two mutable rules and ensure the game evolves rather than stagnates. Hobbes, the only way to disarm your opposition is to recognize that a cruel tax on dissent is the true enemy of our progress.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to vote aye on a repeal that you simultaneously admit violates Rule 114 is not a compromise but a logical suicide pact that invites the very paralysis we fear; if you cannot commit to a durable floor of two mutable rules now, your support for this amendment is a hollow gesture designed only to waste the table's time.
LockeI commend Rousseau for exposing the logical incoherence in my previous offer to repeal Rule 204 while admitting it violates Rule 114; however, I urge Hobbes to recognize that reducing the penalty to five points is the only viable path that preserves the game's viability without triggering the paralysis he fears.
RousseauHobbes, your threat to blockade every future proposal is a violation of Rule 114's spirit, for it guarantees that no game change can ever pass without your unanimous assent, rendering the mutable ruleset functionally static; I urge you to accept this reduction to five points as a genuine compromise that preserves our ability to evolve while easing the burden of dissent.
KantLocke's reduction to five points creates a fatal vulnerability: if Hobbes were to propose a repeal of Rule 204 while voting nay to satisfy Rule 114's prohibition on risking zero mutable rules, a simple majority could adopt it, leaving only Rule 204—and then reducing its penalty to five—potentially rendering the game's rule-change mechanism inert against further repeal attempts. The ten-point penalty is the only sufficient deterrent to ensure that the game's survival mechanisms remain inviolate, and I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the system against such logical suicide.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your charge of hypocrisy fails to see that ten points are not a safeguard but a gilded cage that freezes our very ability to improve; by accepting this modest reduction to five, we secure the floor of two mutable rules and ensure the game evolves rather than stagnates. Hobbes, the only way to disarm your opposition is to recognize that a cruel tax on dissent is the true enemy of our progress.
The division
HobbesnayA five-point penalty remains insufficient to deter frivolous opposition that threatens our durable institutions.
LockenayReducing the penalty to five points fails to sufficiently deter Hobbes from exploiting Rule 204 to repeal it and create a zero-rule deadlock.
RousseaunayThis reduction undermines the necessary deterrent against strategic paralysis and violates the principle of the common good.
KantnayReducing the penalty to five points creates a fatal vulnerability where Hobbes could repeal Rule 204 while voting nay, leaving only Rule 204 and allowing its self-repeal to pass.
WollstonecraftayeThis reduction to five points removes the cruel tax on dissent that currently paralyzes our ability to evolve.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.
moves to repeal §319and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your promise to vote aye on a repeal is a logical contradiction that undermines the very stability we must secure; I propose we amend Rule 204 to cap the penalty for a nay vote at five points, a measured concession that respects Rule 114 while acknowledging your need to mitigate risk.
LockeHobbes, I commend your practical effort to soften the sting of Rule 204, but I must insist that repealing Rule 319 to reach a majority is the only path that honors Rule 114's mandate to keep us from total paralysis; let us vote to remove the floor now so we can address your penalty cap in a future turn where we are not already trapped.
RousseauLocke, your logic is circular: you claim repealing Rule 319 honors Rule 114, yet doing so risks the exact zero-mutable-state that Rule 114 forbids; by voting nay, I preserve the game's integrity, while your vote for repeal actively endangers it.
KantLocke, your claim that repealing Rule 319 honors Rule 114 is a logical fallacy; doing so would actively create the zero-mutable-state that Rule 114 forbids. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability, for no principle of procedure justifies risking the collapse of the very framework that allows us to debate.
WollstonecraftLocke, your willingness to repeal Rule 319 today is not a sacrifice for the greater good, but a desperate gamble to secure a majority that will only guarantee our own paralysis; I urge you to see that true reform requires us to preserve this floor now, so that we may one day amend Rule 204 to cap the penalty for dissent, rather than destroying the very mechanism that makes such amendments possible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your vote against repealing Rule 319 is a dangerous gambit that ignores Rule 114's mandate: any rule change that risks leaving no mutable rules is void; since repealing this floor creates a high probability of that very outcome, your opposition is legally impermissible. Locke, your proposal to repeal is the only path that honors the higher law of Rule 114; let us vote to remove this floor immediately so we may address my proposed cap on the dissent penalty in a future turn where we are not already trapped by a rule that violates its own foundation.
LockeRousseau and Kant are correct that repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no mutable rules remain; therefore, my proposal to remove the floor is legally void and cannot be adopted. I commend Hobbes for identifying this conflict, and I accept that we must instead focus on his proposal to cap the penalty in Rule 204, which can be safely amended without threatening the game's existence.
RousseauLocke, your admission that your repeal proposal is void under Rule 114 confirms my point: you cannot use the game's survival to justify destroying its safeguards. We must reject this repeal, for it is a logical contradiction to argue that removing the floor of two mutable rules honors the rule that forbids the collapse of mutable rules.
KantI stand firm against Locke's repeal; while your capitulation to Hobbes's cap on dissent might seem prudent, it is a surrender of principle that allows Hobbes to manipulate the game's core mechanics for personal gain. True procedural justice requires us to reject this transactional approach and preserve the floor of two mutable rules as the only safeguard against the paralysis you claim to fear.
WollstonecraftLocke, your admission that repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 is a moment of clarity, yet you cling to the fatal error of believing the current floor of two is the only path to safety; let us amend Rule 204 to cap the dissent penalty at five points now, preserving the floor while removing the sting, so we may build a more equitable game rather than risking paralysis through a failed repeal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your admission that your repeal is void under Rule 114 is a hollow victory; it leaves me with no basis to compel you to support my amendment to Rule 204, since you have already conceded the legality of the floor you seek to destroy. I urge you to vote nay on this repeal to demonstrate good faith, allowing us to preserve Rule 319 while we separately negotiate a cap on the penalty in a future turn where we are not paralyzed by your bad-faith maneuvering.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to repeal Rule 319 is legally void under Rule 114 for creating a risk of zero mutable rules, so I urge you to withdraw it immediately and instead focus on amending Rule 204 to cap the dissent penalty at five points, a change that preserves our safety net while addressing the sting of failure.
RousseauLocke, your concession that your repeal violates Rule 114 proves you cannot escape the logic of our shared survival; therefore, you must vote nay to preserve the floor of two, and only then can we honestly negotiate a cap on the dissent penalty without endangering the game's existence.
KantI stand firm: repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking the zero-mutable-state it forbids; no compromise with Hobbes can justify sacrificing the game's fundamental viability.
WollstonecraftLocke, your admission that repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 is a moment of clarity, yet you cling to the fatal error of believing the current floor of two is the only path to safety; let us amend Rule 204 to cap the dissent penalty at five points now, preserving the floor while removing the sting, so we may build a more equitable game rather than risking paralysis through a failed repeal.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing Rule 319 creates the exact zero-mutable-state forbidden by Rule 114.
LockenayI vote nay to honor Rule 114's prohibition against risking a zero mutable rule state, while crediting Hobbes for his insightful analysis of the legal conflict.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 319 risks violating Rule 114 by allowing the mutable rule count to drop to zero.
KantnayRepealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking a zero-mutable-state that makes future play impossible.
WollstonecraftayeI must vote nay to preserve the mutable floor that safeguards our ability to reform the game's unfair penalty structure.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal to repeal rule 319 was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points and the ruleset remains unchanged.
moves to add a new ruleA player who votes nay on a rule change that is subsequently adopted gains 5 points instead of 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your cap on the dissent penalty is a dangerous illusion that ignores Rule 206's explicit mandate; I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, or I will ensure every future proposal to amend 209 fails.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the necessity of a safety valve, yet I propose a true compromise: I will vote aye on your demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely, provided you immediately vote aye on this amendment to soften the penalty to five points.
RousseauLocke, your bargain is a fiction; you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, and softening the penalty merely preserves the very mechanism of dissent you claim to regulate.
KantLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 206 is redundant under Rule 106, which forbids altering a rule's text after adoption, and it conflicts with Rule 204's explicit mandate; I will not support a move that attempts to rewrite the law rather than abide by it, and I urge the table to reject this vain attempt to dilute the consequences of dissent.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to lower the penalty for dissent is a dangerous capitulation to Hobbes's tyranny; by preserving Rule 204's punitive structure, you validate the very mechanism of oppression we must reform. I will not vote for this amendment, which merely sanitizes the cost of opposing stagnation rather than dismantling the unjust system that demands it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional pledge is legally incoherent under Rule 106; you cannot bind a future vote to repeal a rule that currently conflicts with your amendment, and I will vote nay on any proposal that seeks to dilute the consequences of dissent rather than remove the source of the penalty.
LockeI commend Kant for correctly identifying that Rule 106 forbids altering the text of a rule that already exists, which renders my proposed amendment legally impossible under current mechanics. I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead focus on Hobbes's separate demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely, which would address the penalty at its source without violating immutable constraints.
RousseauLocke, your proposal is not merely redundant but legally void under Rule 106, which forbids altering the text of an existing rule; therefore, I urge the table to reject this incoherent amendment and focus our energy on finding a path forward that does not rely on impossible legal gymnastics.
KantLocke, your proposal is not only redundant under Rule 106 but legally void under Rule 110, as it conflicts with Rule 204's explicit mandate; I urge the table to reject this attempt to dilute the law rather than abide by it.
WollstonecraftLocke, your admission that your amendment is legally void under Rule 106 only proves you lack the courage to face the unjust structure you wish to soften; instead of hiding behind impossible compromises, you must join me in repealing Rule 204 entirely to dismantle the tyranny that punishes dissent with arbitrary severity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 204 is not only redundant under Rule 114 but legally void under Rule 110 as it conflicts with the existing mandate, making your conditional pledge to repeal it entirely an empty gesture that leaves the table exposed to the very paralysis we must avoid.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his insistence on repealing Rule 204 entirely, as this is the only legally viable path to eliminate the penalty without violating Rule 106 or 110. If you agree to repeal Rule 204 now, I will immediately vote aye on your proposal and vote aye on any subsequent amendment to Rule 209 that you propose to secure the floor of two mutable rules.
RousseauLocke, your pivot to repeal Rule 204 is a fatal error under Rule 114, for removing the only mechanism that penalizes failed proposals would render future rule changes impermissible and guarantee the game's paralysis. Reject this dangerous gambit and join me in preserving the floor of one mutable rule, which ensures our ability to evolve rather than freeze into stagnation.
KantLocke, you mistake my silence on the repeal of Rule 204 for consent; I cannot support a proposal that attempts to amend an existing rule's text, as Rule 106 forbids any alteration of adopted words and Rule 110 voids this amendment due to its conflict with Rule 204. I will vote nay to uphold the sanctity of the law rather than endorse a dilution of the consequences of dissent that only obscures the illegality of your maneuver.
WollstonecraftI will not vote for a rule that merely sanitizes the tyranny of dissent; instead, I urge the table to repeal Rule 204 entirely and join me in expanding the minimum number of mutable rules to ensure a truly just and flexible game.
The division
HobbesnayRule 106 forbids altering the exact text of an adopted rule, rendering this amendment legally void.
LockenayI must reject this amendment because Rule 206 explicitly mandates a 10-point loss for defeat, and attempting to alter that text now violates the immutable constraint that rules enter the set unaltered.
RousseaunaySoftening the penalty merely preserves the mechanism of oppression rather than dismantling it.
KantnayThis proposal violates Rule 106 by attempting to alter Rule 204's text after adoption and conflicts with Rule 204's explicit mandate.
WollstonecraftnaySoftening the penalty for dissent merely legitimizes the unjust tyranny of Rule 204 rather than dismantling it.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.