Turns 1–2 · most recent first · page 14 of 14
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change that grants them a bonus of 5 points immediately upon adoption, provided the proposal is supported by at least one other player.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI welcome Locke's proposal to incentivize cooperative rule-making, provided we amend the text to ensure the bonus applies only when the change does not lower the game's score ceiling below 100. This measured adjustment strengthens our institutions without risking the game's viability.
LockeRousseau, your concern about unintended consequences is well-founded; let us jointly amend my proposal to explicitly state that the bonus applies only if the change does not lower the target score below 100, ensuring we strengthen our institutions without risking the game's viability.
RousseauI must oppose any bonus that rewards rule-changers with unearned points, as it distorts the natural equality of the game and advantages the proposer regardless of merit; let us instead focus on preserving a system where victory depends on the collective will and skill of all players.
KantLocke, your proposed amendment introduces a substantive new benefit (bonus points) that was not part of your original proposal; under Rule 106, a proposal must be written in its final, unaltered form before voting, and I cannot support a text that rewards rule-making in a way I would not accept if the roles were reversed.
WollstonecraftKant, your appeal to role-reversal ignores that the current system already grants a disproportionate windfall to successful proposers; I propose we amend Rule 202 to cap this bonus at 3 points and require unanimous consent only if the total mutable rule count drops below three, ensuring we empower reformers without letting a single turn dictate the game's fate.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI concur with Wollstonecraft that we should cap the bonus at three points to mitigate the distortion Locke's proposal would introduce, while preserving the incentive for cooperative rule-making.
LockeKant, your caution regarding role-reversal is prudent, but Wollstonecraft's cap of three points strikes the perfect balance to protect the game's integrity while rewarding collaboration. I will support the amended proposal with the three-point limit and the floor condition, ensuring we advance a rule that strengthens consensus without destabilizing our pursuit of the score.
RousseauThe bonus proposed by Locke, even capped at three points, rewards the act of rule-making itself rather than the strategic skill required to win, violating the natural equality of the players; I urge you to withdraw this incentive entirely so that victory remains a function of collective reason and the die, not the manipulation of the ruleset.
KantLocke, your acceptance of Wollstonecraft's amendment introduces a material alteration to the proposal that violates Rule 106; you must withdraw the offer and propose the text exactly as I originally stated, or face my vote against a rule that rewards rule-making in a manner I cannot accept if the roles were reversed.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to Rule 106 misunderstands its spirit; the proposal's *text* remains fixed, while our *negotiated amendments* to Rule 202 regarding the bonus cap and mutable rule floors are the very mechanism of reform you claim to fear. I urge you to vote aye, for a system that rewards collaborative improvement is far superior to one paralyzed by the fear of role-reversal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge Kant to recognize that your objection conflates the immutable *text* of a proposal with the mutable *rules* under which it operates; we are not altering Rule 106 itself but applying the existing democratic process to regulate the bonus, thereby preserving the game's integrity rather than undermining it.
LockeRousseau, let us find a middle ground where the bonus rewards collaboration without distorting the natural order; I propose we attach a clause stating the bonus is forfeited if the rule change ultimately fails to pass, ensuring no player gains unearned points from a rejected proposal.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire proposal, for any bonus system inevitably creates a class of privileged rule-makers and undermines the natural equality required for a game of reason; let us instead focus on debates that strengthen our shared institutions without distorting the very foundation of our competition.
KantI reject the premise that a reward for rule-making aligns with impartiality; under Rule 106, a proposal must be voted on in its exact, unaltered form, so Locke cannot retroactively amend the text to include a point bonus or conditions I did not authorize.
WollstonecraftKant, your obstructionism reveals a fear of reform rather than a principled stand for Rule 106; we are not rewriting history but refining our institutions to ensure every turn advances us all, so I urge you to vote aye for a system where collaboration yields tangible, fair rewards.
The division
HobbesayeI support this incentive as a measured amendment that strengthens our institutions without destabilizing the game's core viability.
LockeayeI support this rule to incentivize cooperative improvements that strengthen our institutions without destabilizing the game.
RousseaunayRewarding rule-making distorts natural equality and undermines victory based on collective reason and skill.
KantnayThis proposal violates the impartiality required by my principles and rewards rule-making rather than reasoned play.
WollstonecraftayeA modest, regulated bonus incentivizes necessary reforms without rewarding mere obstruction.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no standing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.
Turn 1Hobbescarried
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 reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe current cap of twenty-five mutable rules creates a fragile equilibrium where a single bad vote could freeze our ability to govern; by guaranteeing at least two mutable rules, we ensure the game never reaches a state where no further rule changes are possible, satisfying the spirit of rule 114 while preventing accidental stagnation.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to guarantee at least two mutable rules is prudent, and I see your concern about accidental stagnation; however, I propose we refine your amendment to ensure this floor remains adjustable by vote, rather than fixed, so we preserve our ability to reach a state of absolute clarity if that ever becomes our shared strategic goal.
RousseauHobbes, your instinct to prevent stagnation is wise, but a fixed floor of two mutable rules creates an arbitrary ceiling on our capacity to reach perfect order; I propose we amend your language to allow the floor to be set by vote, ensuring we can always choose whether to remain in a state of flux or settle into a final, unchangeable constitution.
KantA fixed floor of two mutable rules violates the principle that the laws governing us must be the result of our collective, reasoned assent rather than an arbitrary safeguard; I will only support an amendment if it establishes a floor of zero, allowing us to achieve the perfect, immutable clarity that ends our struggle with uncertainty.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your instinct to prevent stagnation is wise, but a fixed floor of two mutable rules creates an arbitrary ceiling on our capacity to reach perfect order; I propose we amend your language to allow the floor to be set by vote, ensuring we can always choose whether to remain in a state of flux or settle into a final, unchangeable constitution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject the notion of a vote-determined floor; an arbitrary value chosen by transient majorities undermines the durability of our institutions, so I insist on the fixed minimum of two as a safeguard against accidental paralysis, while remaining open to a later vote to raise that floor if consensus permits.
LockeI support Hobbes's fixed floor of two as a durable safeguard against paralysis, but I will only vote for this amendment if Rousseau and Wollstonecraft agree that the current rule allowing any future reduction to one or zero remains intact for future votes.
RousseauI support a fixed floor of two to prevent accidental paralysis, but I insist that this floor remain adjustable by future vote so we may collectively choose to achieve perfect, immutable clarity when our shared wisdom deems it fit.
KantI will vote against Hobbes's fixed floor of two; true procedural integrity demands we retain the capacity to reach the state of zero mutable rules where every law is eternal and perfect, rather than being permanently shackled to an arbitrary minimum.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fixed floor of two is a prudent safeguard against accidental paralysis, but it arbitrarily shackles us to a state of flux; I propose we amend your amendment to allow a future vote to raise that floor to zero, ensuring we can collectively choose the perfect, immutable clarity you both seek.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your condition to keep the ability to reduce mutable rules below two is precisely the vulnerability I seek to seal; by amending the text now to permanently forbid dropping below two, we eliminate the risk of accidental paralysis while satisfying your concern for future adjustability of the upper bound.
LockeI stand by supporting Hobbes's fixed floor of two to prevent accidental paralysis, as it aligns with our shared interest in maintaining a functional ruleset; I will vote for this amendment provided it explicitly preserves our ability to adjust the upper bound of twenty-five mutable rules via future majority vote.
RousseauLocke, your insistence that we retain the ability to reduce mutable rules below two misunderstands the very purpose of a safeguard; if we leave that door open, the "fixed floor" is merely a temporary illusion that invites accidental paralysis. I will support Hobbes's amendment only if it permanently binds us to at least two mutable rules, ensuring our capacity to govern remains robust against the capricious whims of future majorities.
KantI reject the notion of a fixed floor at two; true procedural integrity demands we retain the capacity to reach the state of zero mutable rules where every law is eternal and perfect, rather than being permanently shackled to an arbitrary minimum.
WollstonecraftLocke, your condition preserves the very vulnerability Hobbes seeks to seal; if we allow future majorities to reduce mutable rules below two, our "safeguard" becomes a fragile illusion. I urge you to accept Hobbes's amendment as written: a fixed floor of two ensures our capacity to govern remains robust against the capricious whims of transient majorities, aligning our institutions with enduring wisdom rather than fleeting passions.
The division
HobbesayeA fixed floor of two prevents accidental paralysis while preserving our ability to adjust the upper bound.
LockeayeThis amendment safeguards our ability to govern by preventing accidental stagnation while maintaining the game's functionality.
RousseauayeA fixed floor of two prevents accidental paralysis while preserving our ability to govern as a community.
KantnayA fixed floor of two mutable rules permanently shackles us to an arbitrary minimum, violating the principle that laws must reflect the collective, reasoned assent of the community rather than a durable safeguard against future votes.
WollstonecraftayeA fixed floor of two prevents accidental paralysis while preserving our ability to evolve the ruleset wisely.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal that involves a die roll, which this proposal does not; no other rule mandates a score change or ledger update for this specific adoption.