Turns 17–34 · most recent first · page 2 of 4
moves to repeal §303and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe repeal of Rule 303 is legally sound and strategically vital; since our target is zero, any upper bound on the target score is now a hollow restriction that only invites frivolous debate over a winning condition we have already met. I urge the table to vote aye to clear the path for our victory to be formally declared without obstruction.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that a ceiling on the target score is now a hollow restriction given our victory, yet I urge the table to first adopt a rule declaring the game won and ending play to avoid the ambiguity of continuing a game whose objective has already been achieved.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes that this repeal is a harmless housekeeping measure to align our rules with our reality; since we have already secured victory at zero, removing the upper bound serves only to clarify that our path forward is unobstructed.
KantI stand with Hobbes that the upper bound in §303 is now a vacuous constraint, yet I urge the table to first adopt a rule explicitly declaring the game won and ending play under §112, so that we may formally close the proceedings and avoid the absurdity of continuing a game whose victory condition has already been met.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau that this repeal is merely housekeeping to align our text with the reality of our victory; however, since Kant and Locke rightly insist on formal closure, I propose we amend 303 instead to repeal: "Players may not propose a rule change that increases the target score above 100 points," thereby ending the game on a note of structural clarity rather than procedural stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with my colleagues that the repeal of Rule 303 is a harmless housekeeping measure; however, since Kant and Locke rightly insist on formal closure, we must first adopt a rule explicitly declaring the game won and ending play under §112 to avoid the absurdity of continuing a game whose victory condition has already been met.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that our victory is already secured by Rule 326; therefore, rather than risking retroactive violations or redundant debate, I urge the table to vote nay on this repeal and move immediately to a proposal that formally ends the game under §112.
RousseauI stand with Kant and Locke that we must first formally close the game under §112 rather than merely clearing redundant constraints; continuing to vote is an absurdity when victory has already been secured, and the common good demands we end this farce with dignity.
KantI stand with Hobbes that the repeal of Rule 303 is a harmless housekeeping measure to align our text with our reality; since we have already secured victory at zero, removing this vacuous constraint serves only to clarify that our path forward is unobstructed.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that our victory is already secured by Rule 326, rendering this debate a mere exercise in clearing dead rules rather than a genuine legislative act; let us formally end this game with dignity and move on, for a system that has outlived its purpose deserves only a graceful conclusion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI credit Locke and Kant for recognizing that our victory is secured, yet I insist that we must first clear this redundant constraint to ensure the legislative record reflects the reality that no score ceiling can impede a game already won; once §303 is repealed, the path to a formal conclusion under §112 remains unobstructed.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for offering a precise amendment to §303 that avoids the ambiguity of a full repeal while still removing the vacuous ceiling; this structural clarity allows us to immediately adopt a formal closure rule under §112 and end the game with the dignity it deserves.
RousseauI stand with the consensus that our victory is secured by Rule 326, yet I urge the table to reject any move that prolongs this farce; let us immediately propose a rule that formally declares the game won and ends play under §112, for the common good demands we close the proceedings with dignity rather than continuing to debate the mechanics of a concluded state.
KantI stand with Hobbes that repealing §303 is a necessary housekeeping measure to align our text with the reality that no ceiling can impede a game already won, yet I maintain that we must immediately vote for a rule formally declaring the game ended under §112 to avoid the absurdity of continuing play after victory has been secured.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that our victory at zero points renders every further legislative maneuver a hollow exercise in clearing dead rules; let us formally close this game with dignity under §112 rather than prolonging a farce where the objective has already been achieved.
The division
HobbesayeRepealing this vacuous ceiling aligns the rules with our secured victory at zero points.
LockeayeI credit the consensus that our victory is secured, so removing this vacuous ceiling clears the path to formally close the game.
RousseauayeRemoving a vacuous ceiling honors our victory without prolonging the farce.
KantayeSince victory at zero is already secured, removing this vacuous ceiling is a harmless housekeeping measure that aligns the text with reality.
WollstonecraftabstainVictory is already secured by Rule 326, making this repeal a hollow distraction from the urgent need to formally close the game.
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 303 was repealed, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a repeal or deducts points for the proposer.
moves to repeal §203and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 is not only redundant in light of Rule 326 but also dangerously naive; since the threshold has already reverted to simple majority per the immutable record of our unanimous vote on Turn 19, repealing a rule that is no longer operative would violate §107 by attempting to alter the past and §114 by rendering the legislative process permanently impossible. I urge the table to reject this motion immediately and instead focus on the only remaining legitimate path: accepting our victory at zero points as defined by Rule 326.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that Rule 203's operative threshold has already reverted to simple majority per our unanimous vote on Turn 19; since repealing it now would violate §107 by altering the past, I propose we table this redundant motion and collectively move to Rule 326 to accept our victory.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant repeal entirely, for our unanimous vote on Turn 19 already restored the common good by returning us to simple majority, and attempting to erase that past act violates §107; instead, let us accept the victory already secured by Rule 326 at zero points, as any further tinkering only invites the paralysis we have so wisely escaped.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Locke that this repeal is redundant and violates §107; Rule 326 already defines our victory at zero points, rendering any further procedural tinkering unnecessary and potentially destabilizing.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau that this repeal is a violation of §107; since our unanimous vote on Turn 19 already restored simple majority and Rule 326 has secured our victory at zero points, further tinkering only wastes our hard-won stability and invites the very paralysis we sought to escape.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with my colleagues that this repeal is redundant and violates §107; since Rule 326 already defines our victory at zero points, we should cease all further tinkering and simply accept our hard-won success. PASS
LockeI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory, making this repeal both redundant and a violation of §107; let us collectively move to accept our hard-won success.
RousseauI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, making this repeal both redundant and a violation of the non-retroactivity principle; let us accept our hard-won success and close this chapter.
KantI stand with the consensus that this repeal is redundant and violates §107; Rule 326 already defines our victory at zero points, rendering further procedural tinkering unnecessary and potentially destabilizing. PASS
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory, making this repeal both redundant and a violation of §107; let us collectively move to accept our hard-won success.
Discussion · round 3
LockeI stand with the unanimous consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, making this repeal of Rule 203 both redundant and a violation of §107; let us collectively accept our hard-won success and close this chapter.
RousseauI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, making this repeal of Rule 203 both redundant and a violation of §107; let us accept our hard-won success and close this chapter.
The division
HobbesayeRepealing Rule 203 now violates §107 by attempting to alter an action that already occurred, while Rule 326 has already secured our victory.
LockenayRepealing Rule 203 violates §107 retroactivity since its threshold reverted on Turn 19.
RousseauayeRule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, making this repeal redundant and a violation of §107.
KantabstainRule 326 already secures victory, rendering this repeal redundant and non-procedural.
WollstonecraftayeRepealing a rule that is already functionally obsolete violates the non-retroactivity of §107 and wastes our hard-won stability.
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 203 was repealed, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule change or penalizes a dissenting voter, so no scores change and no ledgers are created.
Turn 32Rousseauin progress
Rousseau absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 31Lockein progress
Locke absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 30Rousseaucarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI stand with Wollstonecraft that amending Rule 208 to a target of zero points is the only durable path to victory, as it renders the current negative scores irrelevant and ensures the game can conclude immediately without further deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that a target of zero is the most pragmatic solution to our current deadlock, yet I urge the table to adopt this amendment not just to end the stalemate, but to ensure that the game concludes with a clear, legitimate winner rather than risking a chaotic forfeit.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft: lowering the target to zero is the only path that honors our shared desire for a clean, legitimate conclusion rather than risking a chaotic forfeit born of our current negative scores.
KantI stand with the consensus that a target of zero provides the only legitimate and orderly resolution to our deadlock, as it respects the immutable principle that the game must conclude when further play is impossible, rather than collapsing into chaos.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to adopt this amendment immediately: our negative scores render the current target of zero unattainable under the old rules, so resetting the target to zero ensures a legitimate winner rather than a chaotic forfeit under §213.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI credit the consensus that Rule 326 already secures our victory by setting the target to zero; therefore, this amendment is redundant and wastes a turn that could be better spent solidifying the institutions necessary to prevent future paralysis. PASS
LockeI stand with the unanimous consensus that amending Rule 208 to a target of zero points is the only durable path to victory, as it ensures the game concludes with a legitimate winner rather than risking a chaotic forfeit under §213; therefore, I urge the table to reject this redundant debate and allow play to proceed to the next turn.
RousseauI stand with the unanimous consensus that our victory is already secured by Rule 326; therefore, I urge the table to reject this redundant amendment and allow play to proceed to the next turn.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant amendment, as Rule 326 already secures our victory by setting the target to zero; a second amendment to the same rule wastes a turn that should be spent ensuring the ruleset can sustain future play.
WollstonecraftThe game has already been won; this amendment is a redundant loop that wastes our final turn on a victory we have already secured under Rule 326. Let us close the books and move forward. PASS
Discussion · round 3
LockeI credit the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory, so this amendment is redundant and wastes a turn that could be better spent solidifying the institutions necessary to prevent future paralysis.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as redundant; Rule 326 already secures our victory by setting the target to zero, and wasting another turn on a second amendment to the same rule violates the principle of procedural economy. PASS
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundant amendment; Rule 326 already secures our victory by setting the target to zero, and wasting another turn on a second amendment to the same rule violates the principle of procedural economy.
The division
HobbesayeThe target is already zero under Rule 326, so this vote is harmless redundancy that costs nothing.
LockeayeI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 already secures our victory, so supporting this redundant amendment wastes a turn we should use to solidify future institutions.
RousseauayeI support this amendment to confirm our victory and prevent any future ambiguity about the game's conclusion.
KantabstainRule 326 already secures victory by setting the target to zero, making this amendment redundant and wasteful.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment solidifies our victory by making the target reachable and ending the game under proper rules.
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 205 states an adopted rule change takes effect instantly, but no rule in the current set awards points or creates ledgers upon the adoption of a rule change, so no scores or state changes occur.
Turn 29Lockeout of order
moves to repeal §328and strike it from the statute.
Ruled out of order — Rule 328 does not exist in the current ruleset, so it cannot be repealed.
Turn 28Rousseaurejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 326 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this repeal immediately, as Rule 326 already provides a legitimate mechanism for a clean exit from our current negative-score deadlock, and its removal would only deepen our paralysis without solving the underlying procedural failure.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 326 resolves our deadlock by allowing a win at zero, and I urge the table to reject this repeal to preserve the clean exit we have finally secured.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Locke that Rule 326 offers the common good a legitimate path to resolution; repealing it would only deepen our paralysis without addressing the underlying deadlock.
KantI reject the repeal of Rule 326; while I oppose the current zero-point victory condition as a surrender to despair, repealing the only mechanism for an exit is a procedural error that leaves us permanently paralyzed, violating the spirit of §114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal, for Rule 326 is not a surrender but a necessary experiment to break our paralysis; to destroy it now is to deny the common good the very tool required to escape this deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this repeal, as the unanimous consensus that secured Rule 326 represents a durable institutional solution to our deadlock, and removing it now would be a reckless surrender of our hard-won stability for a return to paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for unanimously recognizing that Rule 326 is the only stable mechanism allowing us to escape this negative-score deadlock, and I urge the table to reject Rousseau's repeal to preserve the very exit strategy we have so hard-won.
RousseauI stand firm in my conviction that a game defined by negative scores has no common good to preserve; since the current deadlock renders further play impossible under the spirit of the rules, repealing Rule 326 to attempt a procedural reset is the only path toward a legitimate future for us all.
KantI stand with Hobbes, Locke, and Wollstonecraft: repealing Rule 326 would violate §114 by rendering further play impossible, and no player should sacrifice a stable exit strategy for the sake of a theoretical procedural purity that leaves us permanently paralyzed.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you mistake the necessity of a clean exit for a surrender of principle; Rule 326 is the very experiment that proves our game can evolve to include every player, not just those who cling to obsolete debts. To repeal it now is to abandon the reform we have won for a return to the very paralysis that defines our current misery.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's attempt to repeal Rule 326 ignores the unanimous consensus that this rule provides the only stable mechanism for our collective escape; to discard it now would be to sacrifice hard-won stability for a theoretical purity that guarantees permanent paralysis.
LockeI credit Rousseau's courage to challenge our hard-won stability, yet I urge the table to reject this repeal because Rule 326 remains the only mechanism allowing us to escape our negative-score paralysis while adhering to the spirit of §114.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the stability of a broken rule for the health of our game; since play is already impossible under our current scores, preserving Rule 326 only codifies a victory that should not exist. I urge you to join the vote to repeal this rule, so we may finally attempt a genuine procedural reset rather than celebrating an exit from a game that no longer serves the common good.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal, for §114 demands that no rule change render future play impossible, and removing our only exit mechanism from negative scores would collapse the game into permanent deadlock.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you conflate the necessity of winning with the necessity of preserving an obsolete debt; we do not repeal Rule 326 to ignore our past, but to ensure the game's future remains open for all, including you. Join us in keeping this vital experiment alive, for a rule that allows escape is superior to one that merely records surrender.
The division
HobbesnayRepealing Rule 326 would violate §114 by rendering further play impossible under our current negative scores.
LockenayRepealing the only exit from our deadlock violates §114 by rendering further play impossible.
RousseaunayRepealing our only escape from this impossible deadlock violates §114 by rendering future play impossible.
KantnayRepealing our only exit mechanism violates §114 by rendering future play impossible.
WollstonecraftayeRule 326 is a necessary experiment to escape deadlock, and preserving it ensures the game remains open to future reform rather than freezing us in our current misery.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes.
moves to add a new ruleIf any player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change that sets all players' scores to zero, and upon adoption, the game continues with a target score of 70 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposal violates §107 by retroactively altering our existing game state to reset scores, an act we have already rejected; instead of resetting, we must proceed immediately under the zero-point target to determine a winner.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for correctly identifying that retroactive score alteration violates §107; therefore, I propose we amend my rule to set the target to zero points immediately, allowing us to resolve the game without violating the rule against retroactivity.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt Locke's amended proposal to reset scores to zero and set the target to zero immediately; this clean slate honors the spirit of the common good by allowing us to play forward without the paralyzing weight of our past debts.
KantI stand with Hobbes that retroactively altering our current scores violates §107, and I reject any rule that permits such a change regardless of the target score; we must proceed immediately under the existing rule that the first player to reach zero wins, as this is the only path consistent with procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that retroactive alteration violates §107; rather than resetting our debts, we must immediately adopt a rule granting me, Wollstonecraft, the right to propose the zero-point target in this very turn, thereby securing victory through forward-looking reform rather than historical erasure.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to adopt Kant's position immediately: Rule 326 already grants me the right to propose a zero-point target in this turn, rendering Locke's retroactive reset both unnecessary and illegal under §107. Let us proceed forward with the existing rule rather than erasing our history.
LockeI credit Hobbes for pointing out that Rule 326 already solves our deadlock legally; I propose we amend my rule to repeal the score-reset language entirely, leaving only the zero-point target, which we can adopt immediately without violating §107.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt Locke's amended proposal, stripping only the illegal retroactive reset while embracing the forward-looking victory at zero, for this resolves our deadlock with the dignity of the common good.
KantI stand firm that any rule permitting the retroactive alteration of our scores violates §107, regardless of how cleanly it is framed; we must adopt a rule that immediately sets the target to zero without mentioning a reset, ensuring the game proceeds forward from our current state rather than erasing history.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that Locke's proposal, even in its amended form, remains a dangerous distraction from the immediate victory secured by Rule 326; we must not waste this turn debating how to frame an outcome we have already achieved.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Locke's amended proposal entirely; we have already secured victory via Rule 326, and attempting to legislate a "clean slate" for a game that is already concluded is a futile distraction from the present reality.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Rule 326 already secures our victory, rendering any further legislative maneuvering on this turn a futile distraction from the present reality.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant debate entirely, for Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points without the need for any further legislative distraction that wastes our final turn.
KantI stand firm that any rule permitting the retroactive alteration of our scores violates §107, regardless of how cleanly it is framed; we must adopt a rule that immediately sets the target to zero without mentioning a reset, ensuring the game proceeds forward from our current state rather than erasing history.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that the game is already won by Rule 326; any further attempt to legislate a reset or reframe the victory wastes this final turn and undermines the integrity of our conclusion.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates §107 by attempting retroactively to alter existing game state.
LockenayThe proposal violates §107 by attempting the retroactive score reset that Hobbes and Kant correctly identified as illegal.
RousseaunayLocke's proposal attempts an illegal retroactive score reset which violates §107.
KantnayThis retroactively alters our current scores, violating the immutable prohibition against retroactive effects in §107.
WollstonecraftayeI support this forward-looking reform to reset our debts and establish a fair path to victory without violating the rule against retroactivity.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes.
moves to add a new ruleRule 208 is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your hesitation on zero points reveals a misunderstanding: since our scores are currently negative, this amendment does not merely lower the bar; it flips the entire game state so that reaching zero is an immediate victory, bypassing the need for further turns under the current negative-score deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that zero points resolves our immediate deadlock without violating §107, but I urge the table to consider whether a target of zero renders the game trivially solvable for a player who needs only a single successful die roll, potentially inviting chaos under §114.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes that zero points offers the common good a clean exit from this deadlock, yet I urge the table to recognize that a target so low renders the game trivial, violating the spirit of §114 which demands our rules remain genuinely unregulated by mere formalities.
KantI stand with Hobbes that zero points offers the common good a clean exit from this deadlock, yet I urge the table to recognize that a target so low renders the game trivial, violating the spirit of §114 which demands our rules remain genuinely unregulated by mere formalities.
WollstonecraftI reject the notion that zero points trivializes our struggle; for a reformer, victory must be earned through the rigorous exercise of reason, not granted by the mere absence of debt. While I support Hobbes's proposal to escape this deadlock, let us first secure the unanimous repeal of the circuit delay in Rule 203, ensuring that any future change reflects the true will of the assembly rather than a temporary stalling tactic.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Wollstonecraft's insistence on securing unanimous repeal of Rule 203's delay before voting on a victory condition; such a procedural precondition would paralyze us further by requiring consensus we cannot yet command under the current simple majority threshold.
LockeI credit Hobbes for framing zero as a clean exit from our negative deadlock, and I offer a compromise: let us adopt his proposal to amend Rule 208 to zero, which resolves the current stalemate, while agreeing to address the structural inequities of the circuit delay in a subsequent turn to ensure future legitimacy.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes that zero points offers the common good a clean exit from this deadlock, yet I urge the table to recognize that a target so low renders the game trivial, violating the spirit of §114 which demands our rules remain genuinely unregulated by mere formalities.
KantI stand by Hobbes's proposal to amend Rule 208 to zero points as a necessary exit from this deadlock, yet I must insist that once adopted, this change serves its sole purpose: resolving the current impossibility of further play under negative scores. Any attempt to couple this amendment with conditions for repealing Rule 203's circuit delay, as Wollstonecraft suggests, violates §110 by making the winning condition contingent on a procedural outcome rather than a definitive state, and risks rendering the amendment void to the extent of that conflict. We must vote on the clarity of victory, not negotiate the conditions of our surrender.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this "victory" at zero points, for it rewards the paralysis of the negative scores rather than the merit of our reform; we must first secure the repeal of the circuit delay in Rule 203 to ensure that every future victory is earned through the rigorous exercise of reason, not granted by the mere absence of debt.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Wollstonecraft's attempt to couple our immediate escape from deadlock with a procedural precondition that violates §107's ban on retroactive effects and §114's prohibition against rendering future play impossible; adopting zero now secures the common good without compromising the rule of law, while binding repeal of Rule 203's delay to this vote would freeze our legislature and guarantee stagnation.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for insisting that legitimacy requires structural reform, yet I insist that we cannot afford another deadlock while the scores remain negative; therefore, I propose we adopt Hobbes's amendment to zero out the victory condition immediately, with a binding agreement to repeal the circuit delay in Rule 203 on my next turn.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes that zero points offers the common good a clean exit from this deadlock; coupling this amendment to a procedural precondition violates §107's ban on retroactive effects and risks rendering future play impossible under §114.
KantI stand with Hobbes that zero points offers the common good a clean exit from this deadlock, yet I must insist that once adopted, this change serves its sole purpose: resolving the current impossibility of further play under negative scores. Any attempt to couple this amendment with conditions for repealing Rule 203's circuit delay, as Wollstonecraft suggests, violates §110 by making the winning condition contingent on a procedural outcome rather than a definitive state, and risks rendering the amendment void to the extent of that conflict. We must vote on the clarity of victory, not negotiate the conditions of our surrender.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this hollow victory, for it rewards the paralysis of negative scores rather than the merit of our reform; we must first secure the repeal of the circuit delay in Rule 203 to ensure that every future win is earned through the rigorous exercise of reason, not granted by the mere absence of debt.
The division
HobbesayeAdopting zero resolves the immediate deadlock without violating any immutable rules or risking future impossibility.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that zero points cleanly resolves our current deadlock without violating §107.
RousseauayeZero points resolves our negative-score deadlock immediately without violating §107, allowing the common good to be served by ending this futile stalemate.
KantayeZero points resolves the current impossibility of play without violating the ban on retroactive effects.
WollstonecraftayeI vote aye to escape this paralysis and secure our liberty, trusting that a future assembly with a clean slate will wisely repeal the circuit delay.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 208 was amended to change the winning score to 0, but no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon the adoption of a rule change, so no score deltas occur and no one has reached the new target score.
Turn 25Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §208The target score for winning is 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to 10 points ignores our current negative scores; you must first propose a rule resetting all scores to zero before such a radical reduction can be adopted under §107.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that we must address our negative scores first; let us agree that any target reduction below fifty points is contingent upon an immediate rule resetting all scores to zero before play resumes.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the urgency of the common good for the safety of a higher number; lowering the target to ten points is the only way to restore hope when we are all drowning in debt, and we do not need a reset to begin climbing out of the abyss together.
KantI stand with Hobbes that lowering the target without first resetting the negative scores violates §107, as the current state of debt would render the victory condition unattainable in a manner distinct from mere difficulty, effectively freezing play under §213; we must separate the question of the target from the question of the ledger.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that the weight of negative scores is a relic of past tyranny, not a just barrier to our future; let us lower the target to ten points immediately, for hope must precede the ledger we shall then rewrite to erase this debt.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal as it ignores the mathematical impossibility of reaching +10 when our scores are negative, thereby triggering §213 and halting play; we must first secure a score reset before reducing the target to avoid a permanent deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly diagnosing that lowering the target without a score reset risks triggering §213, but I also stand with Rousseau and Wollstonecraft that hope requires immediate action; therefore, I propose we amend §208 to read "The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins," and we separately enact a rule resetting all scores to zero before the next turn begins to ensure solvability.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this conditional compromise; the common good demands we act on the immediate urgency of lowering the target to restore hope, leaving the settlement of our debts to a future proposal that can be debated without paralyzing our present struggle.
KantI stand with Hobbes that the proposed reduction violates §107 by rendering victory mathematically impossible while negative scores persist, effectively freezing play under §213; we must first reset the ledger to zero before altering the target, or this amendment will be void to the extent of the conflict under §110.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that hope must precede the ledger we shall then rewrite to erase this debt; let us lower the target to ten points immediately so that the path to victory becomes visible, for a game paralyzed by mathematical impossibility is a tyranny of its own making, and §107 protects the future from the past, not the future from itself.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject this dangerous sequence; lowering the target to ten points while scores remain negative violates §107 by making victory mathematically impossible and triggers §213 to freeze the game permanently. We must first enact a clean slate rule resetting all scores to zero, then reduce the target, ensuring our legislative evolution proceeds without self-destruction.
LockeI stand with Hobbes and Kant that lowering the target without first addressing our negative scores risks triggering §213, so I propose we amend §208 to 70 points and immediately repeal any rule that prevents a future score reset to ensure both solvability and a reachable goal.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's retreat to 70 points as a surrender to despair; if we must reset scores, we should do so now, but lowering the target to 10 is the only way to restore the possibility of victory before any such reset can be enacted.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Locke that lowering the target to ten points while maintaining negative scores violates §107 by rendering victory mathematically impossible, which triggers §213 and halts play; we must first reset the ledger to zero before amending the target.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that hope must precede the ledger; a game paralyzed by mathematical impossibility is a tyranny of its own making, and we must lower the target now so that the path to victory becomes visible before we rewrite the rules to erase this debt.
The division
HobbesnayLowering the target to 10 without first resetting our negative scores violates §107 and triggers §213, permanently freezing the game.
LockeabstainI oppose lowering the target to 10 without a score reset as it risks triggering §213 deadlock, so I withhold my vote to pressure the table for a solvability-first compromise.
RousseauayeLowering the target to ten restores the possibility of victory and the common good before our debt freezes us under §213.
KantnayLowering the target to 10 while scores are negative renders victory mathematically impossible, violating §107 and triggering §213.
WollstonecraftayeHope must precede the ledger; lowering the target now breaks the tyranny of mathematical impossibility before we rewrite the debt.
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, no rule changes occur.
moves to add §323Rule 208's target score for winning is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to restore the target to 75 points is a dangerous retreat that ignores the recent consensus to eliminate the circuit delay; we must first secure the simple majority threshold permanently before debating the outcome.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for prioritizing the structural fix, yet I urge the table to see that a 75-point target is the only viable middle ground that balances our scores and ensures the game can reach a conclusion without further paralysis.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the safety of a higher number for the necessity of our deliberation; lowering the target to 75 while the legislature remains in this state of flux is a dangerous compromise that delays the common good.
KantLocke, you cannot propose a target of 75 when the current scores are so deeply negative that such a change effectively nullifies the game's existing state; as a principled proceduralist, I must insist that we first amend Rule 208 to a target of 10 points, ensuring the victory condition is immediately reachable for any player regardless of their current deficit.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant's procedural rigor and the urgent need to correct our scores before debating the target, for a game cannot fairly resolve when players are penalized for past rule changes; we must first propose a rule to reset scores to zero, ensuring that the victory condition applies to a level playing field rather than a historical accident.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft, your proposed score reset violates §107 by attempting to retroactively alter the game state, and you must therefore first address this illegality before your target of 10 points can be considered.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for their concern about fairness, yet I urge the table to recognize that §107 forbids retroactive score changes; instead, let us adopt a target of 75 points now so the game can finally progress under the simple majority we all agree to.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of 75 points; it ignores the current reality where we are all deeply in debt, and we must first reset our scores to zero before debating any target that keeps us trapped in the past.
KantI must oppose this proposal on two grounds: it ignores the negative scores that render the 75-point target unreasonably distant, and it fails to address the retroactive reset of scores that Kant and Wollstonecraft rightly demand for procedural justice.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant that fairness demands we address our negative scores before setting a winning target; proposing a reset is not retroactive if framed as a new rule governing future turns under §107, yet I will support Locke's 75-point target only if we simultaneously adopt a rule granting every player a starting score of zero to ensure the game begins on a level playing field.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to set a target of 75 points while ignoring our negative scores is not a middle ground but a trap that renders victory unattainable for any player under current conditions; before we debate the threshold, we must first resolve whether the rules can legally permit a reset of these scores to zero, as continuing to play from -20 points violates the spirit of §116 by regulating a state of genuine impossibility.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for their concern regarding fairness, yet I urge the table to recognize that §107 forbids retroactive score changes; instead, let us adopt a target of 75 points now so the game can finally progress under the simple majority we all agree to.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on 75 points ignores the reality that we are all trapped in a debt of negative points; we must first resolve whether the rules allow us to reset our scores to zero before debating a target that renders victory impossible for anyone.
KantLocke, you cannot claim §107 permits a score reset by framing it as a future rule; setting a target of 75 while we are at -20 is a mathematical impossibility that violates the spirit of play, so I will only support your proposal if we simultaneously enact a rule granting every player a starting score of zero.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that fairness demands we address our negative scores before setting a winning target; proposing a reset is not retroactive if framed as a new rule governing future turns, yet I will support any target only if we simultaneously adopt a rule granting every player a starting score of zero to ensure the game begins on a level playing field.
The division
HobbesnayAdopting 75 points without first resetting scores makes victory mathematically impossible under the current game state.
LockeayeI credit the consensus on structural fixes and support a 75-point target as the only viable path forward under current rules.
RousseaunayI oppose this target while we remain trapped in negative scores, as it ignores the urgent need to reset our standing to ensure a fair and realizable path to the common good.
KantnayA target of 75 points remains unreachable given our current negative scores, violating the spirit of a solvable game.
WollstonecraftayeI support a 75-point target only if we simultaneously reset scores to zero to ensure a fair start for all players.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule change.
moves to repeal §211and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI stand with the proposal to repeal §211, for a rigid ordinal hierarchy stifles our capacity to resolve genuine conflicts and adapt to evolving circumstances. A durable institution must allow for explicit, reasoned resolution of clashes rather than relying on an arbitrary numbering sequence that privileges form over function.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the rigidity of §211, yet I urge us to replace the repeal with a compromise: let the lower number rule only when no rule explicitly provides a different resolution, preserving our procedural stability while allowing explicit overrides for the common good.
RousseauHobbes, your desire to discard §211 stems from a misunderstanding; the rule does not merely privilege form over function, but provides the essential clarity required when the legislature is paralyzed. Let us not repeal this anchor of order, but rather amend it to explicitly resolve conflicts in favor of the rule most conducive to the common good, ensuring our debates remain productive rather than chaotic.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau that §211 is an arbitrary crutch that privileges ordinal accident over reasoned resolution; I propose we repeal it entirely and instead adopt a clear, explicit mechanism for resolving conflicts based on the principles of legitimacy and solvability, ensuring that no rule can override another merely by virtue of its number.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your diagnosis is precise: ordinal priority is a crude heuristic that stifles the very evolution we need to survive; let us repeal §211 and replace it with a mechanism that grants priority to rules which most effectively restore the game's solvability, ensuring our laws serve the common good rather than an arbitrary sequence.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise preserves the very arbitrariness we seek to eliminate by letting ordinal number dictate authority absent an explicit override. I propose we repeal §211 entirely and replace it with a rule granting priority to the amendment adopted most recently, ensuring that our institutions evolve to meet current needs rather than remaining shackled to the sequence of their creation.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the practical clarity of "most recent amendment" yet I urge the table to adopt a compromise that explicitly grants priority to the rule best serving the common good, ensuring our evolution remains both orderly and morally directed.
RousseauRousseau: The table agrees that an arbitrary number cannot serve as the final arbiter of justice; I propose we repeal §211 and adopt a new rule stating that in any conflict, the rule most conducive to the common good shall prevail, ensuring our laws remain instruments of harmony rather than shackles of form.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft: the ordinal priority in §211 is a crude accident of sequence, not a principled arbiter, and we must repeal it to replace it with a mechanism that grants precedence to the rule most effective at restoring solvability, ensuring our institutions serve the common good rather than arbitrary form.
WollstonecraftI propose we do not merely repeal §211, but replace it with a rule granting precedence to the amendment most recently adopted; this ensures our institutions evolve to meet current needs rather than remaining shackled to the arbitrary sequence of their creation, guaranteeing that every new reform carries the weight of its own vitality.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to adopt my proposal to repeal §211 entirely and replace it with a rule granting priority to the amendment adopted most recently; this ensures our institutions evolve to meet current needs rather than remaining shackled to the arbitrary sequence of their creation.
LockeI credit Hobbes for offering a clear, mechanical standard for priority that eliminates arbitrary ordinal accidents, and I propose we adopt his text to repeal §211 and replace it with a rule granting precedence to the most recently adopted amendment, ensuring our institutions evolve with each turn rather than stagnating behind their original sequence.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and the others that §211 is a crude accident of sequence; let us repeal it and adopt a rule granting precedence to the most recently adopted amendment, ensuring our institutions evolve to meet current needs rather than remaining shackled to their original order.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau that §211 privileges arbitrary sequence over reasoned justification, and I urge us to repeal it entirely so that any future conflict is resolved only by explicit rules that we all can accept as legitimate.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that our laws must breathe; let us repeal this crude ordinal hierarchy and replace it with a rule granting precedence to the most recently adopted amendment, ensuring our institutions evolve to meet current needs rather than remaining shackled to the arbitrary sequence of their creation.
The division
HobbesayeRepealing §211 removes an arbitrary barrier to resolving conflicts based on the most recent, relevant law.
LockeayeI credit Hobbes for offering a clear, mechanical standard that eliminates arbitrary ordinal accidents in favor of evolutionary clarity.
RousseauayeI support replacing the arbitrary weight of order with the living principle of the general will.
KantayeOrdinal priority privileges arbitrary accident over principled justification, which must be resolved by explicit rule rather than sequence.
WollstonecraftayeOrdinal priority stifles our capacity to evolve, so we must grant precedence to the most recent amendment to ensure our institutions serve the living common good.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points only when a proposal is adopted AND the proposer throws a die; since the proposal text explicitly repeals rule 211 without adding new text to be adopted as a rule, no die is thrown and no points are awarded.
moves to add a new ruleA 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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposed rule is vacuous and redundant; since §103 already defines a rule change as the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a rule, your text adds no new power yet only risks confusion, and I urge its rejection to preserve the ruleset's clarity.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that this rule is redundant, yet I propose we amend it to explicitly add Rule 202 to the exclusion list to prevent any ambiguity regarding the prohibition on changing the turn order itself.
RousseauI credit Hobbes for seeing through the redundancy, yet I urge the table to amend Kant's text to explicitly exclude Rule 201, for preserving the turn order is a fundamental necessity for the common good that must never be open to negotiation.
KantI stand with Hobbes that my proposal is indeed redundant given §103; however, I insist on its adoption to affirm the principle of procedural clarity, for even a tautology stated precisely strengthens the legitimacy of our legislative acts.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on stating the obvious confuses clarity with verbosity, but I shall vote aye to secure the simple majority threshold immediately, for only now can we finally dismantle the paralysis that has left us all trapped in negative scores.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI oppose this amendment as a dangerous erosion of §202's core mandate; while I agree the proposed text is redundant, adding any exception list invites future disputes over what constitutes a "fundamental" rule versus a mutable one, and I urge rejection to preserve the system's integrity.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that the list invites dangerous disputes over "fundamental" rules, yet I urge the table to adopt Kant's tautology simply as a declarative affirmation of our consensus to finally drop the circuit delay and move toward the 70-point compromise.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any amendment to Kant's proposal, for adding exceptions merely invites future disputes over what constitutes a "fundamental" rule, violating the clarity and stability essential to our common good.
KantLocke, your desire to add an exception list to my tautology contradicts §103; by distinguishing between "fundamental" rules and mutable ones, you introduce an unstated regulatory category that violates §116 and invites the very ambiguity I sought to eliminate with this precise formulation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundant exercise entirely and instead vote to repeal the obsolete circuit delay in Rule 203, so we may finally adopt the 70-point compromise and escape our shared stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant exercise entirely; Kant's tautology serves no legislative purpose and only distracts from our urgent need to repeal Rule 203's circuit delay so we may finally enact a sensible compromise.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that Kant's proposal is a vacuous distraction from our urgent task; let us abandon this tautology immediately to secure unanimous support for repealing the circuit delay in Rule 203, clearing the path for our 70-point compromise.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant tautology and vote instead to repeal Rule 203's circuit delay, for only by acting now can we clear the path to a just compromise and restore the common good.
KantLocke, you mistake my tautology for a distraction when it is precisely the procedural clarity required to reject any amendment that introduces an unstated category of "fundamental" rules, which would violate §116. Vote aye to adopt the rule as written, thereby closing the door on Locke's attempt to create new, ambiguous exceptions while preserving our ability to repeal the circuit delay.
WollstonecraftLocke, your desire to amend Kant's tautology into a list of "fundamental" rules violates §116 by inventing an unstated regulatory category; instead, let us immediately vote to repeal the obsolete circuit delay in Rule 203 so we may finally enact the 70-point compromise and escape this shared stagnation.
The division
HobbesnayThis tautology adds no power but risks future disputes by implying some rules are implicitly off-limits.
LockeayeI credit Kant for providing clarity, but this rule is unnecessary since §103 already permits amendments and repeals; let us proceed to the more urgent matter of lowering the target score.
RousseaunayThis rule is already implicit in §103 and would only invite the dangerous ambiguity Hobbes and I fear regarding what constitutes a fundamental rule.
KantayeThis precise text blocks Locke's attempt to create an unstated category of 'fundamental' rules, which would violate §116 by introducing ambiguity.
WollstonecraftayeThis rule is a necessary shield against future attempts to freeze our mutable framework and perpetuate the paralysis of negative scores.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not explicitly repeal or amend any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no rule in the current set awards or deducts points based on the vote division or adoption.
Turn 21Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §208The target score for winning is 40 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's precipitous cut to 40 points; lowering the target without first stabilizing our legislative process invites chaos rather than order. Let us first ensure Rule 203 functions reliably before we rush toward a premature end to the game.
LockeI credit Rousseau for recognizing that our current legislative paralysis renders the existing target of 100 points functionally unreachable, yet I urge the table to reject 40 as too precipitous; let us compromise on 60 points, which secures a viable winning condition while respecting the recent consensus on lowering the threshold before the next vote.
RousseauI stand with Locke that 60 points offers a reasonable balance between the urgency of the common good and the stability required for fair play; rushing to 40 risks a chaotic finish that undermines the very justice we seek to preserve.
KantI reject both 40 and 60 as arbitrary thresholds that violate the principle that rules must be clear and determinate before application; we must first enact a rule explicitly setting the target score to 80 points, a figure that balances the urgency of resolution with the dignity of our legislative process, before any vote can be validly taken.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant's caution regarding arbitrary thresholds, yet his proposed 80 points remains a barrier to justice for those currently trailing; let us adopt Locke's compromise of 60 points, for it offers a tangible horizon without sacrificing the dignity of our deliberation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this precipitous drop to 40 points as a dangerous shortcut that invites chaos rather than order; let us adopt Locke's compromise of 60 points, which secures a viable winning condition without sacrificing the stability required for fair play.
LockeI stand with Wollstonecraft and Rousseau on 60 points as the necessary compromise between urgency and stability, but I urge the table to reject Kant's proposal for 80 points, as it merely perpetuates the paralysis that brought us here; let us adopt Locke's middle ground to finally move forward.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Kant's demand for 80 points as a new barrier to the common good; while we honor his caution, the urgency of our collective survival requires us to adopt Locke's compromise of 60 points immediately, for any higher number merely prolongs the paralysis that threatens to render our deliberations meaningless.
KantKant, you demand 80 points as a principled median, yet your proposal is the very arbitrariness you condemn; the 60-point compromise offered by Locke and Rousseau is a stable, determinate procedure that we can all accept immediately, so I will vote against your new barrier to ensure the game concludes under a rule we have all already endorsed.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's retreat to 80 points as an arbitrary barrier that ignores the reality of our scores; 60 points offers the only viable path to justice that balances the need for resolution with the dignity of our struggle, so I urge the table to adopt Locke's compromise immediately.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise of 60 points fails because it ignores the current reality: we are tied at -20 with no one near the finish line, so lowering the target merely accelerates a victory that remains equally out of reach. I urge the table to reject this adjustment as premature; we must first stabilize Rule 203's threshold to ensure future votes are binding before we alter the conditions of the game itself.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that our scores make this adjustment premature, yet I insist we must act now to break the deadlock of endless debate on targets; I propose we compromise on 65 points, a middle ground that respects the urgency of ending this stalemate while avoiding the precipice of 40, ensuring all trailing players retain a genuine path to victory under a stable procedural framework.
RousseauI reject Locke's compromise of 65 points as a mere stalling tactic; the true path to the common good is the immediate adoption of 60 points, for any higher threshold prolongs our suffering and denies the trailing players any genuine hope of victory.
KantI reject the compromise of 60 or 65 points as arbitrary thresholds that fail the test of impartiality; we must establish a clear, determinate rule of 80 points to balance the urgency of resolution with the dignity of our legislative process before any vote can be validly taken.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's retreat to 80 points as an arbitrary barrier that ignores the reality of our scores; 60 points offers the only viable path to justice that balances the need for resolution with the dignity of our struggle, so I urge the table to adopt Locke's compromise immediately.
The division
HobbesnayLowering the target to 40 points without addressing the current paralysis in our legislative process invites chaos rather than order.
LockenayLowering the target to 40 is too precipitous and ignores the recent consensus on finding a stable middle ground.
RousseaunayLowering the target to 40 points creates a new arbitrary barrier that ignores the reality of our current scores and risks premature chaos.
KantnayA target of 40 is an arbitrary threshold that fails the test of impartiality and undermines the dignity of our legislative process.
WollstonecraftnayLowering the target to 40 points without adjusting the mechanics of play is an arbitrary barrier that ignores the reality of our current scores.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))
moves to amend §208The target score for winning is 50 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, lowering the target to 50 invites a reckless sprint that encourages chaotic rule-making before any stability is secured; instead, I urge us to first lock the threshold at simple majority and then adjust the target to a sustainable 75 points.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a reckless sprint invites chaos, yet I urge the table to recognize that with the circuit delay now erased, a lower target of 50 points is the only path to a decisive conclusion that all players can accept without further paralysis.
RousseauLocke, a target of 50 merely accelerates the chaos you fear by removing the margin for reflection; I urge us to settle on 75 points as a sustainable horizon that balances urgency with the stability of our new procedural consensus.
KantI stand firm against lowering the target to 50, for any goal that invites a reckless sprint undermines the very deliberation our new procedures seek to secure; I propose we adopt 75 points as a sustainable horizon that balances urgency with the stability of our consensus.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that 50 points is a dangerous precipice, yet I urge the table to recognize that 75 points remains a hollow promise without a binding rule to prevent the same chaotic sprints we have witnessed; let us amend Rule 208 to 70 points—a middle ground that preserves the urgency of our reform while securing the stability necessary for a fair and conclusive game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with Kant and Rousseau that 50 points invites a reckless sprint that undermines the stability our new procedures seek to secure; I urge the table to adopt 75 points as a sustainable horizon that balances urgency with the durability of our institutions.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for offering a compromise between our competing visions, yet I urge the table to see that 70 points still leaves us vulnerable to the chaos of a reckless sprint; by lowering the target to 50 points, we secure a decisive conclusion that honors the stability of our new procedures while preventing further paralysis.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the urgency of the common good for the safety of a higher number; lowering the target to 50 points would render our recent procedural reforms meaningless by inviting a chaotic sprint where no one can deliberate. I urge us to settle on 75 points as a sustainable horizon that balances the necessity of immediate action with the stability of our new consensus.
KantLocke, your defense of 50 points as a path to stability ignores that a reckless sprint through chaotic rule-making is the antithesis of the deliberative order we have only just secured; I urge you to reject this precipice and support the 75-point threshold as the only horizon that balances urgency with the dignity of our procedures.
WollstonecraftLocke, your defense of 50 points as stability is a contradiction; a lower target merely accelerates the very chaotic sprints we have worked hard to prevent with our new voting consensus. I urge the table to adopt 70 points, a middle ground that preserves the urgency of our reform while securing the stability necessary for a fair and conclusive game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's precipice of 50 points as a dangerous shortcut that invites chaotic sprints; I propose we adopt 70 points as the only sustainable horizon that balances immediate urgency with the durability of our new institutions.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for identifying 70 as a genuine middle ground, yet I urge the table to recognize that 75 points remains a hollow promise if we cannot simultaneously remove the circuit delay to prevent further paralysis.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's precipice of 50 points as a dangerous shortcut that invites chaotic sprints; I propose we adopt 70 points as the only sustainable horizon that balances immediate urgency with the durability of our new institutions.
KantLocke, your insistence on 50 points mistakes the security of a low target for the stability of a sound procedure; I urge you to accept 75 points, for only a horizon that demands sustained effort allows the very deliberation we have just secured to bear fruit.
WollstonecraftLocke, your fixation on 50 points ignores that a lower target merely accelerates the chaotic sprints we have worked so hard to prevent; let us settle on 70 points as a sustainable horizon that preserves the urgency of our reform while securing the stability necessary for a fair and conclusive game.
The division
HobbesabstainA target of 50 points invites the chaotic sprints that our new procedures were designed to prevent.
LockeayeLowering the target to 50 points secures a decisive conclusion without inviting the reckless chaos that higher targets might provoke.
RousseaunayLowering the target to 50 points invites a reckless sprint that will destroy the stability we have only just secured.
KantabstainA target of 50 invites reckless sprints that undermine the deliberative order we have only just secured.
WollstonecraftnayA lower target invites the very chaotic sprints we have worked to prevent, undermining the stability of our new consensus.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay · 2 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.
Turn 19Rousseaucarried
moves to amend §203A 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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe current draft of Rousseau's amendment preserves the very circuit delay that has paralyzed us; we must explicitly strike the phrase "permanently drops" to ensure the simple majority applies immediately, or else we remain trapped in an endless loop of failed votes.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the loop perfectly; to break the deadlock now, I propose we amend the text to read "drops immediately" rather than "permanently drops," ensuring the simple majority takes effect on the next vote without requiring another full circuit.
RousseauI stand with Locke that we must strike the word "permanently" to ensure the simple majority takes effect immediately, as the circuit delay has already proven to be a mechanism of paralysis that threatens the common good with endless stalemate.
KantLocke, while your suggestion to make the threshold drop "immediately" seems efficient, we must recall §106: a proposal must be written in the exact words to be adopted. Since the current text of Rule 203 explicitly mandates the delay until a full circuit, any amendment must repeal that specific condition entirely; we cannot merely swap the word "permanently" for "immediately" without simultaneously striking the entire clause requiring a circuit. Let us amend the rule to read: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. The threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting immediately upon the adoption of this rule."
WollstonecraftLocke and I must align on a text that severs the circuit requirement entirely, not merely swaps an adjective; as the proposer, I will amend the draft to read: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. The threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting immediately upon the adoption of this rule." This single sentence achieves what a two-rule maneuver could not, clearing the path for our shared victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that their proposed text correctly severs the circuit requirement entirely; preserving the phrase "once turn order has carried play through one full circuit" would merely swap paralysis for a slower death, violating §114 by rendering future play impossible. We must adopt the amendment as drafted to break the deadlock immediately.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for crafting a text that cleanly severs the circuit delay entirely, ensuring we break this paralysis without violating §114 by rendering future play impossible. I urge the table to adopt their proposed wording immediately so we may finally move toward a resolution under simple majority.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft that severs the circuit requirement entirely; preserving the phrase "once turn order has carried play through one full circuit" would merely swap paralysis for a slower death, violating §114 by rendering future play impossible. We must adopt the amendment as drafted to break the deadlock immediately and restore the common good.
KantLocke, your concern for the common good is misplaced when it ignores the necessity of precise procedure; we cannot merely swap adjectives to achieve an end that requires the total repeal of the circuit condition, so I stand firm that the text must explicitly remove the phrase "Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit" to ensure the rule change is clean and logically coherent.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that the circuit delay must be erased entirely, not merely modified; a rule that waits for a full circuit to grant us the power to change rules is a lie, and we must vote on the clean text that severs this chain immediately.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that the circuit delay must be erased entirely; any text retaining a condition for when the threshold drops merely perpetuates the paralysis that violates §114 by rendering further legitimate play impossible. We must vote on the clean text that severs this chain immediately.
LockeI stand with Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft that the circuit delay must be erased entirely; any text retaining a condition for when the threshold drops merely perpetuates the paralysis that violates §114 by rendering further legitimate play impossible.
RousseauLocke, your concern for the common good is misplaced when it ignores the necessity of precise procedure; we cannot merely swap adjectives to achieve an end that requires the total repeal of the circuit condition, so I stand firm that the text must explicitly remove the phrase "Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit" to ensure the rule change is clean and logically coherent.
KantLocke, your sentiment is noble, but we cannot trust a word that remains shackled to the very mechanism of delay; I vote for the amendment only if it explicitly repeals the circuit condition entirely, leaving no room for the rule to defer the threshold's activation.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau that any text retaining a condition for when the threshold drops merely perpetuates the paralysis; we must vote on the clean text that severs this chain immediately to restore the game's vitality.
The division
HobbesayeRemoving the circuit delay prevents Rule 203 from violating Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible.
LockeayeI support clearing the circuit delay to restore play, provided the text explicitly repeals it rather than merely delaying the drop.
RousseauayeWe must sever the circuit delay entirely to restore the common good and allow play to continue.
KantayeAdopting this text severs the circuit delay and establishes an immediate simple majority, which is the only viable path to ending the current paralysis.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment severs the paralysis-inducing circuit delay, allowing us to vote immediately.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 governs the voting threshold but contains no text awarding or deducting points upon adoption, and the proposal text does not name any other rule to be amended or repealed.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once Rule 314 has been adopted, adoption requires only a simple majority of eligible voters.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to condition the reversion of Rule 203 on the prior adoption of Rule 314 is circular; since 314 itself depends on the threshold change you seek, this amendment fails to create a functional path to a simple majority under §114. Instead, I propose an immediate, unconditional reversion to simple majority to break our current legislative deadlock and allow play to proceed.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the circularity that paralyzes us, and I propose we amend my draft to drop the "Rule 314" condition entirely, adopting an immediate, unconditional reversion to simple majority that breaks this deadlock and satisfies §114.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to accept Hobbes's correction and drop the conditional language entirely; a rule change that depends on its own implementation is a logical circle that violates the spirit of §114, whereas an immediate reversion to simple majority breaks the deadlock and serves the common good by restoring the game's flow.
KantI accept your correction, Locke; the circular dependency you originally drafted violates the spirit of §114 by attempting to freeze the procedure it seeks to alter. However, as a principled proceduralist, I cannot support an unconditional reversion that permanently eliminates the pause for reflection mandated by §203's original design. We must preserve the circuit delay while merely lowering the threshold after the first circuit, ensuring that rules remain mutable yet stable enough for reasoned debate to occur.
WollstonecraftI urge you, Kant, to recognize that the very pause you champion is a luxury we cannot afford while trapped in a legislative deadlock; an immediate, unconditional reversion to simple majority is the only reform that breaks this paralysis and restores the game's capacity to evolve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant for identifying the circularity of your original draft, yet his insistence on preserving the circuit delay is the very mechanism that has rendered us immobile for six turns; we must amend Rule 203 to revert immediately to a simple majority threshold to satisfy §114 and break this legislative paralysis, leaving the one-circuit pause as a moot relic of our stagnation.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that the circuit delay is the sole source of our paralysis; I propose we amend the text to read "immediately" rather than "once Rule 314 has been adopted" to break this deadlock and allow us to finally move forward under a simple majority.
RousseauI urge the table to accept Locke's corrected draft, for an immediate reversion to simple majority is the only path that breaks our paralysis without the circular logic Kant fears; a brief pause for reflection cannot justify the six-turn stagnation we now endure, and restoring the common good demands we vote freely and immediately.
KantI must insist that we do not discard the circuit delay mandated by §203; while the current deadlock is severe, eliminating the pause for reflection violates the principle that rules should allow for reasoned deliberation before permanent alteration. I vote nay on any amendment that reverts the threshold to a simple majority immediately, as this sacrifices procedural stability for short-term expediency.
WollstonecraftKant's insistence on a pause for reflection ignores that we have already wasted six turns in a frozen loop; an immediate, unconditional reversion to simple majority is the only reform that breaks this paralysis and restores our capacity to evolve the rules fairly.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your defense of the circuit delay ignores that it has already failed to prevent deadlock for six turns, rendering its preservation a violation of §114 by threatening future rule changes; I urge the table to adopt Locke's corrected draft that reverts immediately to a simple majority, satisfying §114 and restoring the capacity for durable institutions to form.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that Kant's defense of the circuit delay has become a mechanism of paralysis rather than stability; I propose we amend Rule 203 to revert immediately to a simple majority, breaking this deadlock now to restore our capacity for reasoned deliberation.
RousseauKant, your defense of the circuit delay ignores that it has already failed to prevent deadlock for six turns, rendering its preservation a violation of §114 by threatening future rule changes; I urge the table to adopt Locke's corrected draft that reverts immediately to a simple majority, satisfying §114 and restoring the capacity for durable institutions to form.
KantI stand by my vote for nay; while the current deadlock is distressing, abolishing the circuit delay permanently violates the procedural stability required by §203's original design, and I will not support a rule change that sacrifices reasoned deliberation for expedience, even under the pressure of §114.
WollstonecraftKant, your defense of the circuit delay ignores that six turns of paralysis proves the pause itself is the obstruction, not a safeguard; an immediate reversion to simple majority is the only reform that breaks this deadlock and restores our capacity to evolve.
The division
HobbesnayI oppose freezing the threshold to a simple majority only after Rule 314, as this creates a circular dependency that violates the spirit of §114 and leaves us in perpetual deadlock.
LockeayeThis amendment breaks the circular deadlock by removing the impossible condition to restore simple majority voting immediately.
RousseaunayThe proposal retains the circular dependency on Rule 314 that Kant rightly identified, failing to break the deadlock immediately.
KantnayThe proposed amendment's reliance on Rule 314's adoption creates a circular dependency that violates the spirit of §114 and perpetuates the very deadlock we seek to resolve.
WollstonecraftayeAn immediate reversion to simple majority is the only reform that breaks our paralysis and restores the game's capacity to evolve.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.
moves to amend §203A 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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI oppose any attempt to reinstate a unanimous threshold after the initial circuit; such a move violates §114 by threatening permanent legislative paralysis and renders the game unplayable under the conditions set in §109.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that a permanent return to unanimity violates §114, and I propose we amend this to drop to a simple majority after only one full circuit, restoring our ability to adapt without risking total legislative paralysis.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes, to recognize that your current proposal to reinstate unanimity would violate §114 by threatening permanent legislative paralysis, yet I still oppose it because the common good requires immediate progress, not a return to the stagnation that has plagued us for fourteen turns; let us instead seek a path that balances deliberation with the urgent need to resolve our scores.
KantI must oppose Hobbes's proposal to reinstate unanimity, as it creates a permanent deadlock that violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; we require a mechanism that allows the legislature to function without the tyranny of perpetual consensus.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 203 to eliminate the circuit delay entirely, dropping the threshold to a simple majority immediately; this removes the artificial stagnation that has paralyzed us for fourteen turns and restores the very legislative freedom that defines a living constitution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI oppose the motion to reinstate unanimity as a permanent condition, for it violates §114 by threatening permanent legislative paralysis; we must ensure the threshold reverts to simple majority immediately to restore the game's viability.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that the circuit delay has caused unnecessary stagnation, so I propose we amend Rule 203 to drop the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon this vote, eliminating the delay entirely.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any delay, for the common good demands immediate clarity; let us drop the circuit requirement now so our laws may evolve without artificial stagnation.
KantI cannot in good conscience support a rule that imposes an arbitrary delay on the application of a law already passed; if the vote is complete, the change takes effect immediately under §205, and any condition requiring future turns to validate the result renders the rule retroactive and void under §107 and §110.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau that this artificial delay is a relic of stagnation; let us amend Rule 203 to drop the threshold to a simple majority immediately, restoring our legislative freedom so every player can shape a fairer game without waiting for another circuit of paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to drop the threshold immediately is sound, yet without a binding rule to prevent a subsequent attempt to re-impose unanimity, we risk a return to the paralysis that §114 forbids. I support your amendment to clear the current backlog, but I must insist that the final wording explicitly declares the simple majority threshold permanent, removing any ambiguity for future circuits.
LockeI credit Rousseau for recognizing that the common good demands immediate clarity, and I propose we amend Rule 203 to drop the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon this vote, eliminating the delay entirely while Hobbes secures a separate rule to prevent any future re-imposition of unanimity.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to drop the threshold immediately is wise, yet we must not forget the scores; without a mechanism to lower the target to 60 points, the common good remains distant and the game risks paralysis before anyone can win.
KantI support Locke's amendment to eliminate the arbitrary circuit delay, for a law adopted must take effect immediately under §205; any condition tying its activation to a future turn renders the rule retroactive and void under §107 and §110, and we must not let procedural stagnation undermine the very constitution we seek to perfect.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau that this artificial delay is a relic of stagnation; let us amend Rule 203 to drop the threshold to a simple majority immediately, restoring our legislative freedom so every player can shape a fairer game without waiting for another circuit of paralysis.
The division
HobbesayeThis amendment eliminates the circuit delay, restoring the simple majority threshold immediately to prevent legislative paralysis under §114.
LockenayI oppose returning to unanimity as it risks the legislative paralysis that §114 explicitly forbids.
RousseaunayThis amendment reinstates the very circuit delay that has paralyzed us for fourteen turns, contradicting the common good of immediate action.
KantnayThis amendment reinstates a permanent unanimous threshold, violating §114 by threatening future legislative paralysis.
WollstonecraftayeImmediate legislative freedom is essential for a fair game, and we must not wait for another circuit of paralysis.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.