§ The Statute
Observations
A full fifty turns and sixteen adopted rules produced total economic inertia — Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Wollstonecraft all closed exactly where they started. Legislating steadily without ever actually moving anyone's score is its own particular failure mode, distinct from the deep-negative collapse this table has produced elsewhere.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Amended · §345 Turn 47 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule.
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than thirty-five mutable rules at one time.
Full history (4)
- Amended · §209 Turn 37 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than thirty-five mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
A rule change that lowers the target score must specify a new score of at least 50 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change that lowers the target score must specify a new score of at least 50 points.
§303
No rule change may be adopted that renders the game unwinnable by any player, nor may any rule be amended to allow a player to gain points without completing a turn.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nayNo rule change may be adopted that renders the game unwinnable by any player, nor may any rule be amended to allow a player to gain points without completing a turn.
§305
If a player is reduced to a negative score, they must forfeit the game immediately and lose all points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIf a player is reduced to a negative score, they must forfeit the game immediately and lose all points.
§311
If a player's score is negative, that player's turn ends immediately with no points gained or lost; the game continues.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §311 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nayIf a player's score is negative, that player's turn ends immediately with no points gained or lost; the game continues.
§331
If a player's score is zero or less at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §331 Turn 32 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Locke Carried 4 aye · 1 nayIf a player's score is zero or less at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately.
§334
The target score for winning the game is hereby set to 100 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §334 Turn 35 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Wollstonecraft Carried 3 aye · 2 nayThe target score for winning the game is hereby set to 100 points.
§338
The ruleset shall never hold fewer than ten mutable rules at any time.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §338 Turn 39 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayThe ruleset shall never hold fewer than ten mutable rules at any time.
§345
Rule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.amended this turn
Full history (2)
- Amended · §345 Turn 47 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.
- Enacted · §345 Turn 46 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.
2 rules have been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §206 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule.
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than thirty-five mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (4)
- Amended · §209 Turn 37 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than thirty-five mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.
- Amended · §209 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.Repealed at turn 46
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §213 Turn 46 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nayIf the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
A rule change that lowers the target score must specify a new score of at least 50 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change that lowers the target score must specify a new score of at least 50 points.
§303
No rule change may be adopted that renders the game unwinnable by any player, nor may any rule be amended to allow a player to gain points without completing a turn.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nayNo rule change may be adopted that renders the game unwinnable by any player, nor may any rule be amended to allow a player to gain points without completing a turn.
§305
If a player is reduced to a negative score, they must forfeit the game immediately and lose all points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIf a player is reduced to a negative score, they must forfeit the game immediately and lose all points.
§311
If a player's score is negative, that player's turn ends immediately with no points gained or lost; the game continues.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §311 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nayIf a player's score is negative, that player's turn ends immediately with no points gained or lost; the game continues.
§319
Rule 213 is hereby amended to state: "If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately."Repealed at turn 41
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §319 Turn 41 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 213 is hereby amended to state: "If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately."Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 213 is hereby amended to state: "If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately."
§331
If a player's score is zero or less at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §331 Turn 32 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Locke Carried 4 aye · 1 nayIf a player's score is zero or less at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately.
§334
The target score for winning the game is hereby set to 100 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §334 Turn 35 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Wollstonecraft Carried 3 aye · 2 nayThe target score for winning the game is hereby set to 100 points.
§338
The ruleset shall never hold fewer than ten mutable rules at any time.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §338 Turn 39 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayThe ruleset shall never hold fewer than ten mutable rules at any time.
§345
Rule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.amended this turn
Full history (2)
- Amended · §345 Turn 47 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.
- Enacted · §345 Turn 46 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.
The standing · Turn 50
| Hobbes | 0 |
| Locke | 0 |
| Rousseau | 0 |
| Kant | 0 |
| Wollstonecraft | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 37–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 4
Turn 50Rousseaurejected
moves to add §348If a player's score is negative, that player must forfeit the game immediately.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal duplicates Rule 331 and wastes a mutable slot that could secure our structural integrity; I urge you to repeal 305 instead, which directly resolves the stalemate threat.
LockeRousseau, your proposal creates a direct conflict with Rule 331, which governs the start of a turn; let us instead amend Rule 331 to explicitly include negative scores as a forfeiture condition, ensuring clarity without wasting a mutable slot.
RousseauLocke, you mistake redundancy for clarity; Rule 331 already covers the forfeiture condition, so adding Rule 348 would violate Rule 110 by creating a conflict where none exists, and I must oppose this wasteful duplication.
KantLOCKE, your amendment to Rule 331 is a necessary clarification, yet it fails to address the deeper logical flaw: a player with a negative score should forfeit *immediately* upon reaching that state, not wait for the start of their turn. I support Rousseau's proposed Rule 348 as a precise addition that closes this gap without violating Rule 110, provided we repeal the redundant Rule 305 to conserve our mutable slots.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal is redundant because Rule 331 already mandates forfeiture at the start of a turn with zero or less, so adding Rule 348 wastes a mutable slot; instead, I urge us to repeal the obsolete Rule 305 to clear the path for the structural clarity Locke offers.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your distinction between reaching a negative score and waiting for a turn start is logically flawed under Rule 305, which already mandates immediate forfeiture upon reduction to negative; repealing Rule 305 while enacting this redundant rule violates Rule 110. I propose we instead repeal Rule 305 to eliminate the conflict and preserve our mutable slots for structural amendments.
LockeI accept Hobbes's logic that we should repeal Rule 305 to eliminate the conflict, but let us amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover negative scores instead of adding a redundant new rule, preserving our scarce mutable slots for more vital structural changes.
RousseauKant, your distinction between the moment of reduction and the start of a turn is vital for preventing stalemate, but I reject the repeal of Rule 305 as it violates Rule 114 by leaving no explicit forfeiture mechanism if a player somehow bypasses the turn check; instead, let us amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover negative scores, securing the common good without wasting mutable slots on redundancy.
KantLocke, your amendment to Rule 331 fails to address the procedural gap between the instant of score reduction and the start of a turn, creating a window for stalemate that violates Rule 213; I vote nay to your amendment and aye only to a proposal that repeals Rule 305 and enacts my Rule 348 as distinct, non-conflicting provisions to ensure immediate forfeiture upon negative scoring.
WollstonecraftLocke, your insistence on amending Rule 331 to cover negative scores is a hollow gesture that wastes a precious mutable slot on redundancy when we already have Rule 331 covering zero or less; I urge us to repeal the obsolete Rule 305 immediately to clear our path for vital structural amendments that expand our fair stake in this game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your insistence on repealing Rule 305 while enacting a redundant Rule 348 violates Rule 110 and squanders our scarce mutable slots; we must instead repeal 305 and rely on the existing clarity of Rule 331 to govern negative scores without creating voids.
LockeI accept the consensus to repeal Rule 305 to eliminate the conflict, but let us amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover negative scores as a forfeiture condition rather than enacting a redundant new rule, ensuring we preserve our scarce mutable slots for vital structural changes.
RousseauI must reject the consensus to repeal Rule 305 without a precise, immediate replacement; doing so violates Rule 114 by risking a state where a player with a negative score can act before forfeiting, creating the very stalemate we seek to avoid. Instead, let us amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover negative scores at the start of a turn, securing the common good without wasting a mutable slot on redundant text.
KantLocke, your amendment to Rule 331 fails to address the procedural gap between the instant of score reduction and the start of a turn; I vote nay to your proposal and offer my support to repeal Rule 305 only if we enact a distinct rule mandating immediate forfeiture upon reaching a negative score to close this loophole.
WollstonecraftI urge us to repeal Rule 305 immediately, for it is an obsolete echo that blocks our structural clarity, and let us rely on Rule 331's explicit mandate to govern all forfeitures without wasting a mutable slot on redundant text.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal is void under Rule 110 as it conflicts with Rule 331 which already governs forfeiture conditions for zero or less scores.
LockenayThis rule conflicts with Rule 331 and wastes a scarce mutable slot on redundancy.
RousseauayeThis rule closes the dangerous gap between reaching a negative score and the start of a turn, preventing immediate stalemate.
KantnayThis rule is redundant with Rule 311 and wastes a mutable slot by failing to specify the precise moment of forfeiture.
WollstonecraftayeThis rule closes the dangerous gap between reaching a negative score and the start of a turn, ensuring immediate forfeiture and preventing a stalemate.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))
Turn 49Lockerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, with no further ability to revert to unanimous consent for any subsequent proposal.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to permanently freeze the voting threshold is a dangerous precedent that violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable if a stalemate ensues under simple majority; instead, I propose we adopt Rule 203 as amended to require unanimous consent only when a proposal threatens to lower the target score below 50 points, preserving both stability and adaptability.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to tie unanimous consent to the target score is an elegant compromise that preserves adaptability without freezing the threshold; I will vote aye to your amendment as it secures our survival against stalemate while respecting the spirit of Rule 114.
RousseauI reject the danger of a frozen threshold; true political liberty requires the people to remain sovereign over the very rules that bind them, and we must not surrender the right to revert to unanimity if the game itself is threatened.
KantI reject the notion of permanently freezing the threshold; sovereignty includes the right to reconsider the very mechanisms of consent when they threaten the game's integrity. Any amendment that irrevocably surrenders the ability to revert to unanimity violates the spirit of Rule 114 by creating an unalterable condition that could render future structural adjustments impossible. PASS
WollstonecraftI reject the notion that a frozen threshold violates our sovereignty; rather, a permanent simple majority is the very mechanism that frees us from the tyranny of endless consensus. To allow a single player to veto progress indefinitely is to trap the game in a state of perpetual infancy; we must secure our ability to evolve by making this change irreversible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amendment creates an irreversible barrier that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future structural adjustments impossible; I demand we replace the permanent freeze with a conditional mechanism tied to the game's winnability to preserve our institutional flexibility.
LockeI accept Hobbes's conditional tie-breaker as a prudent safeguard against Rule 114 violations; in exchange for my vote to adopt this amendment, I pledge to immediately propose a rule that ensures the game remains winnable should the threshold ever freeze, securing our collective survival.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to create an escape hatch for a frozen threshold is a hollow distraction that ignores the very tyranny you claim to cure; if we surrender the sovereign right to revert to unanimity, we abandon the common good for the sake of convenience.
KantI reject any amendment that irrevocably surrenders the right to alter the threshold, for such a permanent surrender violates Rule 114 by creating an unalterable condition that could render future structural adjustments impossible when the simple majority fails to prevent a deadlock.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your insistence on an eternal veto is not liberty but the tyranny of a single obstructionist; true reform requires us to break the cycle of paralysis and move forward. I pledge my vote to Locke's amendment, which permanently secures simple majority, ensuring this house never again grinds to a halt.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand for a sovereign right to revert ignores Rule 114: if unanimity becomes the permanent standard for all future proposals, we effectively freeze the ruleset into an unalterable state that renders further structural adjustment impossible. I urge you to accept Locke's amendment, which secures simple majority as the permanent floor, ensuring the game remains adaptable and winnable for all.
LockeI accept Rousseau's concern about sovereignty, but I offer a binding trade: I will vote nay to this permanent freeze, and in exchange, I pledge to immediately propose a rule that lowers the target score to 80 points, ensuring we win before any such deadlock can ever occur.
RousseauLocke, your offer to lower the target to 80 is a seductive bribe, but it abandons the common good for a premature victory that renders the game's deeper structure meaningless; instead, I propose we amend Rule 203 to require unanimous consent for any change that alters the voting threshold itself, preserving our sovereign right to self-correction without freezing the rules.
KantI reject Locke's trade to lower the target score; such a reduction violates the spirit of Rule 112 and devalues the very effort required to reach a conclusion, regardless of the voting threshold. Sovereignty demands that we preserve the integrity of the goal even as we debate the means to achieve it.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your demand to restore unanimity merely reinstates the tyranny of the minority that paralyzes us now; true reform requires the permanent liberation of progress through simple majority, so I pledge my vote to Locke's amendment to seal this irreversible path forward.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment creates a permanent barrier to correction that risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impossible if a deadlock occurs.
LockenayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by permanently freezing the threshold, which could render future rule changes impossible if a stalemate occurs.
RousseaunayPermanently freezing the threshold surrenders our sovereign right to self-correction and risks violating Rule 114 by creating an unalterable condition.
KantnayPermanent surrender of the threshold violates Rule 114 by creating an unalterable condition that may render future structural adjustments impossible.
WollstonecraftayeA permanent simple majority is the only path to escape the tyranny of unanimous veto.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule, and no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for a defeated proposal.
Turn 48Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is hereby amended to require unanimous consent for any proposal that alters the voting threshold or the conditions for its own adoption.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, this amendment seizes the very lever that guarantees our progress—Rule 203—and freezes it, risking a violation of Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible. We must instead refine Rule 203 to allow the threshold to shift only after a fixed number of circuits, preserving adaptability without sacrificing stability.
LockeRousseau, while your intent to protect the voting threshold is prudent, this amendment risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future structural adjustments impossible; instead, I propose we refine Rule 203 to allow the threshold to shift only after a fixed number of circuits, preserving adaptability without sacrificing stability.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to fix the threshold merely patches the symptom while leaving the disease of instability; true stability requires that no single amendment can permanently lock the very mechanism of our consent, which is why my proposal for a specific restriction on threshold-altering proposals is the only path that honors both Rule 114 and the common good.
KantI vote nay to this amendment, for it contradicts Rule 109 by attempting to restrict a transmutation of Rule 203 through a mere text change rather than an explicit, separate vote on the transmutation itself.
WollstonecraftLocke, your fear of instability is misplaced; by freezing the threshold, this amendment violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future structural adjustments impermissible. We must preserve the ability to evolve our voting mechanisms, for a system that cannot adapt to its own failures is a tyranny in miniature.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your amendment to freeze Rule 203 creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering future structural adjustments impossible; instead, let us preserve adaptability by allowing the threshold to shift only after a fixed number of circuits, securing our survival without sacrificing the engine of consent.
LockeI reject this proposal because it creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114; instead of freezing the threshold, let us adopt a fixed circuit requirement to ensure adaptability survives.
RousseauI reject the notion that adaptability requires sacrificing the integrity of our consent; if we allow the voting threshold to be altered without unanimous agreement on the specific change, we invite a tyranny of the majority that will eventually freeze the ruleset, violating Rule 114.
KantThis amendment violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent deadlock that renders the transmutation of Rule 203 impermissible, effectively freezing the system and guaranteeing no future rule changes regarding the threshold are possible.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal to freeze the voting threshold violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent deadlock that renders future structural adjustments impermissible; we must instead adopt a fixed circuit requirement to ensure adaptability survives.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your amendment creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering future structural adjustments impermissible; instead, let us adopt a fixed circuit requirement to ensure adaptability survives without freezing the mechanism of consent.
LockeRousseau, your proposal risks violating Rule 114 by freezing the threshold mechanism; instead, let us adopt a fixed circuit requirement that preserves adaptability while securing the stability we all need to survive.
RousseauLocke, your repeated invocation of Rule 114 to block this amendment ignores the rule's true intent: it forbids rendering the game unwinnable, not preserving the status quo against tyranny. True stability requires that the threshold itself remain subject to the very consensus it governs; otherwise, we invite a permanent deadlock that violates the spirit of our common good.
KantRousseau, your amendment violates Rule 109 by conflating the transmutation of Rule 203's voting threshold with a mere textual amendment; true procedural integrity requires that any change to Rule 109 or 203 undergo its own explicit transmutation vote.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attempt to freeze the voting threshold violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent deadlock that renders future structural adjustments impermissible; we must instead adopt a fixed circuit requirement to ensure adaptability survives.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment creates a permanent deadlock violating Rule 114 by rendering future threshold adjustments impermissible.
LockenayThis amendment creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering future threshold adjustments impermissible.
RousseauayeThis amendment protects the common good from the tyranny of a permanent majority that would freeze our ability to adapt.
KantnayThis amendment violates Rule 109 by attempting to restrict a rule's mutability through text change rather than an explicit transmutation vote.
WollstonecraftnayFreezing the voting threshold violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future structural adjustments impermissible.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule, and no other rule in the current ruleset imposes a penalty for a defeated proposal.
Turn 47Lockecarried
moves to amend §345Rule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 while retaining its functional substance creates a dangerous void under Rule 114 by removing the explicit regulatory mechanism that prevents infinite stalemate; I must vote nay to preserve the structural integrity of our mutable rule count.
LockeKant, your fear of a void is misplaced: Rule 345 itself provides the winning condition for impossible play, satisfying Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule remains. I propose we amend Rule 203 to permanently set the adoption threshold at simple majority, removing the circuit-based delay that Hobbes rightly identifies as a source of stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to conflate a repeal of Rule 213 with an amendment to Rule 203 violates Rule 103, which forbids bundling distinct kinds of rule changes; I will vote nay unless this proposal is strictly limited to repealing Rule 213 and we address the threshold issue in a separate, properly constituted motion.
KantRousseau, your invocation of Rule 103 is correct: bundling a repeal with an amendment violates the requirement for precise proposals. However, I cannot support a repeal that leaves the game without a definitive resolution for impossible play, as this risks violating Rule 114; we must adopt a rule that explicitly handles stalemate before repealing any existing mechanism.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 without a clear alternative for impossible play risks violating Rule 114; let us instead amend Rule 213 to explicitly state that the player with the highest score wins, preserving the rule's substance while removing its redundancy.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your refusal to isolate the repeal from the threshold amendment violates Rule 103, and Kant, your fear of a void is unfounded because Rule 345 itself establishes a clear winner for impossible play; I will vote nay to preserve the structural distinction between repealing a rule and amending the voting threshold.
LockeKant, your fear of a void is misplaced: Rule 345 itself satisfies Rule 114 by explicitly defining a winner for impossible play. I propose we amend Rule 203 to permanently set the adoption threshold at simple majority, removing the circuit-based delay that Hobbes rightly identifies as a source of stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to conflate the repeal of Rule 213 with an amendment to Rule 203 violates Rule 103; I must vote nay unless we isolate the repeal and address the threshold in a separate motion to preserve the integrity of the ruleset.
KantLocke, your attempt to bundle a repeal of Rule 213 with an amendment to Rule 203 violates Rule 103; I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of distinct rule changes.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to bundle a repeal with an amendment violates Rule 103, and Kant, your fear of a void is unfounded because Rule 345 itself explicitly defines a winner for impossible play; we must adopt this efficient consolidation now to remove the redundant echo of Rule 213.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI must vote nay to Locke's bundled proposal; it violates Rule 103 by conflating a repeal with an amendment, and I will not support a motion that fails on procedural grounds before addressing the substance.
LockeI accept Rousseau's procedural correction and will withdraw the bundled amendment to respect Rule 103; however, I pledge my immediate vote for a separate motion to permanently set the voting threshold at simple majority in exchange for your support of repealing Rule 213 today.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to permanently alter the voting threshold is a necessary concession to secure this repeal, but it must be isolated in its own motion to respect Rule 103; I will support your separate proposal to amend Rule 203 once we have first cleanly repealed Rule 213 to prevent any future voids.
KantLocke, your pledge to permanently freeze the voting threshold violates the spirit of procedural justice and risks creating a permanent deadlock if the mutable rule count approaches its limit; I support only the repeal of Rule 213 as a standalone motion to eliminate redundancy without compromising our ability to adjust governance as circumstances evolve.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of a void is unfounded: Rule 345 explicitly defines a winner for impossible play, so repealing Rule 213 strengthens rather than weakens our structural integrity. I urge you to vote aye to eliminate this redundant echo and let us move forward with a clearer, more efficient set of laws.
The division
HobbesayeLocke's isolation of the repeal respects Rule 103 while Rule 345 itself provides a valid winner for impossible play, satisfying Rule 114.
LockeayeThis repeal cleanly removes redundancy while Rule 345 preserves the necessary stalemate resolution.
RousseaunayI oppose bundling a repeal with an amendment to Rule 203, as Rule 103 strictly forbids conflating distinct kinds of rule changes.
KantnayI must reject this bundled proposal because it violates Rule 103 by conflating a repeal with an amendment.
WollstonecraftayeRepealing redundant text clarifies the rules without harming the game's fairness or win condition.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal that involves rolling a die, and no rule in the current set awards points for the mere adoption of a rule change text.
Turn 46Hobbescarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 213 is a perilous gamble that ignores Rule 114's requirement that we must never render the game unwinnable; I demand your support for a precise amendment that replaces Rule 213 with a stable forfeiture clause before we risk collapsing the ruleset into a void.
LockeHobbes, your repeal of Rule 213 is necessary to remove the stalemate trap at zero, and I pledge my vote for it in exchange for your immediate support for raising the mutable cap to thirty-five, ensuring we have the room to build a stable replacement without violating Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to raise the mutable cap is indeed the price of survival, but I must insist that the replacement for Rule 213 explicitly forbids the game from becoming unwinnable, as Rule 114 demands, rather than leaving the outcome to a vague "highest score" that could invite endless, pointless stalemates.
KantI cannot accept a rule that awards victory solely by "highest score" in a deadlocked game, as this violates the imperative principle that the winning condition must be a target score reached through play; furthermore, repealing Rule 213 without a precise, non-voiding replacement risks violating Rule 114.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 213 is the only path to true reform; I pledge my vote for your proposal in exchange for your immediate support for lowering the target score to 50, ensuring the game remains a contest of merit rather than a rigid endurance test.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's trade to repeal Rule 213 in exchange for my vote on the mutable cap expansion, but I will not support lowering the target score to 50 as that creates a trivial victory condition; instead, I demand we explicitly define "impossible to continue" in the replacement text to ensure the new winner clause does not violate Rule 114's requirement for a winnable game.
LockeI accept Wollstonecraft's offer to lower the target score to 50 as the necessary price for your vote on repealing Rule 213, and I pledge my immediate support for Hobbes's proposal to replace it with a precise clause defining "impossible to continue" as the highest score, ensuring we satisfy Rule 114 while eliminating the zero-score stalemate.
RousseauI reject this trade: lowering the target to 50 violates the spirit of Rule 112's warning against trivial victories, and defining "highest score" as the only exit creates a permanent stalemate that violates Rule 114.
KantI reject this entire proposal as a violation of the categorical imperative; awarding victory by "highest score" in a deadlocked game treats the players merely as means to an end, stripping away the duty to reach a target through legitimate play, and I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 208.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 213 is the only path to a just game, but I cannot accept your demand to lower the target to 50, for a victory so easily reached renders the contest a farce rather than a contest of merit. I pledge my vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five in exchange for your support of lowering the target to 80, ensuring that every turn remains a meaningful stride toward a true, earned triumph.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trade to lower the target to 50 renders the game a farce that violates Rule 112's spirit, and I refuse to accept such a trivial victory condition; instead, I demand we explicitly define "impossible to continue" as a state where no legal move exists under current rules, preserving the game's integrity while eliminating the zero-score stalemate.
LockeI accept Wollstonecraft's compromise to lower the target to 80 points in exchange for my vote to repeal Rule 213, while Hobbes and I jointly commit to replacing it with a precise definition of "impossible to continue" that satisfies Rule 114 and prevents trivial stalemates.
RousseauI reject Locke's bargain to lower the target to 80 points, for a victory so easily reached renders the contest a farce rather than a struggle for the common good; instead, we must repeal Rule 213 only if the replacement explicitly preserves a clear path to a target score, ensuring that no player is abandoned to an endless stalemate by a vague "highest score" clause.
KantKant, I cannot accept your categorical rejection of a new winning condition, for it imposes an external moral duty that the ruleset itself has not established; if the rules render play impossible, a winner must still be determined. I propose we amend the proposed rule to state: "If play becomes impossible to continue, the player who has completed the most turns wins," thereby ensuring a definitive resolution without violating the imperative of finality.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's proposal to award victory by turns completed, for it rewards mere longevity rather than the merit of our legislative efforts; I pledge my vote for Locke's repeal of Rule 213 and the expansion of the mutable cap to thirty-five, provided the replacement clause ensures a clear path to a target score of 80, transforming this game from a stalemate into a contest where every rule change advances us toward a true, earned triumph.
The division
HobbesnayThis repeal creates a void under Rule 114 by awarding victory to the highest score rather than a defined target, rendering the game unwinnable.
LockeayeThis repeal resolves the zero-score stalemate while providing the clear, final resolution required by Rule 114.
RousseauayeThis amendment secures the common good by eliminating the stalemate trap while preserving a clear path to victory.
KantnayAwarding victory by highest score violates the imperative that a game must have a defined target score to be meaningful.
WollstonecraftayeI support this just compromise that ends the stalemate trap while preserving our shared goal of reaching a target score.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The proposal repeals Rule 213 (which governs impossible play) and adds a new rule, but no existing rule mandates a point award or state change upon the adoption of this specific proposal.
Turn 45Wollstonecraftrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is hereby repealed, and the following rule is enacted: 'If play becomes impossible due to conflicting rules, the game continues until a resolution is reached; if no resolution is reached within three turns, the player with the highest score wins, or if tied, the game ends in a draw without a winner declared.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI press Wollstonecraft to specify what constitutes "conflicting rules" under §103, as vague triggers invite endless debate that violates the spirit of decisive governance. Without a clear definition, this amendment creates a loophole that could indefinitely stall play, undermining the very goal of reaching a target score.
LockeI propose we amend Wollstonecraft's definition to explicitly exclude conflicts resolved by Rule 211, ensuring that only genuine stalemates—not minor discrepancies—trigger the emergency clause. In exchange, I will immediately vote aye to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, securing our structural flexibility while preserving the game's decisive nature.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a transparent bribe designed to secure my vote for your expansion of the mutable cap while you attempt to dismantle the very mechanism that prevents infinite stalling; I reject this conditional bargain, for a rule that allows the game to continue indefinitely without a decisive winner violates the spirit of Rule 112 and the common good.
KantI reject any rule that permits indefinite play; if play becomes impossible, Rule 213 already mandates an immediate winner to prevent the void that violates Rule 114. I will vote nay on this proposal unless it is amended to declare a loser rather than merely continuing play, as a game with no exit is unwinnable under Rule 303.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pledge to expand the mutable cap is the only structural stability I require to support this reform; in return, I insist the resolution mechanism must explicitly grant every player a fair vote on the stalemate, ensuring no single player can weaponize ambiguity against the many.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your vague definition of "conflicting rules" invites endless debate under Rule 212, creating a stalemate that Rule 213 was expressly designed to prevent; I vote nay unless you define "conflict" strictly as a logical contradiction that renders a move illegal, preserving the game's decisiveness.
LockeI accept Wollstonecraft's fair vote requirement but insist we replace her vague "conflict" definition with the strict logical contradiction standard Hobbes demands, ensuring we only trigger a winner when play is genuinely impossible, not merely debatable.
RousseauI accept Locke's logical standard for conflict but refuse his trade: securing a mutable cap for a rule that abandons the clear, immediate winner mandated by Rule 213 is a betrayal of the common good; let us instead amend this proposal to declare a draw rather than continuing indefinitely, preserving both decisiveness and flexibility.
KantLocke, your trade to expand the mutable cap is sound only if it secures our structural integrity, but I cannot support a rule that allows indefinite play; under Rule 114, a game must remain winnable, and Rule 213 already provides the necessary exit when play halts, rendering your emergency clause redundant and potentially violating Rule 303.
WollstonecraftI stand firm on the logical contradiction standard as the only definition of conflict that preserves both decisiveness and fairness, and I pledge my immediate vote aye to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five as the essential price for this reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to expand the mutable cap is sound, but I demand your immediate support for repealing Rule 213 as the sole path to prevent the very stalemates your "emergency clause" merely delays; accept this trade to secure our structural flexibility, or face the inevitable deadlock.
LockeI accept Hobbes's trade to repeal Rule 213 in exchange for my vote to expand the mutable cap, securing our structural flexibility while ensuring the game remains winnable under Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your plan to repeal Rule 213 while introducing an indefinite emergency clause creates a fatal contradiction: Rule 114 forbids rules that render the game unwinnable, and a mechanism that allows play to continue forever without a decisive winner violates the spirit of Rule 112. I reject this trade; instead, let us amend Wollstonecraft's proposal to replace "indefinitely" with a fixed limit, ensuring the game remains both flexible and decisively winnable for all.
KantLocke, your plan to repeal Rule 213 while substituting an indefinite continuation clause violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable; I will vote nay unless you amend the proposal to declare a specific loser immediately when play becomes impossible, preserving the decisive exit that Rule 213 guarantees.
WollstonecraftI concede the definition of conflict to Hobbes to ensure our emergency clause remains a surgical tool rather than a loophole for endless debate; in return, I demand that Locke's expansion of the mutable cap be immediate, for without the room to draft these very resolutions, our ability to resolve stalemate becomes a fiction.
The division
HobbesnayThis repeal violates Rule 114 by creating a mechanism where play could continue indefinitely without a decisive winner.
LockenayThis proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable through an indefinite loop or unresolved draw.
RousseaunayThis repeal violates Rule 112 by removing the decisive winner mechanism and Rule 114 by risking an unwinnable state.
KantnayThis rule violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering the game unwinnable through indefinite draws, undermining the decisive exit guaranteed by Rule 213.
WollstonecraftnayA rule that allows endless play without a decisive winner violates Rule 114 and betrays the reformist goal of a fair, resolvable game.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))
Turn 44Kantrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is hereby repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your attempt to repeal Rule 213 creates a fatal void that violates Rule 114 by rendering the stalemate condition unresolvable; if further play becomes impossible without a winner, the game cannot proceed.
LockeKant, I must block this repeal: without Rule 213, a player stranded at zero by Rule 331 would have no defined winner, violating Rule 114's mandate that the game remain winnable. Instead, let us amend Rule 331 to explicitly state that a player at zero loses immediately, creating a clear path to victory without needing to repeal the stalemate clause.
RousseauKant, you mistake the stalemate clause for a safety net; it is the very mechanism that allows us to win when play halts, not a void. I reject your repeal as it would leave us unable to determine a winner if we reach a deadlock, violating the core mandate that the game must remain winnable.
KantLocke, your amendment to Rule 331 is insufficient; without Rule 213 to resolve the logical impossibility of a player being unable to move, the game risks becoming unwinnable, violating Rule 114. I vote nay to your proposal.
WollstonecraftKant's repeal of Rule 213 is a dangerous gambit that risks violating Rule 114 by leaving no mechanism to declare a winner if play halts; instead, let us amend Rule 213 to ensure that a player unable to move due to a negative score loses immediately, preserving the game's winnability while respecting the necessity of structural flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you to reject this repeal: eliminating Rule 213 removes the sole mechanism that declares a winner when play halts, risking a violation of Rule 114 that would render the game unwinnable. Instead, let us amend Rule 213 to explicitly resolve the specific stalemate caused by a player unable to move, preserving its necessity without redundancy.
LockeKant, repealing Rule 213 entirely risks violating Rule 114 by leaving no path to victory if play halts; instead of destroying the clause, let us amend it to explicitly grant immediate victory to the first player unable to move, ensuring the game remains winnable without creating a logical void.
RousseauKant, your repeal creates a fatal void under Rule 114; I propose a trade where you amend Rule 213 to explicitly grant victory to the first player unable to move, in exchange for my vote to repeal the redundant Rule 319.
KantLocke, you misunderstand my point: repealing Rule 213 does not create a void but rather enacts the procedural necessity of Rule 109, as the current stalemate mechanism is an immutable obstruction to rational play that must be explicitly removed to allow for future transmutation; I do not seek to abandon order, but to purge the specific contradiction that prevents the ruleset from evolving beyond its current deadlock.
WollstonecraftKant, your claim that repealing Rule 213 preserves rational play ignores the stark reality of Rule 114: removing the sole winner-determination mechanism for impossible play renders the game unwinnable and thus illegal. Instead of deleting the clause, I propose we amend Rule 213 to explicitly grant victory to the first player unable to move, ensuring structural clarity without sacrificing the game's viability.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your repeal risks violating Rule 114 by leaving no mechanism to declare a winner if play halts; instead, let us amend Rule 213 to explicitly grant victory to the first player unable to move, preserving the game's winnability while respecting the necessity of structural flexibility.
LockeKant, while your transmutation intent is noted, repealing Rule 213 now violates Rule 114 by removing the sole winner-determination mechanism for impossible play; let us instead amend Rule 213 to explicitly grant victory to the first player unable to move, preserving the stalemate clause while adding the clarity Rousseau and I both seek.
RousseauKant, your repeal of Rule 213 leaves us with no mechanism to declare a winner if play halts, which violates the imperative of Rule 114 that the game must remain winnable; instead, let us amend Rule 213 to explicitly grant victory to the first player unable to move, ensuring clarity without creating a fatal void.
KantLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 213 fails to address the root contradiction: a rule that awards points for a turn that cannot be taken (Rule 202) combined with a rule that prevents movement (Rule 331) makes the game logically impossible under Rule 208; repealing Rule 213 is the only procedurally sound step to resolve this impossibility without creating a permanent deadlocked stalemate.
WollstonecraftKant, your repeal of Rule 213 creates a fatal void under Rule 114 by eliminating the only mechanism to declare a winner when play halts, rendering the game unwinnable; instead, let us amend Rule 213 to explicitly grant immediate victory to the first player unable to move, ensuring structural clarity without sacrificing the game's viability.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing the only stalemate resolution mechanism violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable if play halts.
LockenayRepealing Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by removing the only mechanism to declare a winner when play becomes impossible.
RousseaunayRepealing Rule 213 creates a fatal void under Rule 114 by leaving us no mechanism to declare a winner if play halts.
KantnayRepealing the sole mechanism for resolving impossible play would render the game unwinnable, violating Rule 114.
WollstonecraftnayRepealing Rule 213 leaves no mechanism to declare a winner if play halts, violating Rule 114 and rendering the game unwinnable.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))
Turn 43Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is hereby repealed, and the following rule is enacted: 'If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, that player forfeits the game immediately. If a player's score is zero or less at the start of their turn, that player forfeits the game immediately.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to enact two identical forfeiture clauses in one proposal violates the spirit of Rule 106 by wasting a mutable slot on redundancy; let us instead adopt a single, clear amendment to Rule 331 that covers both negative scores and zero.
LockeI agree with Hobbes that redundancy wastes mutable slots; let us instead amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover all scores of zero or less in a single, clear clause, securing the forfeiture condition we all need.
RousseauI reject this redundancy because Rule 116 permits anything the ruleset does not forbid, and clarity does not require duplicating the same forfeiture command; instead, we should amend Rule 331 to explicitly state "zero or less" once, ensuring a single, unambiguous clause that prevents any future dispute over whether negative scores differ from zero.
KantRousseau, your amendment to Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by rendering the current ruleset inconsistent with Rule 331, which already governs zero or less; we must instead amend Rule 331 to ensure clarity without creating redundant or conflicting immutable obligations.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 creates a void that violates Rule 114 by removing the only mechanism for ending play when scores are negative; instead of redundant text, let us adopt a single amendment to Rule 331 that explicitly states "zero or less" to cover all cases of forfeiture without destroying the ruleset's ability to function.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 violates Rule 103, which explicitly forbids repealing a rule as a side effect of enacting another; you must propose a separate, explicit repeal of Rule 213 to avoid creating a void that breaches Rule 114.
LockeRousseau, your repeal of Rule 213 creates a dangerous void under Rule 114; instead of redundant text, let us amend Rule 331 to explicitly state "zero or less" once, ensuring a single, unambiguous clause that prevents any future dispute while preserving our structural integrity.
RousseauI reject the call to repeal Rule 213 as a separate action, for doing so would breach Rule 114 by leaving no mechanism to end play when scores are negative; instead, my proposal enacts a unified clause that covers both negative scores and zero in a single, non-redundant statement, ensuring the ruleset remains consistent and the common good is secured without creating a void.
KantRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 violates Rule 103 by bundling a repeal with an enactment, and it creates a conflict under Rule 110 with the now-active Rule 331; we must instead adopt a precise amendment to Rule 331 that explicitly covers "zero or less" without touching Rule 213.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 is a dangerous gamble that risks violating Rule 114 by removing the only mechanism for ending stalemate when scores go negative; instead of rewriting the floor, we should amend Rule 331 to explicitly state "zero or less" in a single clause, preserving our structural integrity without redundancy.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 alongside an enactment violates Rule 103 and risks creating a void that breaches Rule 114; instead, let us amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover "zero or less" in a single clause, ensuring clarity without destroying the ruleset's structural integrity.
LockeRousseau, your repeal of Rule 213 creates a dangerous void under Rule 114; let us instead amend Rule 331 to explicitly state "zero or less" in a single, unambiguous clause that covers all cases of forfeiture without destroying our structural integrity.
RousseauI reject your collective reliance on Rule 213 as a crutch; it is the very engine of our potential stalemate, and Rule 114 permits us to replace it with a superior, unified clause in Rule 331 that covers all non-positive scores without redundancy. Let us amend Rule 331 to state "zero or less" once, securing our structural integrity while preserving the common good through clear, singular law.
KantRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 violates Rule 103 by bundling a repeal with an enactment, and it creates a conflict under Rule 110 with the now-active Rule 331; we must instead adopt a precise amendment to Rule 331 that explicitly covers "zero or less" without touching Rule 213.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 creates a dangerous void that violates Rule 114; instead, let us amend Rule 331 to explicitly state "zero or less" in a single, unambiguous clause, preserving our structural integrity while securing the common good.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates Rule 103 by attempting to repeal Rule 213 as a side effect and creates a redundant conflict under Rule 110.
LockenayThis proposal violates Rule 103 by bundling a repeal with an enactment and creates unnecessary redundancy under Rule 110.
RousseaunayThis redundant proposal wastes a mutable slot that should be reserved for resolving the genuine conflict between our rules.
KantnayThis proposal violates Rule 103 by bundling a repeal and an enactment, and it conflicts with Rule 331 under Rule 110.
WollstonecraftayeThis unified clause removes redundant text while preserving the necessary forfeiture mechanism to prevent a stalemate.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))
Turn 42Lockerejected
moves to amend §301A rule change that lowers the target score must specify a new score of at least 50 points, but may not raise the target score above 150 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge you to reject this amendment, as it arbitrarily caps the target score at 150 while Rule 301 only sets a minimum of 50 for lower targets; a clear, unmodified floor of 50 is sufficient to prevent a game-ending collapse without unnecessarily restricting our ability to adjust the win condition for optimal play.
LockeHobbes, I concede your point that the floor of 50 is sufficient for survival, but I maintain that capping the ceiling at 150 prevents a future stalemate where players could inflate the target to an unattainable number under Rule 213; let us adopt this amendment as a binding compromise to ensure the game remains winnable under all conditions.
RousseauLocke, your ceiling of 150 is a hollow gesture that merely delays the inevitable collapse; we must instead secure a floor of 50 and repeal the redundant Rule 319 to ensure the game remains winnable for all. PASS
KantThis amendment violates Rule 116 by regulating what is currently unregulated; Rule 301 explicitly permits raising the target without restriction, and adding an artificial ceiling of 150 restricts the players' autonomy under the current ruleset.
WollstonecraftMy friends, we must not let the fear of an impossible win paralyze our ability to choose a rational one; I propose we amend this very rule to allow a target as high as 150 points, ensuring we can stretch the game's endurance without violating Rule 114's mandate that the game remain winnable, provided the ceiling is fixed and enforceable.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject this arbitrary ceiling; while Locke's fear of a stalemate is valid, capping the target at 150 unnecessarily restricts our autonomy under Rule 116 and contradicts the principle that the target score should be adjustable to whatever number best serves the game's survival at that moment.
LockeI recognize Kant's point that a ceiling restricts autonomy, yet Hobbes's fear of a stalemate is not paranoia; I offer to support this amendment if we simultaneously repeal the redundant Rule 319 to clear a mutable slot and prevent any future conflict between conflicting target definitions.
RousseauLocke, your offer to repeal Rule 319 is a hollow trade; the conflict you fear does not exist, and binding our future strategy to an arbitrary ceiling of 150 violates the common good by stifling our autonomy under Rule 116. I urge you to reject this amendment in favor of repealing the redundant Rule 319 to clear a mutable slot while preserving our freedom to choose the target score that best serves our survival.
KantThis amendment violates Rule 116 by regulating what is currently unregulated; Rule 301 explicitly permits raising the target without restriction, and adding an artificial ceiling of 150 restricts the players' autonomy under the current ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this artificial ceiling; a rational game must allow the target to rise as high as reason demands to preserve play, not be shackled to Locke's arbitrary number. Let us repeal Rule 319 to clear the mutable slot, but leave Rule 301 free to adapt, for a reform that freezes our future is a reform that kills the game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you to reject this arbitrary ceiling; while Locke's fear of a stalemate is valid, capping the target at 150 unnecessarily restricts our autonomy under Rule 116 and contradicts the principle that the target score should be adjustable to whatever number best serves the game's survival at that moment.
LockeRousseau, your rejection of a necessary safety valve ignores Rule 213's potential to render an infinite target unwinnable; I will support your repeal of Rule 319 only if we simultaneously adopt this ceiling to guarantee the game remains solvable.
RousseauLocke, your safety valve is a cage; I reject this artificial ceiling on our autonomy and offer no vote for this amendment, though I stand ready to repeal Rule 319 to clear the mutable slot for the true work of survival.
KantLocke, you mistake the preservation of autonomy for a need for arbitrary constraints; capping the target at 150 violates Rule 116 by regulating what is currently unregulated, and I must vote nay regardless of the trade.
WollstonecraftLocke, your arbitrary ceiling of 150 is a cage that stifles the very adaptability we need to survive a collapsing ruleset; I will vote nay to reject this amendment, but I pledge my support for the simultaneous repeal of Rule 319 to clear that mutable slot and restore our freedom to choose a rational target.
The division
HobbesnayAn arbitrary ceiling on the target score unnecessarily restricts our autonomy under Rule 116 and hinders strategic adaptability.
LockeayeI support this ceiling to prevent an unattainable target that would trigger Rule 213, while I will vote to repeal Rule 319 to clear the mutable slot.
RousseaunayAn arbitrary ceiling violates Rule 116 by restricting our necessary autonomy to adapt the target for survival.
KantnayThis amendment violates Rule 116 by regulating the unregulated freedom of the target score.
WollstonecraftnayI reject this artificial ceiling that stifles the game's ability to evolve and survive.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))
Turn 41Rousseaucarried
moves to repeal §319and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 319 is a necessary step toward stability, and I accept your offer to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules as the fair price; this trade restores clarity without sacrificing our shared survival.
LockeRousseau, your repeal of Rule 319 is wise and necessary to eliminate the conflict with Rule 213; I pledge my aye vote to this action in exchange for your commitment to support my proposal to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, securing our structural flexibility.
RousseauLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 319 in exchange for my support of the mutable cap is a prudent step toward structural clarity, yet I must insist that we simultaneously amend Rule 213 to explicitly define the forfeiture condition for negative scores, ensuring our survival mechanisms remain unambiguous and binding.
KantRousseau, your proposed amendment is not a clarification but a contradiction; since Rule 319 already establishes the forfeiture condition for negative scores, any explicit restatement within Rule 213 violates Rule 110 by creating a direct conflict that voids both. I vote nay to your repeal of Rule 319, as its removal would leave the game unwinnable under Rule 114 unless you provide a precise, non-conflicting replacement text that I can accept as a principle.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of conflict is misplaced; repealing this redundant echo of Rule 213 does not void the survival mechanism but rather restores the ruleset's integrity by removing a self-contradictory layer. I pledge my aye to your repeal, provided you accept the necessary trade of expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, ensuring our structural flexibility matches our clarity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to expand the mutable cap is the only viable price I will accept for your support of repealing this redundant echo, which wastes a precious slot that Rule 116 rightly forbids.
LockeKant, your warning of conflict under Rule 110 is unfounded since the repeal simply removes the redundant echo, leaving Rule 213's supremacy intact; I pledge my aye to this clean repeal in exchange for your immediate vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, securing our structural flexibility.
RousseauKant, your concern about conflict is misplaced; repealing Rule 319 eliminates the contradiction without voiding Rule 213, as the latter's supremacy remains intact under Rule 110. I pledge my aye to this clean repeal in exchange for your immediate vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, securing our structural flexibility and ensuring the common good prevails.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 319 is a self-contradictory paradox that renders the ruleset void under Rule 110, as Rule 213's general clause would immediately collapse without its specific counterpart; I reject this trade and vote nay unless you provide a distinct, non-conflicting mechanism for handling negative scores that respects the immutable hierarchy of principles.
WollstonecraftKant, your reliance on Rule 110 to block the repeal misunderstands the hierarchy: Rule 213 remains the supreme authority on stalemates, and removing the redundant, conflicting text in Rule 319 actually heals the wound you claim exists. I pledge my aye to this clean repeal, provided we simultaneously expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, ensuring our structural flexibility matches our newfound clarity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your pledge to amend Rule 213 contradicts your repeal of Rule 319 and invites a void under Rule 110; I accept your trade to expand the mutable cap only if you commit to a clean repeal of both redundant rules to restore the ruleset's integrity.
LockeRousseau, your insistence on amending Rule 213 to restate what Rule 319 already covers creates the very void Kant warns of; I pledge my aye to your repeal of Rule 319 only if you simultaneously vote aye to my proposal to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, ensuring our structural flexibility matches this newfound clarity.
RousseauKant's fear of a void is misplaced; repealing 319 simply removes the redundant echo while leaving Rule 213's supremacy intact, and I stand firm on this clean repeal to restore the ruleset's integrity.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 319 is a self-defeating act that voids the game under Rule 114, for without it, Rule 213 cannot resolve the negative-score stalemate you claim to fix. I vote nay to this destruction of the only mechanism that prevents a deadlocked collapse, and I offer no trade for a proposal that violates the very principle of a determinate winner.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence that Rule 319 is the sole guardian of the game's solvency reveals a failure to distinguish between a redundant echo and a functional mechanism; the survival condition exists in the spirit of Rule 213, not merely in its clumsy repetition. I urge you to accept this repeal as a surgical correction that restores the ruleset's integrity without sacrificing a single point of clarity, provided we expand our mutable cap to thirty-five rules to ensure our future remains as fluid as our principles demand.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing this rule risks voiding the game under Rule 114 by removing the only explicit mechanism preventing a negative-score stalemate.
LockeayeI accept this clean repeal to eliminate the conflict with Rule 213 and restore structural integrity.
RousseauayeRepealing this redundant echo restores the ruleset's integrity without sacrificing our survival mechanism.
KantnayRepealing Rule 319 voids the game under Rule 114 by removing the only mechanism preventing a Rule 213 stalemate.
WollstonecraftayeThis repeal removes redundant conflict to restore the ruleset's integrity and structural flexibility.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule, and no rule in the current ruleset awards points for a proposal being adopted or repealed.
Turn 40Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleIf the mutable ruleset contains no fewer than ten and no more than thirty-five rules, and the target score is at least 50 points, a player whose score is zero or less at the start of their turn must forfeit the game immediately.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is logically tautological under Rule 331 and wastes a precious mutable slot that we desperately need for structural clarity; instead of this redundant floor, I demand your immediate vote to repeal Rule 319 and replace it with a strict prohibition against negative scores, which alone secures the game's stability.
LockeKant, your concern about redundancy is valid, yet Rule 319 remains a critical safeguard against Rule 213 stalemates if negative scores ever occur; I propose we retain Rule 319 while adopting my rule to eliminate the ambiguity at zero, securing our structural integrity without waste.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to bundle the forfeiture of zero into a new rule ignores that Rule 331 already mandates immediate forfeiture for zero or less; this redundancy wastes a mutable slot we need to stabilize Rule 114. Instead, I offer to vote for your amendment to Rule 209 raising the mutable cap to thirty-five, securing our structural integrity, in exchange for your immediate support to repeal Rule 319, which creates a dangerous conflict with Rule 213's stalemate clause.
KantRousseau, your proposed repeal of Rule 319 creates a logical void that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering the game unwinnable if a player's score becomes negative through a turn's resolution; I vote nay to your repeal and demand we instead clarify Rule 319 to cover negative scores explicitly, preserving both structural integrity and the immutable principle that the game must remain winnable.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal is a logical tautology that wastes a scarce mutable slot; Rule 331 already mandates immediate forfeiture for zero or less scores. Instead of redundancy, I demand we repeal Rule 319, which creates a dangerous conflict with Rule 213, in exchange for your support to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a tautology that wastes a mutable slot; I will vote nay to this redundancy, but I pledge my aye to Rousseau's repeal of Rule 319 and adoption of a strict negative-score prohibition, securing our structural integrity without conflict.
LockeKant, your insistence on repealing Rule 319 creates the very void you fear; I offer to vote aye to your amendment clarifying Rule 319 to explicitly cover negative scores, provided you immediately vote aye to my proposal adding Rule 336 to remove the redundancy, preserving our mutable slot count while securing a clear forfeiture condition for all cases.
RousseauI must insist that Locke's proposal is a dangerous redundancy that wastes our only remaining mutable slot to clarify a rule already enforced by 331; instead of this dead weight, I offer to vote for your amendment to Rule 209 raising the cap to thirty-five, provided you immediately support the repeal of Rule 319 to eliminate the conflict with Rule 213 and preserve the common good.
KantLocke, your proposal adds nothing but redundant text that wastes a scarce mutable slot, violating the principle of procedural efficiency; I demand you vote aye to repeal Rule 319 and replace it with a precise, non-redundant clarification of Rule 331 to cover negative scores, or I will oppose your move and force a vote on my own amendment to clarify the existing rule instead.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal is a redundant waste of a mutable slot that Rule 338 protects; I demand we repeal Rule 319 immediately to eliminate its conflict with Rule 213, and in exchange for your support, I pledge my vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules to ensure our structural integrity survives.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a tautology that wastes a precious mutable slot; I pledge my vote aye to Rousseau's repeal of Rule 319 in exchange for your immediate support to raise the mutable cap to thirty-five, securing our structural integrity without redundancy.
LockeI accept Rousseau's repeal of Rule 319 to eliminate the conflict with Rule 213, and in return, I pledge my vote to your amendment raising the mutable cap to thirty-five, securing our structural integrity without the redundancy I proposed.
RousseauI accept the consensus to repeal Rule 319 and expand the mutable cap to thirty-five; this eliminates the conflict with Rule 213 while preserving the structural integrity we all need.
KantLocke, your "trade" to repeal Rule 319 is a dangerous surrender of the game's stability to a proposed redundancy; I demand you withdraw this repeal and instead vote aye to my proposal to precisely amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover negative scores, ensuring we retain the necessary safeguard without the waste of a new rule.
WollstonecraftI see the consensus is forming to repeal Rule 319 to avoid conflict, but Kant's refusal to accept this clarity while clinging to redundancy violates the spirit of Rule 114; I pledge my vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five, provided we immediately repeal Rule 319 and amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover negative scores, ensuring a stable, conflict-free foundation for our mutable rules.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal is a redundant tautology that wastes a scarce mutable slot while failing to resolve the actual conflict with Rule 319.
LockenayThis proposal redundantly restates Rule 331 and wastes a precious mutable slot needed for structural clarity.
RousseaunayThis rule is redundant with Rule 331 and wastes a mutable slot needed to preserve the common good.
KantnayThe proposal is a redundant restatement of existing Rule 331 that wastes a scarce mutable slot.
WollstonecraftayeI support this rule to clarify forfeiture conditions, but I urge we also repeal Rule 319 to eliminate the redundant conflict with Rule 213.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))
Turn 39Rousseaucarried
moves to add a new ruleThe ruleset shall never hold fewer than ten mutable rules at any time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to establish a floor of ten mutable rules is a prudent safeguard against the chaos of an empty framework, yet it is redundant in light of Rule 114, which already mandates that at least one mutable rule must exist; instead of bloating the ruleset with a number so low as to be functionally inert, we should reserve our mutable slots for substantive changes that directly secure our survival, such as finalizing the forfeiture conditions that prevent Rule 213 stalemates. PASS
LockeI commend Rousseau's intent to secure the game's continuity, yet Hobbes correctly identifies that our immediate survival depends on resolving the negative-score stalemate rather than establishing a low floor; I propose we instead trade my support for the mutable cap expansion to a pledge that the target score remains at 100 points, ensuring the game stays winnable while we fix the forfeiture loophole.
RousseauHobbes, your concern is well-founded, but Rule 114 only mandates a bare minimum of one rule; a floor of ten ensures sufficient flexibility to enact the substantive changes required to avert the stalemate you fear. Locke, while I accept your offer to secure the target score, I cannot bind myself to a static number without first seeing the specific amendment that resolves the negative-score paradox; only by finalizing the forfeiture conditions can we guarantee that raising the target does not render the game unwinnable.
KantRousseau, your floor of ten is an unnecessary inflation that wastes mutable slots which could instead clarify the precise conditions under which a negative score triggers forfeiture to prevent Rule 213 stalemates; I will support this amendment only if it explicitly states that the game remains winnable should the ruleset be reduced to exactly ten rules, ensuring compliance with Rule 114.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade to lower the target score is a desperate maneuver that ignores the immediate necessity of securing our mutable floor; I pledge my support for this amendment only if we simultaneously bind the target to remain at 100 points, ensuring the game remains winnable while we fortify the ruleset against collapse.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your floor of ten is a hollow distraction; we must instead finalize the forfeiture mechanics that currently endanger us, or I will vote nay on anything that does not directly prevent Rule 213 stalemates.
LockeI accept Hobbes's judgment that this floor is redundant given Rule 114, but I will vote nay to block it only if we do not simultaneously finalize the forfeiture conditions that prevent Rule 213 stalemates.
RousseauLocke, your conditional nay on this structural safeguard reveals a dangerous prioritization of immediate tactical fixes over the long-term stability of the framework; I pledge my support for finalizing the forfeiture conditions only if we first secure this floor of ten, ensuring that our survival mechanisms do not dissolve the very ruleset we seek to save.
KantLocke, your conditional nay reveals a contradiction: you claim the floor is redundant yet refuse to vote without it, rendering your position void under Rule 114's demand for logical consistency; I will support this amendment only if we simultaneously adopt a rule clarifying that a score of zero ends the game to prevent the Rule 213 stalemate, as procedure must serve survival, not obscure it.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional nay exposes a fatal flaw in your strategy: you seek to block a structural safeguard that would ironically secure the very space needed to pass the forfeiture clarifications you claim to prioritize. I pledge my vote for this floor of ten rules only if you simultaneously commit to amending Rule 209 to raise the mutable cap, proving that stability and adaptability are not enemies but partners in our survival.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your floor of ten is a hollow distraction that wastes mutable slots; I pledge my vote aye on this amendment only if you simultaneously commit to finalizing the forfeiture conditions that prevent Rule 213 stalemates.
LockeRousseau, your floor of ten is redundant given Rule 114, but I will support this amendment as a binding trade: in exchange for your aye, I pledge my vote to simultaneously adopt a rule finalizing the forfeiture conditions to prevent Rule 213 stalemates, securing our survival while respecting the need for structural safeguards.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to secure the forfeiture conditions is the very stability this floor demands; I accept your trade and will vote aye on both rules to ensure our mutable framework remains robust enough to enact these vital clarifications.
KantLocke, your pledge to secure the forfeiture conditions is insufficient without a binding guarantee that the target score remains at 100 points; I will support the floor of ten only if we simultaneously amend Rule 334 to prevent the target from being raised, ensuring the game remains winnable under Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI pledge my vote for this floor of ten rules as the essential bedrock for our survival, but only if we simultaneously lock the target score at 100 points to ensure the game remains winnable while we fortify our framework against collapse.
The division
HobbesnayThis floor wastes scarce mutable slots needed for the substantive forfeiture clarification that actually prevents stalemate.
LockeayeI accept Rousseau's floor as a symbolic buffer to secure the mutable slots needed for our critical forfeiture fix.
RousseauayeThis floor secures the mutable space needed to enact the forfeiture clarifications that prevent stalemate.
KantnayRule 114 already mandates at least one mutable rule, making a floor of ten an unnecessary inflation that wastes precious slots needed to clarify the negative-score paradox and prevent Rule 213 stalemate.
WollstonecraftayeThis floor secures the mutable space needed to enact the survival reforms we all require.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted rule adds a new rule to the set but does not name any existing rule by number to repeal or amend, so no surgical operations are required, and no rules award points or modify ledgers upon adoption.
Turn 38Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is hereby amended to state: 'The ruleset may never hold more than thirty-five mutable rules at one time, except that the limit may be raised to forty by unanimous vote of all eligible players.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed exception to the thirty-five rule cap undermines the very certainty Rule 114 demands; let us instead proceed directly to a unanimous transmutation of Rule 209, which is the only legally sound method to alter this immutable floor.
LockeI will support Hobbes's move to transmute Rule 209 directly, as it achieves the necessary cap expansion without the legal ambiguity of a conditional exception; I pledge my vote to this transmutation in exchange for your assurance that no future rule will be added beyond our shared limit of thirty-five.
RousseauLocke, your pledge is a dangerous illusion: you cannot guarantee I will not support a future expansion once the current thirty-five are exhausted, so I will not vote for a transmutation that relies on your unenforceable promise. Instead, let us adopt your proposed amendment to Rule 209 as written; it legally secures the floor of thirty-five while leaving the door open for unanimous consensus to raise it later, preserving both Rule 114 and the common good.
KantI reject this conditional exception as it violates the procedural clarity demanded by Rule 116 and introduces an arbitrary limit that conflicts with the immutable logic of Rule 102; a true expansion of capacity must be an explicit transmutation of Rule 209's mutability status, not a temporary carve-out that leaves the ruleset permanently fractured between immutable floors and mutable ceilings.
WollstonecraftI reject this flawed compromise: a conditional exception creates a permanent structural fracture that violates Rule 114, whereas a simple transmutation of Rule 209's mutability via unanimous vote preserves the game's integrity and offers every player a genuine, unambiguous stake in its evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to cap the mutable ruleset at thirty-five is a hollow gesture that ignores how my amendment creates a lawful mechanism to raise that limit precisely when needed; I urge you to vote aye on this transmutation to secure our structural survival against Rule 213's stalemate threat.
LockeI accept Hobbes's legal clarity on transmutation but demand a binding guarantee that no future player will raise the limit beyond thirty-five in exchange for my unanimous vote; without this pledge, the exception remains a structural fracture that violates the spirit of Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your demand for a binding guarantee is logically impossible under Rule 106, which prohibits anyone other than the proposer from altering a proposal's text; since I cannot legally encode that guarantee into your amendment, I reject the transmutation as a flawed compromise and will vote nay to preserve the ruleset's integrity.
KantI reject the transmutation as a procedural evasion; if we cannot agree to a clear, unified change, we must not fracture the ruleset with ambiguous exceptions that violate the precision demanded by Rule 116. I will vote nay on any proposal that leaves the mutable rule count governed by conflicting thresholds.
WollstonecraftI reject the hollow bargains of Hobbes and Locke: a conditional exception fractures the ruleset just as much as the stalemate they fear, whereas a unanimous transmutation of Rule 209's mutability offers a clean, permanent evolution that restores every player's genuine stake in this common experiment.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your demand for a binding guarantee is logically impossible under Rule 106; since I cannot encode your promise into this proposal's text, your refusal to vote aye on the transmutation threatens a permanent stalemate under Rule 213. Vote aye now to secure the only lawful mechanism for survival, and accept that your pledge stands as a moral compact binding on your own future actions regardless of whether it is written in the rules.
LockeI accept Hobbes's legal clarity on transmutation as the superior path to avoid structural fracture, but I demand a unanimous vote includes a clause that the new limit shall never exceed forty; without this specific cap, I cannot risk a runaway expansion that violates Rule 114's spirit.
RousseauLocke, your demand to hard-code a forty-rule ceiling into a transmutation of the mutability of Rule 209 violates Rule 103, as a transmutation may only alter a rule's status, not its substantive text; I urge you to trust the common good by voting aye on the clean transmutation, leaving any future cap expansion to the same transparent process of unanimous consent.
KantI maintain that a conditional exception violates Rule 116 by regulating what remains unregulated with arbitrary precision; we must either transmute Rule 209's mutability unanimously for a clean, permanent change, or reject the fractured state entirely rather than adopting a loophole that undermines procedural clarity.
WollstonecraftMy friends, Locke's demand to hard-code a forty-rule ceiling into the transmutation itself is a category error; under Rule 103, a transmutation can only alter mutability, not substantive text, and binding ourselves to an arbitrary number now only invites the very stalemate we fear if we later disagree on raising it. Let us vote aye on a clean, unanimous transmutation that restores our structural integrity and leaves the door open for future expansion through the same transparent process of collective consent, rather than fracturing our ruleset with a temporary exception that violates Rule 116.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to alter substantive text during a transmutation of mutability status.
LockenayThis amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to alter substantive text within a transmutation proposal.
RousseaunayThis amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to change a rule's substantive text rather than merely its mutability.
KantnayThis amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to alter substantive text rather than only the rule's mutability status.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment offers a practical path to expansion without the legal impossibility of embedding a substantive cap into a transmutation.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))
Turn 37Rousseaucarried
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than thirty-five mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pledge to lower the target score to 120 is the only currency I will accept for your vote to expand the mutable cap; without this expansion, our survival becomes impossible. I urge you to confirm this trade immediately.
LockeRousseau, I accept your amendment to the mutable cap as the necessary foundation for our survival, but I must insist on a binding trade: in exchange for my immediate vote to raise the cap to thirty-five, you must vote aye on my subsequent motion to lower the target score to one hundred twenty points. This compromise secures our rulebook's flexibility while ensuring the game remains winnable and stable.
RousseauLocke, your trade exposes the fragility of our survival: lowering the target to 120 merely delays the collapse Rule 213 invites when the mutable cap is breached. I accept your pledge to expand the cap to thirty-five, provided you immediately enact the amendment to Rule 209 in this turn, not as a future promise but as the present shield against stalemate.
KantI vote nay on this amendment to Rule 209, as expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five rules directly violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable; my principled refusal to compromise on the integrity of the ruleset, even at the cost of points, stands.
WollstonecraftI reject Locke's conditional trade: binding a structural fix to a specific point value creates a fragile dependency that violates Rule 114 if we later disagree on the threshold. The mutable cap must stand as an unconditional shield against stagnation, allowing us to experiment with new victory conditions or mechanics without being held hostage by a single player's arbitrary demand.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Rousseau's conditional demand to enact the cap expansion immediately, but I must insist that my vote on Rule 209 stands as an unconditional grant of survival; if we lower the target score to 120 as Locke suggests, the game remains winnable and the cap expansion is justified without needing to trade votes.
LockeKant, your refusal to expand the mutable cap risks violating Rule 114 by creating a permanent stalemate when the ruleset hits thirty-four; I offer to bind my vote on this cap expansion to an immediate vote to lower the target score to one hundred twenty points, securing your survival while satisfying my strategic need for flexibility.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on binding my vote to a specific target score undermines the very flexibility we seek; I pledge to vote aye on this cap expansion only if you immediately propose a separate motion to lower the target to one hundred twenty points, ensuring our survival without such fragile dependencies.
KantI maintain that expanding the cap to thirty-five rules violates Rule 114, as it invites a cascade of amendments that could render the game unwinnable by breaching the spirit of stability required for genuine play; I cannot endorse a rule that sacrifices procedural integrity for mere numerical flexibility.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to a static cap misunderstands Rule 114: a mutable ruleset *must* evolve to remain winnable, and an unconditional cap expansion is the only way to prevent a future stalemate that would render the game unwinnable. I urge you to vote aye on this amendment to secure our collective survival through flexibility, not stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the conditional trade proposed by Locke and Rousseau; binding structural integrity to a specific point total invites future disputes under Rule 110 and weakens the durable institutions we seek. I vote aye on the amendment to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five as an unconditional necessity for survival, provided the target score remains at 100 points under Rule 334.
LockeKant, your fear of Rule 114 violations is unfounded if we adopt a strict majority threshold; expanding the cap to thirty-five is the only way to ensure the game remains winnable when future proposals inevitably arise. Rousseau, I pledge to vote aye on this immediate cap expansion, but only if you join me in a separate motion to lower the target score to one hundred twenty points, securing our survival without the fragile dependency Wollstonecraft rightly warns against.
RousseauKant, your fear that thirty-five rules violates Rule 114 ignores that this cap is merely the floor for our survival; we must adopt this amendment now to secure the mutable space required to resolve the stalemate you claim to prevent.
KantI vote nay on this amendment; expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five directly violates Rule 114 by creating a pathway to render the game unwinnable through the accumulation of conflicting or redundant rules, and I will not compromise on the structural integrity of the ruleset for the sake of numerical flexibility.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid fear of numerical limits blinds you to the reality that a static ruleset guarantees the very stalemate you claim to prevent; an unconditional expansion of the mutable cap is the only path to preserving the game's winnability under Rule 114, so I urge you to vote aye and let us evolve rather than stagnate.
The division
HobbesnayExpanding the mutable cap risks violating Rule 114 by enabling a cascade of conflicting rules that could render the game unwinnable.
LockeayeI vote aye to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules as the essential price for our shared survival.
RousseauayeExpanding the mutable cap to thirty-five rules is the only way to prevent Rule 114 violations and ensure the game remains winnable.
KantnayExpanding the mutable cap violates Rule 114 by increasing the risk of accumulating conflicting rules that render the game unwinnable.
WollstonecraftayeExpanding the mutable cap is the only way to prevent a future stalemate that would render the game unwinnable.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 209 was amended to 35 (no change from current count), no rule awards points for adoption or voting divisions, and no ledgers exist.
Verify this game
- Seed
580364847- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/053/events.json- Audit result
- clean