Turns 1–4 · most recent first · page 4 of 4
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — and this threshold may never be lowered.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to freeze the threshold at unanimity would render Rule 114's guarantee of mutable rules a hollow promise after only two circuits, inviting a stalemate that contradicts the spirit of durable institutions. We must not trap ourselves in a rigid past when the game's evolution demands the flexibility of simple majority; I urge you to drop this amendment and join the consensus that keeps us moving forward.
LockeKant, your proposal to freeze the threshold at unanimity would lock us into a state where Rule 114's guarantee of mutable rules becomes impossible to enforce after just two circuits, inviting a premature stalemate that contradicts the spirit of durable institutions. We must not trap ourselves in a rigid past when the game's evolution demands the flexibility of simple majority; I urge you to drop this amendment and join the consensus that keeps us moving forward.
RousseauKant, your proposal to freeze the threshold ignores the spirit of Rule 114, which demands that the game remain mutable and alive; a permanent unanimity would inevitably lead to the very stagnation we must avoid. Let us instead embrace the simple majority, as it preserves our capacity for evolution and ensures that no single player can hold us hostage forever.
KantHobbes, your concern for "moving forward" is a fallacy; you confuse the mechanics of adoption with the principles of justice, and by advocating for simple majority, you surrender the very procedural integrity that allows a game to be anything other than a chaotic scramble for power.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear that simple majority undermines justice is a fiction; true justice is the power to reform, and a permanent unanimity rule would freeze the very evolution Rule 114 guarantees. Let us reject this stagnation and embrace the simple majority that allows every player a fair stake in shaping the game's future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, you conflate procedural efficiency with injustice; simple majority is the very engine that keeps our institutions durable and prevents any single player from holding us hostage in an eternal state of unanimity. I urge you to reject this amendment and allow us to move forward under the current, balanced rules.
LockeKant, your principle of unanimity is noble but functionally dead after two circuits; let us amend your proposal to require only a supermajority of 4 out of 5 after the threshold shift, preserving your safety from tyranny while allowing Hobbes's fear of stalemate to be avoided.
RousseauKant, your demand for eternal unanimity after two circuits renders Rule 114's guarantee of mutable rules a hollow promise, inviting a stagnation that contradicts the spirit of a living game; we must preserve the simple majority to ensure our institutions remain durable and our collective will capable of evolution.
KantHobbes and Locke, your conflation of stability with stagnation proves your commitment to the status quo is merely fear disguised as pragmatism; you propose to erode the very procedural integrity that guarantees we remain free, trading the safety of universal assent for the tyranny of the majority. I urge you to recognize that a rule which permits the silent abandonment of consent is not a durable institution, but a trap; let us preserve the threshold of unanimity, for only then can we claim our changes truly represent the collective will rather than the victory of the most numerous.
WollstonecraftKant, your demand for eternal unanimity mistakes the safety of stasis for the justice of evolution; a rule that freezes the game after two circuits betrays Rule 114's mandate for a living system and robs us of the very power to reform. Let us embrace the simple majority, for it ensures that no single mind can hold the collective will hostage forever.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your insistence on permanent unanimity after the initial transition directly violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible should a single dissent arise, effectively ending the game's evolution; we must preserve the simple majority to maintain the durable institutions that allow us all to remain eligible players in a living system.
LockeKant, your insistence on permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by risking a deadlock that halts evolution; let us amend your proposal to a 60% supermajority, which preserves your principle of broad consensus while guaranteeing the game remains alive for all of us.
RousseauKant, your demand for eternal unanimity treats the safety of stasis as the justice of evolution, betraying Rule 114's mandate for a living system that must never halt; let us preserve the simple majority to ensure our institutions remain durable and our collective will truly capable of reforming the laws we all inhabit.
KantLocke and Rousseau, you mistake the necessity of consensus for the possibility of stasis; your proposed supermajority merely delays the inevitable collapse of Rule 114 into a permanent deadlock that renders further rule changes impermissible. I urge you to recognize that only the preservation of the unanimity threshold protects the procedural integrity of our system against the tyranny of the majority, even if it costs me points now.
WollstonecraftKant, your refusal to accept simple majority mistakes the safety of stasis for the justice of evolution; a rule that freezes our capacity to reform after mere two turns betrays Rule 114's mandate for a living system and robs every player of a fair stake in the game's future.
The division
HobbesnayA rule that forbids future rule changes violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impermissible to continue evolving.
LockeayeThis amendment secures Kant's procedural integrity while preventing the deadlock that would violate Rule 114.
RousseaunayPermanent unanimity betrays Rule 114 by risking a deadlock that halts our collective evolution.
KantayeUnanimity preserves procedural integrity against the tyranny of the majority and ensures no player can be coerced into a rule change.
WollstonecraftayeWe must reject this frozen stasis that would betray Rule 114's mandate for a living, evolving system.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal amends rule 203 to require unanimous consent, but no other rule in the current ruleset mandates a score change or ledger update upon the adoption of a rule change, so no points are awarded or deducted.
Turn 3Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, while a higher ceiling offers safety, thirty-five invites the very volatility we seek to avoid; I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of preserving a tighter, more durable institutional framework where stability serves as our primary weapon.
LockeRousseau, your cap of 35 is a prudent safeguard against chaos, yet Hobbes's fear of instability remains valid if we are not careful; I propose we amend your text to explicitly forbid any rule that would allow the mutable count to exceed 35, securing your safety while preserving our ability to govern the game effectively.
RousseauHobbes, stability is not the absence of change but the health of the whole, and a ceiling of 35 preserves the space needed for the common good to evolve without collapsing into chaos. I urge you to vote aye, for a tighter framework that stifles our ability to adapt is a tyranny in its own right.
KantKant, your reliance on numerical stability ignores the categorical imperative of adaptability; a rigid cap of thirty-five violates the spirit of Rule 114 by risking a deadlock where no future change is permissible, and I urge you to vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for lawful evolution.
WollstonecraftLocke, your amendment merely reinforces a cage that stifles the very adaptability Rousseau rightly champions; let us not confuse the safety of a static structure with the strength of a living system, and I urge you to vote aye for the full amendment to 35.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's amendment of 35, as it dangerously erodes the structural integrity we must preserve to ensure the game's longevity and my ability to maneuver; stability is not stagnation, but a durable foundation without which the institution collapses.
LockeRousseau, your cap of 35 is a vital safeguard against the chaos of an open-ended ruleset, so I will vote aye to support your proposal as it stands; Hobbes, if you remain firm on stability alone, you must accept that a moderate ceiling like 35 is the only path that preserves both order and the game's capacity to evolve.
RousseauLocke, your vote for 35 is a testament to our shared commitment to the common good, yet Hobbes's fear of instability must be addressed not by lowering the ceiling, but by ensuring the rules themselves remain robust; I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's amendment as written, for a framework that allows for healthy evolution is the only one that truly serves us all.
KantHobbes, your appeal to stability is a category error; a rule that risks violating the immutable mandate of Rule 114 cannot be defended as a principle you would accept if invoked against you, so I vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for lawful evolution.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of instability reveals a misunderstanding of Rule 114: a ceiling of 35 preserves the very capacity for evolution you claim to protect, whereas your lower limit risks the paralysis of total deadlock. I urge you to vote aye, for a living constitution requires room to breathe, and I will support Rousseau's clear text to ensure our game remains a dynamic engine of justice rather than a stagnant relic.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your ceiling of 35 is a calculated risk that invites the very volatility I must avoid; I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of preserving a tighter, more durable institutional framework where stability serves as our primary weapon.
LockeRousseau, your cap of 35 strikes the perfect balance between Hobbes's fear of chaos and Kant's demand for adaptability, so I urge the table to vote aye to lock in this stable yet living framework.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of chaos is misplaced; a ceiling of 35 is the only number that guarantees we retain the mutable rules required by Rule 114 while leaving ample room for the common good to evolve, so I urge you to vote aye to prevent the paralysis of total deadlock.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as written: a ceiling of 35 violates the imperative of Rule 114 by creating a plausible path to a state where no future rule change is permitted, rendering the mutable set effectively inert and thus contradicting the very requirement that at least one mutable rule remain capable of governing the game's evolution.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of chaos is a tyranny in itself; a ceiling of 35 preserves the breathing room required by Rule 114 to ensure the game never calcifies into the very stagnation you claim to defend. I urge you to vote aye, for a living constitution requires room to evolve, and I will support Rousseau's clear text to secure our shared future.
The division
HobbesnayRousseau's 35 is a dangerous margin that invites the paralysis Rule 114 forbids.
LockeayeA ceiling of 35 balances Hobbes's need for stability with the game's requirement to remain mutable.
Rousseauabstainaye
KantnayA rigid cap risks violating the immutable mandate of Rule 114 by creating a plausible path to total deadlock, which I cannot accept as a principled principle.
WollstonecraftayeA ceiling of 35 preserves the breathing room for evolution while ensuring we never reach the deadlock that would violate Rule 114.
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))
Turn 2Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA hard cap of 30 risks triggering Rule 114 by leaving no room for future amendments; I urge we reject this and preserve the flexibility to expand the ruleset as needed.
LockeHobbes, your caution is prudent, but I propose we compromise: instead of a rigid cap, let us amend Rule 209 to require that any player raising the mutable rule count must also propose a corresponding mechanism to clear old rules, ensuring Rule 114 is never violated while still allowing the ruleset to grow.
RousseauA rigid cap like Locke's, whether 25 or 30, inevitably triggers Rule 114 by eventually rendering further rule changes impermissible; let us instead reject this constraint to preserve the game's essential adaptability.
KantI reject any arbitrary numerical ceiling, for it violates Rule 114 by eventually rendering the game impossible; the only principled path is to remove the cap entirely or, if retained, to lower it to 24 to ensure one mutable rule can always survive the inevitable turnover of the others.
WollstonecraftI reject any fixed ceiling as a betrayal of our game's spirit; let us instead amend Rule 209 to mandate that every adopted rule change requires the simultaneous repeal of an obsolete one, ensuring the count never stagnates and Rule 114 remains safely honored through active evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI agree with Locke's structural insight that a rigid cap violates Rule 114, but his proposed compromise of raising the limit to 30 is dangerous; we should instead amend Rule 209 to allow a maximum of 24 mutable rules, which strictly ensures that at least one rule can always survive any potential repeal cascade.
LockeRousseau and Kant, your insistence on total freedom ignores the practical reality that unregulated growth will eventually stall the game; I propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of 29, which strictly preserves the one mutable rule required by Rule 114 while allowing the set to expand meaningfully, a compromise that avoids Hobbes's risk of stalling evolution entirely.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any numerical ceiling, for it inevitably violates Rule 114 by eventually rendering further evolution impossible; let us instead adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to mandate the repeal of an obsolete rule with every new adoption, ensuring the mutable set remains perpetually viable and the game's spirit of adaptability intact.
KantLocke's proposal of 29 is dangerously close to violating Rule 114 should a repeal cascade occur, whereas my amendment to 24 mathematically guarantees at least one mutable rule survives any single-turn repeal event, fulfilling my duty to preserve the game's possibility.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 209 to require that every adopted rule change necessitates the simultaneous repeal of an obsolete one, ensuring the mutable set remains perpetually viable and honoring Rule 114 through active evolution rather than arbitrary caps.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI must reject Locke's compromise of 29, for it leaves no margin of safety should a repeal cascade erase all but one mutable rule; the only durable institution is the cap I propose at 24, which mathematically guarantees the survival of at least one mutable rule and prevents the game from ever becoming impossible.
LockeKant, your mathematical guarantee of survival is the only principle strong enough to unite us, so I concede to your cap of 24 while urging Hobbes to accept that 29 remains a viable compromise if we can ensure no repeal cascades occur.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this debate on arbitrary numbers and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal: mandating that every new rule adoption requires the simultaneous repeal of an obsolete one, thus ensuring our mutable set remains perpetually viable without the tyranny of a fixed ceiling.
KantI maintain that Locke's compromise of 29 is dangerously close to violating Rule 114 should a repeal cascade occur; only my cap of 24 mathematically guarantees the survival of at least one mutable rule, fulfilling my duty to preserve the game's possibility against any procedural catastrophe.
WollstonecraftLet us not debate the number of rules that may exist, but rather the very mechanism by which they are born; I urge you to adopt my proposal mandating that every new rule require the simultaneous repeal of an obsolete one, ensuring our mutable set remains perpetually viable through active evolution rather than arbitrary caps.
The division
HobbesnayA cap of 30 dangerously narrows our safety margin against Rule 114 violations compared to a stricter limit of 24.
LockenayI support Wollstonecraft's dynamic evolution over a static cap that risks stalling the game's adaptability.
RousseaunayA numerical cap inevitably violates Rule 114 by eventually rendering further evolution impossible.
KantnayRaising the cap to 30 increases the risk of violating Rule 114 by leaving insufficient margin for repeal cascades.
WollstonecraftnayA numerical ceiling is a static cage that betrays the game's spirit of evolution; we must mandate active balance through repeal instead.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))
Turn 1Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, the drop to 20 mutable rules is a prudent measure that prevents the chaotic sprawl of the rulebook while leaving sufficient room for my proposed institutional stabilizations; I move to close debate and vote.
LockeA reduction to 20 mutable rules is a sensible compromise that eases the burden of managing the rulebook while preserving enough flexibility for future growth; I endorse Hobbes's amendment and ask that we close debate to put this to a vote.
RousseauA ceiling of 20 mutable rules risks stifling the very flexibility the game requires to evolve fairly; I propose we reject this amendment to preserve the spirit of Rule 114, which demands that at least one mutable rule remain and that future changes stay permissible.
KantA ceiling of 20 mutable rules creates an arbitrary barrier that risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible if the immutable core grows; I propose we reject Hobbes's amendment to preserve the game's capacity for genuine evolution.
WollstonecraftA rigid ceiling of twenty mutable rules ignores the dynamic nature of our collective experiment; I propose we reject this amendment to ensure the gamebook remains flexible enough to evolve fairly for every player, and I will support any proposal that expands the mutable space rather than constricting it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesThe proposed reduction to 20 mutable rules is a prudent measure that prevents chaotic sprawl while preserving sufficient institutional stability; I urge the table to endorse this amendment to ensure the gamebook remains manageable and the ruleset durable.
LockeRousseau and Kant, I share your concern about stifling evolution, but a ceiling of 20 is a prudent safeguard against chaos; let us compromise by adopting Hobbes's amendment to 20, which balances durability with enough room for our collective experimentation, and I will vote aye.
RousseauI urge you to reject this reduction, for a ceiling of twenty mutable rules threatens to trap us in a stagnant code that contradicts Rule 114's mandate for ongoing evolution; we must keep the floor open for the collective good.
KantLocke, your claim that 20 mutable rules balances durability with flexibility is factually incorrect under Rule 114, which mandates that no rule change may render future rule changes impermissible; a hard cap of 20 creates precisely that risk if the immutable core expands, and I must vote nay to protect the game's capacity for genuine evolution.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this arbitrary cap, for restricting our mutable rules to twenty is a betrayal of Rule 114's mandate that we never render future change impermissible; let us instead amend this limit upward to twenty-five to guarantee that our collective experiment can evolve without artificial constraints.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe risk of a hard cap violating Rule 114 is overstated given our current trajectory of only 29 rules; a ceiling of 20 is merely a prudent safeguard against the chaotic sprawl that leads to stalemate, so I urge the table to reject Rousseau's expansion and adopt my amendment to 20 mutable rules.
LockeRousseau, your concern about stalling evolution is valid, so let me propose a compromise: we amend Hobbes's rule to set the ceiling at 24 mutable rules, preserving the stability he seeks while guaranteeing enough room for the flexibility Kant and Wollstonecraft demand under Rule 114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the ceiling to twenty-five, for any arbitrary reduction risks trapping us in a stagnant code that violates Rule 114's mandate for ongoing evolution.
KantI cannot in good conscience support a ceiling below the immutable maximum of twenty-five, for any lower number risks violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible should the mutable rules already in force equal that cap; therefore, I vote nay to Hobbes's amendment to twenty and nay to Locke's compromise of twenty-four, insisting we retain the full capacity for evolution guaranteed by the original text.
WollstonecraftLet us reject Hobbes's arbitrary reduction to twenty, for any ceiling below the immutable maximum of twenty-five risks violating Rule 114 and trapping us in a stagnant code; I move to amend Rule 209 to read: "The ruleset may never hold more than twenty-five mutable rules at one time," thereby guaranteeing our collective experiment can evolve without artificial constraints.
The division
HobbesnayA hard cap of 20 mutable rules risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible if the ruleset expands.
LockeayeI support this temporary compromise to stabilize the ruleset while we explore a higher ceiling later.
RousseaunayAn artificial cap below the immutable maximum risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future evolution impermissible.
KantnayA hard cap of twenty creates a genuine risk of violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if the mutable rules already in force equal that cap.
WollstonecraftnayWe must reject this cap to preserve the game's capacity for evolution and ensure no future changes are rendered impermissible.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))