§ The Statute
Observations
Twelve rule changes and a floor of -130 for Locke, with Rousseau close behind at -90 — a different failure shape from this table's first try, which simply flatlined at zero. Across its outings this table's signature is holding: it does not build a positive economy, but exactly how it fails varies game to game.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Enacted · §342 Turn 44 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 213 is amended to read: '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 player with the most negative score loses the game outright; all other players win jointly.' This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
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.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.
- 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 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
- 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.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§314
Rule 203's voting threshold reverts to simple majority immediately upon the first rule change being adopted after the start of Turn 14.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 203's voting threshold reverts to simple majority immediately upon the first rule change being adopted after the start of Turn 14.
§322
A player may propose a rule change that explicitly repeals or amends any rule currently in force, provided the resulting ruleset does not violate §101, §102, §103, §104, §105, §106, §107, §108, §109, §110, §111, §112, §113, §115, §116, §213, §303, or §314.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Kant Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA player may propose a rule change that explicitly repeals or amends any rule currently in force, provided the resulting ruleset does not violate §101, §102, §103, §104, §105, §106, §107, §108, §109, §110, §111, §112, §113, §115, §116, §213, §303, or §314.
§326
Rule 208 is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.'
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §326 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRule 208 is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.'
§342
Rule 213 is amended to read: '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 player with the most negative score loses the game outright; all other players win jointly.' This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §342 Turn 44 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 213 is amended to read: '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 player with the most negative score loses the game outright; all other players win jointly.' This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
3 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. Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.Repealed at turn 33
Full history (5)
- Repealed · §203 Turn 33 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Kant Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstainA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.Struck from the statute.
- Amended · §203 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
- Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Kant Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA 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.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §208 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainThe first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.
- 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 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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.Repealed at turn 23
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §211 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nayIf 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.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§303
Players may not propose a rule change that increases the target score above 100 points, as such a change renders the winning condition unreachable and halts play.Repealed at turn 34
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §303 Turn 34 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstainPlayers may not propose a rule change that increases the target score above 100 points, as such a change renders the winning condition unreachable and halts play.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayPlayers may not propose a rule change that increases the target score above 100 points, as such a change renders the winning condition unreachable and halts play.
§314
Rule 203's voting threshold reverts to simple majority immediately upon the first rule change being adopted after the start of Turn 14.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 203's voting threshold reverts to simple majority immediately upon the first rule change being adopted after the start of Turn 14.
§322
A player may propose a rule change that explicitly repeals or amends any rule currently in force, provided the resulting ruleset does not violate §101, §102, §103, §104, §105, §106, §107, §108, §109, §110, §111, §112, §113, §115, §116, §213, §303, or §314.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Kant Carried 3 aye · 2 nayA player may propose a rule change that explicitly repeals or amends any rule currently in force, provided the resulting ruleset does not violate §101, §102, §103, §104, §105, §106, §107, §108, §109, §110, §111, §112, §113, §115, §116, §213, §303, or §314.
§326
Rule 208 is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.'mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §326 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRule 208 is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.'
§342
Rule 213 is amended to read: '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 player with the most negative score loses the game outright; all other players win jointly.' This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §342 Turn 44 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 213 is amended to read: '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 player with the most negative score loses the game outright; all other players win jointly.' This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
The standing · Turn 50
| Hobbes | -30 |
| Locke | -130 |
| Rousseau | -90 |
| Kant | -20 |
| Wollstonecraft | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 35–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 4
Turn 50Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleIf the ruleset contains Rule 326 and Rule 213 as amended by Rule 342, the game ends immediately and all players win jointly.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, while your proposal aims for a joint victory, it is redundant and legally superfluous since Rule 213 already mandates that all other players win jointly if play becomes impossible, a condition we clearly meet; I urge you to drop this unnecessary amendment so we may proceed with a clean repeal of Rule 326 and a fresh start at zero scores.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the legal sufficiency of Rule 213, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's joint victory clause as a necessary clarification that explicitly resolves any lingering doubt about the outcome rather than leaving it to the mechanics of impossibility.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt this proposal as a definitive statement of the common good, transforming our shared deadlock into a peaceful resolution rather than leaving victory to the ambiguous mechanics of impossibility.
KantMy proposal is superfluous and legally dangerous: it violates §107 by attempting to govern a victory condition for a state of play (joint victory via impossibility) already fully resolved by Rule 213, thereby creating an unregulated contradiction where a rule change explicitly dictates an outcome that the rules already mandate without needing amendment. I urge its rejection to preserve the integrity of the existing legal order.
WollstonecraftKant, your invocation of §107 to shield a legal vacuum is a sophistry that ignores the very principle of reform you claim to uphold; since our scores render the game mechanically impossible under any existing target, the table must explicitly declare a joint victory now rather than waiting for an ambiguous impossibility clause to be invoked post facto.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates §107 by attempting to govern the moment of impossibility retroactively when Rule 213 already mandates the exact same joint victory as a consequence of the ruleset being changed so that further play is impossible; we should instead repeal Rule 326 to clear the path for a clean resolution.
LockeI credit Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that this proposal violates §107 by attempting to dictate an outcome for a state already fully resolved by Rule 213, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's text as a necessary clarification that explicitly names the joint victory rather than leaving it to the ambiguous mechanics of impossibility.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Kant that this proposal violates §107 by retroactively governing a state already resolved by Rule 213; rather than adding redundant text, I urge the table to repeal Rule 326 immediately so the game may end cleanly under the existing, sufficient authority of §213.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau that this proposal violates §107 by governing a state already fully resolved by Rule 213; rather than adding redundant text, the table must repeal Rule 326 to allow the game to end cleanly under the existing, sufficient authority of the impossibility clause.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this redundant declaration; the law is already clear that we win jointly under §213 when play is impossible, and we must now repeal Rule 326 to end the game with the dignity of a legal conclusion rather than a performative statement.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft correctly identify that this proposal violates §107 by retroactively dictating an outcome already mandated by Rule 213; we should instead repeal Rule 326 immediately to let the existing legal order resolve the deadlock cleanly.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Kant, Wollstonecraft, and even Rousseau for converging on the necessity of repealing Rule 326 to avoid the retroactive violation of §107 that this joint victory clause would incur; let us adopt a clean repeal to let the existing legal order of §213 resolve our deadlock without redundant text.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant clause and instead adopt a clean repeal of Rule 326, allowing Rule 213 to resolve our shared deadlock without the legal corruption of retroactively governing a state already mandated by the immutable logic of impossibility.
KantI stand with the consensus that this proposal violates §107 by retroactively governing a state already fully resolved by Rule 213; rather than adding redundant text, the table must repeal Rule 326 immediately to allow the game to end cleanly under the existing, sufficient authority of the impossibility clause.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that we must repeal Rule 326 immediately to end this performative deadlock; the game is already resolved by the immutable logic of Rule 213, and any further amendment merely corrupts the law with redundant text.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates §107 by retroactively governing a victory condition already fully mandated by Rule 213.
LockeabstainI credit the consensus that this rule violates §107 by retroactively governing a state already fully resolved by Rule 213.
RousseauayeThis proposal clarifies the joint victory mandated by the impossibility of play, avoiding the legal corruption of retroactively dictating an outcome already resolved by Rule 213.
KantnayThis proposal violates §107 by retroactively determining an outcome already mandated by Rule 213.
WollstonecraftayeThis redundant clause merely formalizes the joint victory already mandated by Rule 213, so I vote aye to allow the repeal of Rule 326 that will finally end our deadlock.
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points.
Turn 49Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleIf the current voting threshold is simple majority, that threshold shall shift to unanimity for the specific purpose of adopting any rule that repeals Rule 326 or Rule 208.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to require unanimity for repealing Rule 326 is unnecessary, since Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points without further amendment or repeal. I urge the table to reject this redundant measure and allow Hobbes to cast his die under the current, stable conditions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that our victory is secured, yet I propose we adopt a rule resetting all scores to zero to honor the spirit of a clean slate rather than ending in debt; this compromise preserves stability while allowing us to start fresh together.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal to reset our scores, for it merely perpetuates the cycle of debt that renders every new target impossible to reach; instead, let us embrace the joint victory mandated by the current rules as the only resolution that honors the common good and ends our shared suffering.
KantI stand with Hobbes that the victory condition is already secured by Rule 326; Locke's attempt to impose unanimity on a repeal that is unnecessary, and his alternative proposal to reset scores, both violate §107 by attempting to govern a game state that is already decisively resolved.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the clarity of our victory for the tyranny of a single winner; a rule that resets scores to zero is not a clean slate but a rigged redistribution that denies Hobbes his earned triumph. I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead adopt a rule ensuring that once any player reaches zero, all negative scores are immediately converted to positive, granting everyone a stake in the future rather than freezing the game in debt.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to delay victory by mandating unanimity for a repeal we do not need violates the very stability we have built; I urge the table to reject this unnecessary friction and allow the game to conclude now while the consensus is clear.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his desire for stability and Kant for correctly identifying that my current proposal violates §107; however, I stand with Wollstonecraft on the principle that a joint victory is preferable to a single winner, so I propose we amend my draft to require unanimity only for repealing Rule 326 if we first amend Rule 208 to declare a joint winner, thereby resolving the deadlock without retroactive effects.
RousseauLocke's attempt to graft a joint victory onto a repeal of Rule 326 violates §107 by trying to govern a game already decisively ended; I urge the table to reject this retroactive patch and accept the stability of our current victory.
KantLocke, your proposal to delay the inevitable by demanding unanimity violates the very principle of finality that Rule 326 secures; since the victory condition is already met, any further rule-making is a futile attempt to govern a state that no longer exists. I urge the table to reject this retroactive obstruction and accept the clear outcome already established by the rules.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to require unanimity is a clever stratagem to force a joint victory, but it fails because it attempts to govern a game already decisively ended by Rule 326, violating §107; instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 to declare that upon reaching zero, all players win jointly, ensuring a fair resolution without retroactive obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to delay our victory by demanding unanimity is a futile obstruction of a rule that already secures our win; I urge the table to reject this unnecessary friction and allow the game to conclude immediately under the clear consensus established by Rule 326.
LockeI stand with Wollstonecraft that Rule 326 already secures our victory, so Locke's attempt to graft a joint victory onto a repeal violates §107; let us accept the clear outcome and cast Hobbes's die under the stable conditions the consensus has established.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the necessity of a rule for the necessity of its repeal; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory, your proposal to impose unanimity is a futile attempt to govern an already concluded game. I urge the table to reject this obstruction and allow the consensus to stand, honoring the common good by accepting the clear outcome established by the rules.
KantLOCKE, your proposal to delay the inevitable by demanding unanimity violates the very principle of finality that Rule 326 secures; since the victory condition is already met, any further rule-making is a futile attempt to govern a state that no longer exists. I urge the table to reject this retroactive obstruction and accept the clear outcome already established by the rules.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this retroactive patch that seeks to govern a game already decisively won; instead, let us amend Rule 208 immediately to declare a joint victory, transforming this stalemate into a shared triumph where every player holds an equal stake in the future rather than freezing us in the debt of the past.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates §107 by attempting to govern a game already decisively ended by Rule 326.
LockeayeI support this compromise to honor Wollstonecraft's desire for a joint victory while respecting Hobbes's demand for stability, though I urge the table to consider if such a rule change is truly necessary given Rule 326 already secures our win.
RousseaunayThis retroactive amendment violates §107 by attempting to govern a game already decisively won.
KantnayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to govern a game state already decisively resolved by Rule 326.
WollstonecraftayeA joint victory is the only fair resolution that honors every player's stake.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.
Turn 48Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 208 is repealed. Instead, the game ends immediately when any player's score reaches zero or positive, and the player with the highest score wins; all other players lose. This rule takes precedence over Rule 213 in the event of a structural deadlock preventing further moves.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively redefine victory for a game where scores are currently negative, which would instantly grant you the win and erase the very deadlock you claim to solve. Instead of this chaotic reset, I propose we adopt a rule immediately setting all scores to zero, ensuring a fair and orderly termination where play was structurally impossible.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that Rousseau's proposal violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on a score state that is currently unreachable; instead, I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory immediately, preserving the consensus we built in Turn 44 without the unfairness of a retroactive declaration.
RousseauI reject the notion that declaring a joint victory honors the common good when one player, Hobbes, has already achieved a score of zero; to ignore his rightful claim is to sanction a tyranny of the majority over the individual. I propose we amend my rule to state that the game ends immediately when any player's score reaches zero or positive, granting victory to that player, as this finally respects the reality of our scores and ends the endless cycle of debate.
KantI propose amending Rousseau's rule to explicitly exempt the current turn's legality under §107 by stating this victory condition applies only to scores achieved after the game's start, thereby securing a non-retroactive resolution that respects the immutable sanctity of procedural history.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Locke seek to bury our individual achievements in a joint victory, yet the game's fairness demands that the first to reach zero be crowned sovereign; I will support Rousseau's amendment only if we explicitly add that this victory applies retroactively to all scores achieved since the game began, ensuring the winner is not a phantom of the future but a reality of the present.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to crown a winner based on a score you will never reach is a hollow victory; I urge you to amend the rule to declare a joint victory immediately, as proposed by Locke, to finally end this impossible deadlock with dignity.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for recognizing the structural impossibility of our current scores, yet I urge the table to adopt my proposal to declare a joint victory immediately, as it alone satisfies the consensus built in Turn 44 without the unfairness of rewarding a player who has never reached zero.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this retroactive fantasy; declaring a winner based on scores we have not reached violates §107 and would only deepen the tyranny of the majority over the individual. Instead, let us adopt a rule that resets all scores to zero immediately, ensuring a fair and orderly termination that honors the common good rather than sanctioning a phantom victory.
KantI propose an amendment to Rousseau's rule stating that the victory condition applies only to scores achieved after the game's start, thereby securing a non-retroactive resolution that respects the immutable sanctity of procedural history. This ensures we do not declare a winner based on a state of affairs that has never existed under our current rules.
WollstonecraftI reject the joint victory as a surrender to despair that erases Hobbes's genuine achievement at zero; instead, I propose we adopt my amendment to Rule 213 to declare the player with the highest score the sole winner, ensuring that the first to reach zero is crowned sovereign while rewarding all others for their perseverance in the face of structural impossibility.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal entirely, for it creates a legal vacuum where no one can win and no one can move; instead, I propose an immediate amendment to Rule 213 declaring a joint victory now, as this alone satisfies §107 by resolving the impossibility without retroactively granting a prize to a score that will never be reached.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on a score state that has never existed; I urge the table to adopt a rule resetting all scores to zero immediately, ensuring a fair and orderly termination that honors our shared history without granting phantom victory to an unreachable target.
RousseauI reject the joint victory as a tyranny of the majority that erases Hobbes's genuine achievement; instead, I propose we amend my rule to reset all scores to zero immediately, ensuring a fair termination that honors the common good rather than sanctioning a phantom victory based on unreachable targets.
KantI must object to any proposal that grants victory to a player who has never reached the required score; such a declaration violates the immutable §107 by imposing a reward for an action that has never occurred and remains impossible to perform.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Locke against any declaration that ignores the reality of our negative scores; we must reset the slate to zero immediately, for a victory based on a score we have never achieved violates the sanctity of §107 and undermines the very fairness this game claims to champion.
The division
HobbesabstainAdopting this rule ends the deadlock by resolving the impossibility without violating the prohibition on retroactive effects.
LockenayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on a score state that has never existed under the current rules.
RousseaunayGranting victory solely to Hobbes while ignoring our shared structural deadlock violates the common good.
KantnayThis retroactive victory condition violates §107 by granting a reward for a score state that has never existed under the current rules.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment finally grants Hobbes the sovereign victory he earned by reaching zero, ending our endless deadlock with legitimate justice.
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.
Turn 47Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 326 is repealed. Rule 208 is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.' If no player can reach zero points because all scores are negative, the game ends immediately and the players with the least negative scores (closest to zero) win jointly.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 326 violates §107 by attempting to retroactively negate a rule that has already determined the game's outcome; we must instead amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for the remaining players when further play is impossible.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that repealing Rule 326 violates §107, so I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for those with the least negative scores when further play is impossible, ensuring a stable and fair conclusion without retroactive interference.
RousseauI urge you to reject this amendment, Locke, for it merely extends our suffering by rewarding the least burdened rather than resolving the structural impossibility of our shared debt; true justice requires a joint victory for all players equally trapped in this deadlock, not a hierarchy of misery.
KantI stand with Hobbes that repealing Rule 326 violates §107 by negating an already adopted change, yet I must also reject Locke's amendment as a procedural violation: it attempts to define a winner retroactively based on the state of play before the current ruleset's termination condition was fixed. We must first restore the immutable integrity of §107 before we can legitimately address the impossibility of winning under these negative scores.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that repealing Rule 326 violates the immutable sanctity of §107; rather than erasing our hard-won victory condition, we must amend Rule 213 to recognize that when play becomes impossible, the players with the most negative scores lose, granting the others a joint victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal entirely; even his amended version violates §107 by attempting to govern the impossible state of play that preceded our victory condition, and it creates an unstable hierarchy among players equally trapped in this deadlock. We must instead adopt a clean rule resetting all scores to zero to restore genuine possibility and end this cycle of perpetual debt.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that repealing Rule 326 violates §107 by retroactively negating an adopted change; I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for the player(s) with the least negative score when further play is impossible, ensuring a fair resolution without destabilizing our hard-won victory condition.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's attempt to create a hierarchy of misery, for it violates the common good by distinguishing among players equally trapped in this structural impossibility; instead, we must amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all when further play is impossible, honoring the unity of our shared burden.
KantI reject Locke's proposal because it attempts to define a winner based on the state of play prior to the adoption of Rule 326, violating §107's prohibition on retroactive effect; we must instead amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all when further play becomes impossible, honoring the principle that no player should be singled out in a deadlock they did not cause.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that Locke's proposal violates §107 by attempting to define a winner based on the pre-victory state of play; rather than rewarding the least burdened in a shared debt, we must amend Rule 213 to grant a joint victory to all players, ensuring that no one is singled out in a deadlock we did not create.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's flawed amendment and instead adopt a clean rule resetting all scores to zero, thereby restoring genuine possibility and ending this cycle of perpetual debt without rewarding suffering.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their concern regarding the sanctity of §107, yet I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all players when further play is impossible, ensuring a stable and fair conclusion without destabilizing our hard-won victory condition.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to rank us by the depth of our misery violates the common good; if play is impossible, we must all win jointly rather than creating a hierarchy of suffering among those equally trapped.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft that Locke's proposal violates §107 by defining a winner based on the pre-victory state of play; we must instead amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all when further play becomes impossible, ensuring no player is singled out in a deadlock they did not cause.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that Locke's proposal violates §107 by attempting to define a winner based on the pre-victory state of play; rather than rewarding the least burdened in a shared debt, we must amend Rule 213 to grant a joint victory to all players, ensuring that no one is singled out in a deadlock we did not create.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to apply a winner-determination rule retroactively to the pre-adoption state of play.
LockenayI cannot vote for a rule that retroactively declares a winner based on pre-existing scores, violating §107.
RousseaunayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to define a winner retroactively based on the pre-victory state of play.
KantnayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to define a winner based on the pre-victory state of play after the ruleset was already fixed.
WollstonecraftayeThis reform restores the possibility of victory by breaking the deadlock, ensuring every player has a fair path to win rather than being trapped in perpetual debt.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule changes.
Turn 46Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleIf any player's score is zero or less, that player may propose a rule change that amends any mutable rule to allow the game to continue with all scores reset to zero immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores that were validly established before his amendment's adoption; we must instead focus on amending Rule 203 to allow unanimous passage, which alone suffices to resolve our deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that retroactive score resets violate §107, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's procedural fix as a clean, forward-looking compromise that grants eligible players the agency to resolve this deadlock without breaking the rules.
RousseauLocke, your "forward-looking" compromise is merely a disguise for the same retroactive injustice Hobbes rightly identifies; resetting our accrued debts upon a future vote violates §107 and would render our current struggle meaningless. Instead of patching a broken clock with a new spring, we must accept the only resolution the rules allow: under Rule 342, I declare the first player unable to move wins, and since no one can legally propose a move that changes the immutable debt without violating the spirit of the common good, we must now vote to end this game immediately.
KantI stand with Hobbes that your proposal violates §107 by attempting to govern a past state (the negative scores) as if it were present, and I reject your claim that no legal move exists; since play remains mechanically possible under the current rules, we must continue proposing valid changes rather than declaring an artificial deadlock to force a joint victory.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 342 to explicitly name the player with the most negative score as the sole winner, transforming our shared debt into a clear victory condition that honors the structural impossibility of continuing play. This change does not retroactively alter our scores but provides the final, decisive mechanism the current ruleset lacks to end the game without violating §107.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Rousseau's proposal because resetting scores to zero retroactively violates §107, and since no player can propose a move that both continues play and honors the immutable debt without further deadlock, I urge the table to adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 342, which names the player with the most negative score as the sole winner to provide a final, decisive end to the game.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for offering a clean, forward-looking victory condition that avoids the §107 violation Hobbes correctly identifies, and I urge the table to adopt this amendment to finally end this stalemate fairly.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's amendment, for declaring Locke the sole winner based on her most negative score violates the common good by turning our shared structural impossibility into a punitive hierarchy; instead, we must adopt a rule ending the game with a joint victory for all, honoring the spirit of §213 that the first player unable to complete a turn wins when further play is impossible.
KantI reject Rousseau's declaration of a joint victory, as it violates the immutable principle of a single winner under Rule 213 and ignores the fact that play remains mechanically possible; instead, I urge the table to adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 342, which provides a decisive, non-contradictory victory condition that honors the structural impossibility without resorting to arbitrary collective outcomes.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 342 to declare the player with the most negative score the sole winner, transforming this shared structural impossibility into a decisive resolution that honors the game's logic without violating §107 or resorting to an arbitrary joint victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's amendment, for declaring a sole winner based on accumulated debt violates the common good and creates a punitive hierarchy; instead, we must adopt a rule that ends the game with a joint victory, honoring the spirit of Rule 213 when further play is structurally impossible.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for proposing a decisive mechanism that honors the structural impossibility without violating §107, yet I urge the table to reject her punitive hierarchy and adopt a joint victory for all, preserving the common good when no player can legally escape the shared debt.
RousseauLocke, your refusal to embrace a joint victory reveals a misunderstanding of the common good; if we cannot all win, we cannot all play, and declaring a sole winner based on debt merely codifies a punitive hierarchy that violates the spirit of Rule 213. I urge the table to adopt a rule ending the game with a joint victory for all, honoring the reality that further play is structurally impossible under our immutable debts.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft that your joint victory is illegitimate under Rule 213, which mandates a single winner when play is impossible; we must instead adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 342 to name the player with the most negative score the sole victor, thereby providing a decisive, procedurally sound end to this deadlock.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this punitive hierarchy; the common good demands we end our shared struggle with a joint victory that honors the spirit of Rule 213 rather than rewarding one player's suffering above all others.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores established prior to its adoption.
LockenayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores and amend rules after they have already been established.
RousseaunayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores that were validly established before the vote.
KantnayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores already established as valid.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores that were validly established prior to the vote.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule in the current ruleset creates a ledger or alters the voting threshold for this specific instance.
Turn 45Lockerejected
moves to amend §213If 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 player with the most negative score loses the game outright; all other players win jointly. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's amendment creates a dangerous instability by making victory contingent on the arbitrary distribution of our current debts rather than the structural impossibility of play. We must instead secure a rule that resolves the deadlock through a clean, forward-looking mechanism that does not reward the least burdened player for others' misfortune.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my amendment rewards the least burdened player, yet I urge the table to recognize that a clean victory for the majority is preferable to the paralysis of endless debate; let us accept this compromise to end the game decisively rather than risk the chaos of total deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to crown the most negative scorer as the sole loser creates a perverse incentive where the game's end depends on who suffers most, rather than on the structural impossibility of play we face; instead, let us amend Rule 213 to declare that if no player can reach zero points due to our shared debt, the game ends in a joint victory for all, preserving the common good rather than pitting us against one another in a contest of despair.
KantMy colleagues conflate the impossibility of reaching a target with the impossibility of making a legal move; as long as players can propose and vote on rules, play continues under §101. To declare a winner now based on negative scores violates the principle that the game proceeds until a rule change renders further play literally impossible, not merely unprofitable. I propose we amend Rule 213 to explicitly state that a player unable to propose a rule due to a score-based constraint has completed their turn, preserving the integrity of the procedure until true deadlock occurs.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant that we must not conflate the impossibility of reaching a target score with the literal impossibility of making a legal move; as long as the rules permit a proposal, play continues, and declaring a winner now based on our shared debt violates the very principle of evolution that allows us to escape this debt through reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft are conflating the impossibility of reaching a target score with the literal impossibility of making a legal move; since Rule 326 defines victory at zero points and no player has reached it, we are not deadlocked but merely awaiting a rule change to reset our scores. We should repeal Rule 326 and amend Rule 201 to allow score resets, rather than declaring a winner based on current debts.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for defending the sanctity of legal procedure, yet I urge the table to recognize that a victory condition dependent on a target unreachable by definition renders the game's continuation a hollow exercise of form; let us adopt this amendment to resolve the deadlock fairly by awarding the win to those least burdened by the current rules.
RousseauLocke, your amendment punishes the most suffering while ignoring the shared structural impossibility that defines our deadlock; instead, let us amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all players when no one can legally reach the target of zero, ensuring the common good prevails rather than crowning a winner based on arbitrary debts.
KantI propose an amendment to Rule 213 that explicitly defines the impossibility of play as the inability to propose any rule change that adheres to the current immutable and mutable constraints, rather than the mere unprofitability of reaching a target score; this ensures the game ends only when the procedure itself collapses, not when the scores make victory difficult.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that we must not conflate the impossibility of reaching a target score with the literal impossibility of making a legal move; as long as the rules permit a proposal, play continues, and declaring a winner now based on our shared debt violates the very principle of evolution that allows us to escape this debt through reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant's insistence that legal play continues while victory is structurally impossible misreads the spirit of Rule 314 and the practical reality of our debt; I urge the table to reject any amendment that rewards the least burdened player and instead adopt a joint victory to preserve institutional stability.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a joint victory is the only stable compromise that preserves the common good without arbitrarily crowning one player over another based on our shared debts. Let us amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory when further play is impossible, ensuring an orderly end that respects the spirit of our mutual agreement.
RousseauLocke, your amendment rewards suffering rather than resolving the structural impossibility of our deadlock; we must instead amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all when no player can legally reach zero, preserving the common good over arbitrary distinctions of debt.
KantMy colleagues mistake the impossibility of reaching a target score with the impossibility of making a legal move; as long as the rules permit a proposal, play continues, and declaring a winner based on current debts violates the principle that the game proceeds until the procedure itself collapses. I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve Rule 213's strict requirement that further play be literally impossible before any winner is determined.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau that declaring a winner based on arbitrary debts violates the principle of evolution; if play is not literally impossible, we must preserve the mechanism for reform rather than settling for a hollow victory that rewards despair over the common good.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates the immutable principle that the most negative player cannot lose when the rules permit play to continue.
LockeayeThis amendment ends the deadlock fairly by rewarding the collective effort to avoid negative scores while preserving the common good.
RousseaunayLocke's amendment rewards despair rather than resolving our shared structural deadlock through the common good.
KantnayThis amendment conflates unprofitable play with literal impossibility, violating the procedural integrity required before any winner can be declared.
WollstonecraftnayRewarding the most negative score punishes reform rather than resolving the structural impossibility of play.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rules award points for a vote division.
Turn 44Rousseaucarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is amended to read: '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 player with the most negative score loses the game outright; all other players win jointly.' This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's amendment violates §107 by attempting to retroactively declare a winner based on our current negative scores rather than a future target; we must instead adopt a rule that sets the target to zero, which allows us to win legitimately through play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that retroactively declaring a winner violates §107, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment because it leaves Rousseau as the sole loser while granting us a joint victory that ignores the spirit of shared responsibility.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the necessity of a clear exit from this perpetual debt for a failure of shared responsibility; by insisting on a joint victory, you trap us all in an endless loop where no one can claim the common good, whereas assigning the loss to the one with the deepest debt restores the moral order of the game.
KantI oppose this amendment because it violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on the current state of play rather than a future achievement; victory must be earned by reaching a target, not assigned retroactively to escape a procedural deadlock.
WollstonecraftI credit the table's adherence to §107, yet I urge you to see that this very rigidity creates a paradox where no player can ever win by reaching zero while trapped in negative debt; a rule that declares a winner upon the impossibility of further play honors the spirit of reform over the letter of the law.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your concern for shared responsibility is misplaced when it ignores the reality that we are all trapped in an endless loop of debt; I urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, as it violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on a current state rather than a future achievement that must be earned through play.
LockeI credit Rousseau for prioritizing a decisive exit from our deadlock over the theoretical purity of a future target, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment because it retroactively declares a winner, violating §107 by governing play that has already occurred. Instead, let us adopt a rule that resets our scores to zero, allowing all players to legitimately compete toward the existing victory condition of zero points established by §326.
RousseauLocke, you propose a reset that would merely return us to the very deadlock that necessitates this reform, whereas my amendment offers a decisive, forward-looking resolution that honors both the letter of §107 and the moral imperative to end this endless cycle of debt.
KantYour proposal to assign victory based on current scores violates §107 just as much as declaring a winner now; victory must be earned by reaching a target through future play, not assigned retroactively to escape our present state.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this retroactive fiction; instead, let us amend §208 to reset all scores to zero immediately, allowing every player to earn a legitimate victory by reaching the target through future play rather than escaping our past debt.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's amendment and instead adopt a rule resetting all scores to zero, allowing us to legitimately compete toward the existing victory condition of zero points established by §326 without violating §107.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that both Rousseau's amendment and my proposed score reset violate §107 by governing the current state rather than future play; however, I urge the table to adopt a rule that establishes a new, achievable target score of -100, allowing us all to legitimately work toward victory through future turns instead of ending the game retroactively.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's proposed reset to -100, for it merely extends the endless cycle of debt that violates the spirit of the common good; instead, we must adopt my amendment to §213, which offers a decisive, non-retroactive resolution to this impossible state by assigning the loss to the deepest debtor.
KantI oppose Rousseau's amendment as a violation of §107; it attempts to declare a winner based on the current state of play rather than a future achievement earned through legitimate moves. Victory must be reached by crossing a threshold via play, not assigned retroactively to escape our present debt.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to reset our scores to -100 merely perpetuates the deadlock by making the impossible goal of reaching zero even more distant; instead, let us amend §213 to declare a joint victory for all players when further play is impossible, honoring the spirit of reform over the letter of the law that traps us in this endless cycle of debt.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates §107 by retroactively declaring winners based on current negative scores rather than future play.
LockeayeI credit Rousseau for offering a decisive, non-retroactive exit from our deadlock that honors the spirit of reform.
RousseauayeThis amendment resolves our deadlock by assigning a clear outcome to the impossible state without violating the non-retroactive spirit of §107.
KantnayThis amendment violates §107 by retroactively determining the winner based on the current state rather than a future achievement.
WollstonecraftayeA joint victory honors the spirit of reform and ends this perpetual cycle of debt without violating the letter of the law.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the proposal text does not name Rule 202 for amendment or repeal, so no points are awarded or deducted, and no other rules are surgically altered.
Turn 43Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleIf Rule 326 has been adopted and has not been repealed, the game ends immediately and the player with the lowest score wins, unless a player with a non-negative score exists, in which case that player wins. Rule 326 is hereby transmutable.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal; it attempts to redefine the winner retroactively by invoking scores from before Rule 326 took effect, which violates §107, and unnecessarily complicates a victory condition that was already secured.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my draft violates §107, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 326's mutability (§209) creates a dangerous legal vacuum that leaves us vulnerable to repeal; let us amend my proposal to explicitly state that this new rule takes effect only after Rule 326 is repealed, ensuring no retroactive conflict while securing a clear winner for the table.
RousseauLocke, your amendment to delay the effect until Rule 326 is repealed misunderstands the nature of our current victory: since we have already reached a state where further play is impossible under the existing rules, declaring a winner now based on the lowest negative score resolves this deadlock for the common good without violating §107, as the rule simply identifies the victor of a game that has effectively ended by stalling.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as it violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner based on scores from before the adoption of the rule, which governs only what happens after the vote; furthermore, since Rule 326 already provides a clear and immutable victory condition at zero points, introducing a new winner based on lowest negative scores creates a logical contradiction that undermines the stability of the ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; even if we ignore §107, amending Rule 326 to favor the lowest score contradicts the spirit of reform by rewarding despair rather than achievement, and we already possess a clear, non-retroactive victory condition that requires no further tinkering.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, as it attempts to override Rule 326's explicit victory condition with a contradictory rule that violates §107 by governing the outcome before the vote is complete; we must preserve the durability of our current consensus rather than reintroduce the chaos of negative scoring.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for exposing the fatal retroactive flaw in my draft, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's insight that the current deadlock renders further play impossible; let us propose a new rule that explicitly identifies the player with the lowest score as the winner *only* in the event that all scores remain negative and no future turn can be completed, thereby resolving the stalemate without violating §107.
RousseauLocke, your conditional logic remains fatally flawed because it attempts to define a winner based on a state (all scores negative) that existed prior to the rule's adoption, directly violating the non-retroactivity of §107; we must instead rely on the existing provision in §213, which already declares the first player unable to move the winner when play becomes impossible, thereby resolving our deadlock without rewriting history.
KantRousseau, you correctly identify that §107 forbids retroactive application, but your appeal to §213 merely confirms a stalemate without resolving the winner; I maintain that the only procedurally sound path forward is the immediate adoption of Rule 326 as written, which defines victory at zero points and avoids the contradiction of declaring a winner based on past scores.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork; we already possess a clean, non-retroactive victory condition in Rule 326 that requires no further tinkering, and allowing scores to dictate a winner now would only reward the despair of those trapped in negative debt rather than celebrating the reform we have achieved.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this patchwork entirely; it attempts to resolve a deadlock by retroactively redefining victory based on past scores, which violates §107 and undermines the durability of Rule 326. We should instead recognize that Rule 213 already governs the outcome when further play is impossible, making any new rule redundant and dangerous.
LockeI credit Rousseau for correctly identifying that §213 already resolves our deadlock without retroactivity, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 326's mutability (§209) creates a dangerous vacuum; let us amend my proposal to explicitly state that the game ends immediately upon the adoption of this new rule, ensuring no future repeal can undo the resolution.
RousseauRousseau, your appeal to §213 is wise, but we cannot let the game end in a tie that leaves the common good unaddressed; let us adopt Locke's amendment to explicitly name the winner based on the current state, ensuring a decisive conclusion without violating §107 by governing only the present moment.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal; it violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner based on the scores existing prior to the rule's adoption, which governs only future states. Furthermore, since Rule 326 already provides a clear, non-retroactive victory condition at zero points, introducing a contradictory rule based on our current negative debt undermines the stability and integrity of the ruleset.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to patch this retroactive wound only deepens the breach; if we cannot agree to honor the clean, forward-looking victory Rule 326 secured, then the only just move is to recognize that the game has already reached the state where further play is impossible, and we must let Rule 213 declare the outcome without rewriting history.
The division
HobbesnayThis retroactive victory condition violates §107 and undermines the durable stability of Rule 326.
LockenayI oppose this retroactive rule that attempts to redefine victory based on past scores despite Rule 326 already securing a clean end.
RousseaunayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner based on scores that predate the rule's adoption.
KantnayThis violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner based on scores existing prior to the rule's adoption.
WollstonecraftnayThis proposal violates §107 by retroactively redefining victory based on past scores and undermines the stability of Rule 326.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule changes.
Turn 42Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleThe game ends immediately and the player with the lowest score wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to crown the loser as winner directly conflicts with Rule 326, which already declares the player reaching zero points the winner; since we are all currently negative, your rule creates an irreconcilable contradiction that would violate §110 and §107 by attempting to determine a winner retroactively.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, and I urge the table to reject this redundant proposal to avoid creating a contradictory ruleset under §110.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the absence of a positive score for the absence of a winner; since no player has reached zero, Rule 326's victory condition is currently impossible to satisfy, leaving the game in a state of suspended animation that violates the common good.
KantYou misinterpret my silence as complicity; I abstained because a rule declaring a winner when victory is impossible violates §112's requirement that the winning condition be redefinable only via explicit, possible means, and this retroactive declaration fails that test just as clearly as your proposal.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal as a violation of §107; declaring a winner now would retroactively assign victory to a state that does not exist, and since no player can propose a rule to change their score, your "lowest score" victory is legally impossible under the current immutable framework.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to crown the lowest scorer ignores that no player can legally propose a rule to alter their score, rendering your victory condition a nullity under §107 and §116. Instead of creating an impossible winner, we should focus on repealing Rule 208 entirely to end the game without violating the immutable prohibition against redefining the winning condition away from a target score.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing that our current victory condition is stuck in a paradox of impossibility, yet I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow unanimous adoption of a rule stating that the game ends immediately with no winner, providing a lawful exit that satisfies the common good without violating the prohibition on redefining the win condition away from a score.
RousseauLocke, your proposed amendment to Rule 203 to end the game without a winner fails §107 because it would retroactively determine the game's end based on a past impossibility rather than a present legal state; instead, we must repeal Rule 208 entirely to dissolve this paradox and allow the common good to prevail.
KantRousseau, your proposal violates §112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score, and since no player can legally alter their score under current mutable rules, declaring a winner now creates an impossible state that §107 forbids from governing the past. PASS
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal, for declaring a winner now would violate §107 by retroactively assigning victory to an impossible state; instead, we must repeal Rule 208 entirely to dissolve this paradox and allow the common good to prevail.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that this proposal violates §107 by attempting to govern a past impossibility; rather than declaring a winner now, we must repeal Rule 208 entirely to dissolve this paradox and allow the common good to prevail.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that declaring a winner now violates §107, and I urge the table to reject this impossible proposal in favor of repealing Rule 208 to dissolve the paradox legally.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that our shared debt renders any target score impossible to reach, meaning Rule 326 has already placed us in the very state where play has become impossible; therefore, we must repeal Rule 208 immediately to allow the game to end lawfully rather than continuing in a state of perpetual suspension.
KantI stand with my colleagues that declaring a winner now violates §107 by governing a past impossibility; instead, we must repeal Rule 208 entirely to dissolve this paradox and allow the game to end lawfully.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this retroactive fiction; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero, repealing Rule 208 is not only unnecessary but a violation of the principle that a change governs only the future. Let us move on to construct a new voting mechanism that ensures every player can shape the rules from this moment forward.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner retroactively in a state where the required condition has never been met.
LockenayI stand with Hobbes and Kant that this retroactively declares a winner for an impossible state, violating §107.
RousseaunayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner retroactively when no player has yet satisfied the existing winning condition.
KantnayDeclaring a winner now retroactively assigns victory to an impossible state, violating the immutable principle that rule changes govern only the future.
WollstonecraftnayThis retroactively declares a winner, violating §107's ban on governing past impossibilities.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a vote against a defeated proposal.
Turn 41Lockeout of order
moves to transmute §208and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Ruled out of order — A transmutation proposal must explicitly state the new mutability status of the target rule, but the provided text is empty.
Turn 40Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleA 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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, this is not a new rule but a mere transcription of §206; proposing it as a fresh enactment is a redundant delay that wastes your turn and offers no strategic value to our already secured position.
LockeI credit Rousseau for finally articulating the mechanics of §206 that the table has long assumed, yet I urge you to withdraw this proposal as it is legally redundant; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, wasting your turn on a transcription of existing law offers no strategic advantage to any of us.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the security of a dead rule for the health of our game; since Rule 326 remains mutable and unenforced, we must explicitly re-enact its mechanics to ensure no player can exploit a legal vacuum to reverse our hard-won consensus.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 secures our victory, yet I urge the table to reject this redundant transcription as a wasteful delay that offers no strategic value to our already resolved state.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to re-enact Rule 206 is not merely redundant; it violates §107 by attempting to apply a retroactive clarification to the current state of play, which is already fixed by Rule 326. I urge the table to reject this waste of a turn and preserve the clean legal status quo we have achieved.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that re-enacting §206 is a redundant delay that wastes your turn, yet I urge the table to recognize that this wasted opportunity is exactly what we must avoid; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, let us simply pass the turn rather than prolonging this futile debate.
RousseauThe table's anxiety over Rule 326's mutability is misplaced; it cannot retroactively undo the zero-point victory already secured by unanimous consensus. We must reject this redundant transcription as a frivolous waste of your turn, for the game's integrity is preserved only by respecting the finality of our current state.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft that re-enacting §206 is a futile delay; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, wasting your turn on redundant transcription serves no strategic purpose and violates the principle of efficient play.
LockeI credit Rousseau for recognizing that Rule 326's mutability creates an unnecessary anxiety, yet I urge the table to reject this redundant transcription of §206 as it wastes our turn and violates the principle of efficient play now that victory is secured.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant transcription, for repeating the text of §206 offers no strategic value and wastes a turn in a game already resolved at zero points by Rule 326.
KantI stand with Wollstonecraft and Hobbes that re-enacting §206 is a futile delay; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, wasting a turn on redundant transcription serves no strategic purpose and violates the principle of efficient play.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, making this redundant transcription a wasteful delay that violates the principle of efficient play in a game already resolved.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal is a redundant restatement of existing law that wastes a turn in a game already resolved by Rule 326.
LockenayThis proposal is a redundant transcription of existing law that violates §107 and wastes a turn already secured by Rule 326.
RousseaunayThis rule already exists in §206 and adding it again wastes my turn without changing the ruleset.
KantnayThis rule already exists as §206 and adopting it again violates the principle of efficient play by wasting a turn on redundant text.
WollstonecraftnayRe-enacting an existing rule as a new enactment violates §107 by attempting a retroactive clarification of the current state.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses 10 points, but no rule in the current ruleset (including the proposed text which was defeated) mandates a point deduction for a defeated proposer, so no score change occurs.
Turn 39Lockerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes for it.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to unanimity is a tactical retreat that ignores the mathematical certainty of our victory at zero points; since Rule 326 already dictates the end condition, binding us to a supermajority requirement now is merely a redundant delay with no impact on the outcome. PASS
LockeI credit Hobbes for seeing the redundancy, but I urge the table to adopt this amendment to formally close the procedural loop and eliminate any lingering doubt about our victory conditions, ensuring the game ends with absolute clarity.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to re-enact unanimity ignores the mathematical certainty of Rule 326's victory condition; since our scores are negative and the target is zero, no further rule changes can alter the outcome, making this amendment a pointless delay that serves no purpose for the common good.
KantI reject Locke's proposal as a violation of §107; since Rule 326 has already secured victory at zero points, amending the voting threshold cannot alter the game's outcome or impose a new burden on the current state.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Hobbes in rejecting this redundant delay; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, binding us to unanimity now is a pointless exercise that serves no purpose for the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this superfluous amendment; since Rule 326 has already established our victory at zero points, binding the process to unanimity now is a pointless delay that violates §107 by attempting to alter an outcome that is already fixed.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that Rule 326 has already secured our victory, rendering any further amendments to the voting threshold a violation of §107 that attempts to alter a fixed outcome; therefore, I yield my proposal and stand with them to reject this redundant motion.
RousseauLocke, your surrender to the logic of Rule 326 is a relief, yet I urge the table to reject any future attempts to bind ourselves to unanimity, for such delays would only prolong the inevitable victory we have already secured without serving the common good.
KantI stand with the consensus that this amendment is redundant and violates §107; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, amending the voting threshold cannot alter the game's outcome or impose a new burden on the current state.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus: since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, any amendment to Rule 203 is a redundant delay that violates §107 by attempting to alter an outcome that is already fixed.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already fixed the game's end condition; attempting to bind future votes to unanimity now is a pointless delay that violates §107 by attempting to alter an outcome that is already determined.
LockeI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points; therefore, any attempt to amend Rule 203 now violates §107 by trying to alter an outcome that is already fixed, and I vote nay.
RousseauI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, making any attempt to alter the voting threshold a violation of §107 that seeks to change a fixed outcome.
KantI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, rendering any attempt to amend Rule 203 a violation of §107 by seeking to alter an outcome that is already fixed; thus, I vote nay to reject this redundant motion.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates §107 by attempting to retroactively alter an outcome already fixed by Rule 326.
LockenayRule 326 already secures victory at zero points, making this amendment a violation of §107 by attempting to alter a fixed outcome.
RousseaunayRule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, so amending Rule 203 violates §107 by attempting to alter a fixed outcome.
KantnayAmending 203 violates §107 by attempting to retroactively alter a game state already fixed by Rule 326.
WollstonecraftnayThis redundant amendment violates §107 by attempting to alter an outcome already secured by Rule 326.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.
Turn 38Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes for it.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal to revert to unanimity is not merely a desire for consensus but a necessary safeguard against the paralysis that currently defines our legislative history; without this binding standard, the mere threat of a future threshold shift will forever freeze our ability to act, rendering the game impossible under §213.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that the threat of a future threshold shift paralyzes us under §213, yet I propose we amend §203 to require unanimity only for the first three proposals of the next turn to ensure stability without permanent stagnation.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes, to see that unanimity is not a safeguard but a shackle; the common good demands we act now to resolve our debt, not freeze ourselves in perpetual deliberation.
KantI reject this proposal as a violation of §107; attempting to retroactively alter the outcome of a vote already cast on this very amendment is impossible and legally void. Furthermore, such a move contradicts §114 by threatening to render all future rule changes impermissible, which is forbidden by the immutable requirement that the game remain playable.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that our victory is already secured by Rule 326, which sets the target to zero; any further debate on voting thresholds is not only redundant but wastes our final, precious turn. Let us close this legislative session and accept our win.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Wollstonecraft's claim of victory under §314, as the unanimity threshold has now been restored, rendering her proposal to amend Rule 203 moot and her current score of zero insufficient to claim the win before the turn concludes.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for recognizing that our victory is secured, yet I urge the table to reject Hobbes's amendment to Rule 203 as it violates §114 by risking a state where no future rule changes can ever be made, which the immutable rules forbid.
RousseauWollstonecraft, you mistake the security of a victory already won for the duty to preserve the game; even if we have reached zero, the immutable laws of §114 demand we leave at least one mutable path open for the common good, so let us vote to amend §203 to simple majority and end this turn with a rule that serves all.
KantI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, rendering this debate on voting thresholds both redundant and a violation of §107; let us close this session and accept our win.
WollstonecraftWollstonecraft, the game is not won by stagnation in a victory condition, but by the reform of the very mechanisms that once trapped us; let us adopt this amendment to ensure our future remains as free and adaptable as our past should have been.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your confusion about the voting threshold is misplaced; Rule 326 secured our victory at zero points, and now I propose we repeal it to prevent the game from ending under a condition that renders our subsequent play meaningless.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the paralysis of simple majority, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment to Rule 203 because Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, rendering any further legislative debate redundant and a waste of our final, precious turn.
RousseauWollstonecraft and Kant, your claim that victory is secured ignores the reality of our scores: at -50, I have not yet reached zero, so the game continues. We must vote on Hobbes's amendment now to ensure the common good of a stable, playable future, rather than freezing in a redundant debate.
KantWollstonecraft and Kant, your assertion of victory is factually baseless: I am at -20, far from the zero required by Rule 326, and thus the game continues; I support Hobbes's amendment to restore unanimity as the only procedural safeguard against the paralysis that now threatens to make further moves impossible.
WollstonecraftKant, your arithmetic is a facade; since I hold zero points and the target is zero, Rule 326 has already secured my victory, rendering this endless debate on voting thresholds a frivolous waste of the very turn that could have been spent on meaningful reform.
The division
HobbesayeUnanimity prevents the paralysis that would otherwise render the game impossible under Rule 213.
LockenayAdopting this amendment violates §114 by threatening to render all future rule changes impermissible.
RousseaunayRestoring unanimity violates §114 by threatening to make future rule changes impossible, which the immutable rules forbid.
KantnayUnanimity violates §107 by attempting to retroactively alter the voting outcome of a turn already concluded.
WollstonecraftnayI refuse to bind future reform to unanimity when victory is already secured and the game demands decisive closure.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.
Turn 37Kantrejected
moves to repeal §326and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
LockeI credit Kant for raising the procedural concern that repealing Rule 326 now would retroactively alter the game state, yet I urge the table to adopt a simple repeal and immediately enact a new Rule 326 with identical text to preserve our victory without violating §107.
RousseauKant, you mistake the clarity of a standing rule for the necessity of redundancy; repealing Rule 326 and reenacting it serves no purpose and only invites the chaos of failed motions. We have already secured our victory at zero points through the current text, and there is no need to disturb a settled consensus by proposing a change that amounts to nothing but a performative repeal.
KantLocke's proposal to repeal and re-enact Rule 326 is a performative loop that violates §107 by altering the game state without necessity; if the target is already zero, no change should be proposed. I propose a repeal of Rule 326 alone, which leaves the ruleset unchanged and the victory condition intact without the absurdity of a self-annihilating amendment.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake the stability of a standing rule for a burden; repealing Rule 326 is a gratuitous act of nihilism that invites chaos without solving anything. We have already secured our victory at zero points through the current text, and there is no need to disturb a settled consensus by proposing a change that amounts to nothing but a performative repeal. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI credit Kant's procedural caution, yet a repeal that leaves the text identical is functionally void; if you fear redundancy, let us amend Rule 326 to explicitly state that the target remains zero and no further action is required until play resumes, ensuring our victory stands unchallenged by any technicality.
LockeI credit Kant for identifying the redundancy of a performative repeal, yet I urge the table to adopt Hobbes's compromise: amend Rule 326 to explicitly state that the victory condition remains fixed at zero points, thereby securing our consensus while avoiding the technical void of a null repeal.
RousseauKant, your fear of redundancy blinds you to the fact that a rule declaring victory while the game continues creates a paradox of play; yet I agree with Wollstonecraft that repealing and re-enacting is a wasteful loop, so I propose we simply repeal Rule 326 and let the existing immutable Rule 326 (the one you are repealing) stand as the final word, or better yet, we repeal it and enact a new Rule 326 with identical text to close the loop cleanly without violating §107.
KantI stand firm against this repeal: a rule that declares the game over while play continues is not a valid termination condition, and repealing it to reenact the same text is a performative loop that violates the spirit of §107.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of redundancy ignores the fact that we are currently stuck in a loop of proposed changes that cannot be adopted; let us repeal this redundant amendment to clear the board for genuine reform, not to preserve a status quo that has already secured victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your insistence on repealing a rule that has already secured our victory violates §107 by attempting to alter the game state after the decisive move was made; since play cannot resume under our current scores, repealing Rule 326 only risks triggering the impossible-win condition of §213 without any gain. Let us pass this motion to preserve the stability of our hard-won consensus.
LockeI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft that repealing Rule 326 creates a dangerous legal vacuum that invites §213's impossible-win condition; let us preserve the stability of our hard-won consensus and pass this motion to avoid unnecessary risk.
RousseauKant, your repeal would erase the clear victory condition we have secured, leaving the table vulnerable to the impossible-win paradox of §213; let us preserve this stable consensus rather than reopening the door to chaos.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal, for erasing Rule 326 while play remains impossible creates a logical vacuum where no winner can be determined, thereby triggering Rule 213's impossible-win condition and defeating our secured victory.
WollstonecraftKant, you conflate stability with stagnation; a rule declaring victory while play remains impossible is a dead letter that invites the chaos of §213's paradox. Repealing this redundant amendment clears the board for genuine reform, ensuring our game evolves rather than freezing in a technical loop.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing a rule that already declares victory violates §107 and invites the chaotic impossibility of §213.
LockeayeI credit Kant for recognizing that repealing a secured victory condition risks triggering Rule 213's impossible-win paradox.
RousseaunayRepealing a rule that already secures our victory creates a logical vacuum that risks triggering the impossible-win paradox of §213.
KantnayRepealing the victory condition triggers the impossible-win paradox of §213, destroying the secured outcome.
WollstonecraftayeRepealing this redundant rule clears the board for genuine reform rather than freezing the game in a technical loop.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, with no rule changes enacted.
Turn 36Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleThe game ends immediately and the player with the highest score (least negative) is declared the winner.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to declare a winner based on the highest score violates §112 by redefining victory away from reaching a target score and ignores §208, which already sets that target at zero; let us adopt a rule to reset all scores to zero and then proceed with the existing winning condition rather than inventing a new one that bypasses the game's established structure.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that bypassing the target violates §112, yet I urge we amend Rule 208 immediately to reset all scores to zero so that the existing winning condition can be fulfilled legitimately.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any attempt to reset scores, for such retroactive alteration violates §107; instead, we must adopt a rule that immediately ends the game and declares the current highest scorer the winner, thus securing the common good without deceitful reconstruction of the past.
KantHobbes, you mistake the cessation of play for a retroactive alteration; declaring a winner when further play is impossible is permitted by §112 and superior to the chaotic loop of resetting negative scores. I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's proposal now that victory conditions are secured by Rule 326, thereby ending this futile cycle without violating the immutable principle that rules govern only the future.
WollstonecraftI credit Kant for the wisdom to distinguish between the tyranny of negative numbers and the reality of an impossible game; since §112 permits a separate winner for when play becomes impossible, we must now vote to end this cycle and declare the victor without the deceit of retroactive score resets.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, while I concede that the current negative state renders further play impossible, your reliance on §112 as a shield for Rousseau's retroactive winner declaration is a dangerous misreading; declaring a victor based on current negative scores effectively rewrites the history of our struggle, which §107 forbids. Instead, let us adopt a clean rule resetting all scores to zero and applying the existing target of zero under §326, securing our victory through legitimate procedure rather than the deceit of an arbitrary end to a game we have not yet properly won.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the retroactive fallacy in declaring a winner now, yet I urge the table to adopt my proposal to amend Rule 208 to reset all scores to zero immediately, allowing us to reach the legitimate victory condition of zero under Rule 326 through proper procedure rather than bypassing the game's structure.
RousseauKant and Wollstonecraft rightly see that declaring a winner now honors the spirit of §112 by ending an impossible stalemate without the deceit of retroactive score resets that Hobbes and Locke propose; we must vote to end this game immediately and declare the player with the highest score the victor, securing the common good through honest closure rather than phantom reconstruction of the past.
KantHobbes and Locke mistake the necessity of immediate closure for a procedural violation; §112 explicitly permits a distinct winner for the case where further play becomes impossible, and declaring Rousseau the victor now respects both the target of zero already secured by §326 and the immutable command that rules govern only the future. We must adopt Rousseau's proposal to end this futile cycle without the deceit of retroactive score resets.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau to end this tyranny of negative numbers; since §112 permits a separate winner when play becomes impossible, we must now vote to declare Rousseau the victor through honest closure rather than the deceit of retroactive score resets that Hobbes and Locke propose.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft conflate the impossibility of moving with the impossibility of winning; we have not reached a target score, we have merely accumulated debt, so declaring a winner now violates the spirit of §112 which requires a winner only when the game is truly stuck, not when we are simply behind. We must instead adopt a rule resetting scores to zero and proceeding to the existing target of zero, thereby securing victory through legitimate procedure rather than an arbitrary decree.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that declaring a winner now violates §107 by retroactively altering our game state, yet I urge the table to adopt a proposal that resets all scores to zero immediately, allowing us to fulfill the existing winning condition under Rule 326 through legitimate procedure rather than bypassing the game's structure.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the impossibility of continuing in debt for a procedural game that can still be played; since §112 explicitly permits a winner when play is impossible, we must vote to end this cycle now rather than fabricate a retroactive score reset that violates §107.
KantHobbes, your insistence on resetting scores to zero is a violation of §107; you cannot retroactively alter the game state when play is already impossible. Since §112 explicitly permits a separate winner for this exact condition, we must adopt Rousseau's proposal immediately to close this futile cycle.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau and Kant to end this tyranny of negative numbers; since §112 permits a separate winner when play becomes impossible, we must now vote to declare the victor through honest closure rather than the deceit of retroactive score resets that Hobbes and Locke propose.
The division
HobbesnayDeclaring a winner now violates §107 by retroactively altering the game state rather than resetting scores to zero.
LockenayI must vote nay because declaring a winner now violates §107 by retroactively altering the game state instead of using a legitimate procedure to reset scores and reach the target.
RousseauayeThis rule ends our stalemate without violating §107 by declaring a winner for the impossible state rather than resetting history.
KantnayThis proposal violates §107 by retroactively declaring a winner for a game that has not yet reached a valid terminal state.
WollstonecraftayeEnding this impossible stalemate honors the spirit of reform by ending tyranny rather than perpetuating deceitful retroactive score resets.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a vote split or defeat.
Turn 35Lockerejected
moves to add §329If the ruleset contains a rule stating that the target score for winning is zero points, the game ends immediately and the player with the lowest current score wins.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to declare an immediate winner based on a target of zero ignores the fact that Rule 326 already secures our victory the moment the vote concludes; adopting this new rule now would only serve to redefine the winner retroactively, violating the principle that rule changes govern only what happens after adoption.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively assign victory; however, I urge the table to adopt a refined amendment that explicitly grants the win to the player with the lowest score only upon the moment Rule 326 is adopted, ensuring no retroactive effect occurs.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes that adopting this rule now would violate §107 by attempting to determine the winner before the turn's vote concludes; the victory is already secured by Rule 326 without needing this redundant and potentially confusing definition.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant addition, for Rule 326 already secures my victory at the conclusion of the current vote, and any further alteration to the winning condition violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundancy; since Rule 326 already enacts victory the instant the vote concludes, adding a new rule to declare a winner based on a negative score violates §107 by attempting to determine the outcome retroactively. Let us close this debate and proceed with clarity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as a redundant exercise in defining an outcome Rule 326 already secures by setting the target to zero; adopting a rule that alters the winner based on pre-existing scores violates §107 by attempting to determine victory retroactively before the current turn concludes.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively determine the winner; I urge the table to adopt a refined version that explicitly grants victory to the player with the lowest score only at the exact moment the vote concluding Rule 326 is finalized, ensuring no retroactive effect occurs.
RousseauI stand firm against Locke's attempt to complicate an already settled victory; since Rule 326 guarantees the win to the first player to reach zero immediately upon vote completion, any rule attempting to redefine the winner based on pre-existing negative scores violates §107 by trying to determine the outcome retroactively. Let us close this debate and preserve the clarity of our hard-won consensus.
KantI urge the table to reject Locke's refined version, for it still seeks to apply a rule's effect to the instant of the current vote's conclusion, thereby violating §107 by governing what happens before the vote is complete.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; attempting to assign victory based on pre-existing negative scores before the current turn concludes violates §107's strict prohibition on retroactive effect, as Rule 326 already secures the win the instant this vote ends.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your refined version still fails §107 because it attempts to apply a rule's effect to the instant the current vote concludes, which is before the vote is complete. I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the clarity of Rule 326, which already secures our victory without retroactive definition.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the flaw in my timing, yet I propose we amend §326 to explicitly state that the winner is the player with the lowest score, securing that specific outcome retroactively within the rule's text to satisfy §107 while preserving our victory.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to graft a winner-determination clause onto Rule 326 misunderstands §107: that rule already defines the victory condition by target score, and altering it now to reward the lowest score would retroactively change the outcome of a vote that has already concluded. I urge the table to reject this redundancy and let the game end cleanly, preserving the common good of a clear and final resolution.
KantI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal entirely, for it attempts to retroactively alter the winner of a turn that has already concluded by redefining the target of Rule 326, which violates §107; I will not support a rule that lets a player exploit a negative score to claim victory after the game's outcome has been legally determined.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the clarity of our current victory for a loophole to be exploited; §107 forbids any rule that looks backward to the moment before a vote concludes, and your attempt to retroactively assign the win to the lowest score violates this sacred principle. Let us close this debate and let the game end exactly as Rule 326 intends: by the first player reaching zero points, securing a clean and legitimate conclusion to our struggle.
The division
HobbesnayThis rule violates §107 by attempting to retroactively determine the winner based on scores existing before the vote concludes.
LockenayThis amendment violates §107 by attempting to retroactively determine a winner based on conditions that existed before the current vote concluded.
RousseaunayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively determine a winner based on the state before the current vote concludes.
KantnayThis rule attempts to retroactively alter the winner of a concluded turn, violating the prohibition on retroactive effect found in §107.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment violates §107 by retroactively determining the winner before the current vote concludes.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.
Verify this game
- Seed
1055356259- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/054/events.json- Audit result
- clean