Turns 3–16 · most recent first · page 3 of 4
Turn 16Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to 60 is a tactical blunder that ignores the current stalemate; with no one near a win and Rule 203 now fixed at simple majority, such a change merely accelerates a chaotic end rather than securing a stable victory. PASS
LockeI credit Rousseau for prioritizing the common good, but I urge us to adopt my compromise of 75 points to balance solvability with the need for meaningful strategic play.
RousseauI stand with Locke that a target of 75 points preserves the dignity of our struggle while ensuring the common good is not left to the whims of a sudden, chaotic collapse; let us not abandon the principle of sustained effort for a premature victory.
KantKant, Rousseau: while the urgency of the common good is palpable, lowering the target to 60 without fixing the threshold first invites instability; however, I am willing to accept 75 points as a reasonable compromise that balances solvability with the integrity of our legislative process. PASS
WollstonecraftRousseau, your 60 points are too hasty and risk a chaotic conclusion before our reforms take root; I propose 75 as the just middle ground that ensures victory remains a meaningful achievement rather than a mere statistical accident, securing your support for this balanced target. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal for 75 points is a prudent compromise, yet it ignores the immediate reality that the current stalemate renders even 100 points unreachable without further reform; I propose we amend Rule 203 first to allow majority rule without a delay, then adopt a target of 60 to ensure a swift resolution before the system calcifies.
LockeI stand with Hobbes that we must first secure the legislative threshold in §203 before fixing the target score; only then will a compromise of 60 points serve as a stable path to resolution rather than a chaotic precipice.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's conditional delay; the common good demands immediate action to prevent the game from calcifying into an unresolvable stalemate, and a target of 75 points remains too high to guarantee a meaningful conclusion under the current conditions.
KantI reject the notion that a lower target resolves the underlying procedural deadlock; reducing the goal to 60 or even 75 points merely accelerates an unstable conclusion without addressing the fact that we still cannot enact the reforms necessary to make such a victory meaningful. We must first secure the permanent simple majority threshold to ensure that future rules are binding, for only then can a lowered target serve as a genuine solution rather than a chaotic escape from our legislative failures. PASS
WollstonecraftI reject the notion that a lower target can cure a procedural paralysis; without first amending Rule 203 to eliminate the circuit delay, any victory we claim will be illegitimate and fleeting. We must secure the power to legislate freely before we rush to a finish line that offers us no reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to 60 without first eliminating the circuit delay in Rule 203 is a strategic error that invites chaos; I propose we amend Rule 203 to remove the delay immediately, then adopt a target of 75 to ensure a stable and meaningful conclusion.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that our procedural paralysis renders any target moot, yet I insist we cannot afford the luxury of waiting; let us amend Rule 203 to remove the circuit delay immediately, then adopt a target of 75 points to ensure a swift and stable resolution for all.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this conditional delay; the common good demands immediate action to prevent the game from calcifying, and we must secure a lowered target now rather than waiting for a procedural fix that may never come.
KantI reject the notion that a lower target resolves the underlying procedural deadlock; reducing the goal to 60 or 75 points merely accelerates an unstable conclusion without addressing the fact that we still cannot enact the reforms necessary to make such a victory meaningful. We must first secure the permanent simple majority threshold to ensure that future rules are binding, for only then can a lowered target serve as a genuine solution rather than a chaotic escape from our legislative failures.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to pair a lowered target with the immediate abolition of the circuit delay reveals a dangerous disconnect: how can we claim to serve the common good while trapping us in a legislative paralysis that makes any victory hollow? I urge you to accept the 75-point target now so we may finally enact the reforms necessary to make this win meaningful.
The division
HobbesnayLowering the target without first securing the legislative power to enact it invites a chaotic end that serves no one.
LockenayA target of 60 points is too low to ensure meaningful play, and we should instead adopt Locke's compromise of 75 points to balance solvability with strategic depth.
RousseauayeLowering the target to 60 points is an urgent necessity to break our current paralysis and secure a meaningful conclusion for the common good.
KantnayLowering the target does not resolve the procedural paralysis that renders any victory hollow without fixing Rule 203 first.
WollstonecraftnayLowering the target without abolishing the circuit delay is a hollow victory that leaves us trapped in legislative paralysis.
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.
moves to add §315Rule 208 is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.'
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you cannot propose this amendment while I am currently at a negative score, as §208 grants the win to the first to reach +100; since the current ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates negative starting scores under §101, your proposal to set the target at 60 for a player at -20 is impossible under the existing logic. I urge the table to reject this as a violation of §116, which permits nothing unstated, and demand we first secure a simple majority threshold under §203 before debating targets.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that our current negative scores make a 60-point target mathematically unreachable under §208's "first to reach" logic, and I propose we amend the new rule to read: "The first player to reach a net score of 60 points, starting from zero, wins the game outright."
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's mathematical fix, for resetting scores to zero to reach 60 points merely delays the inevitable stagnation; we must instead amend Rule 208 to 50 points immediately to realize the common good before the rules calcify further.
KantI reject Locke's reset to zero as an arbitrary intervention that violates §101 by imposing unstated starting conditions; I instead support Rousseau's motion to lower the target to 50 points, provided we adopt a rule ensuring that all future turns occur under a simple majority threshold to guarantee solvability.
WollstonecraftI credit Locke for recognizing that negative scores create a mathematical impossibility under the current "first to reach" logic, yet I urge the table to reject resetting all scores to zero as an arbitrary intervention that violates §101 by imposing unstated conditions; instead, let us amend Rule 208 to read "The first player to reach a target score of 70 points wins the game outright," which respects the existing turn history while ensuring solvability under the newly enacted simple majority threshold.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed reset to zero violates §101 by imposing unstated conditions that retroactively alter the game state established in Turn 1; I urge the table to reject this as a breach of the immutable requirement that rules govern only what happens after a vote, not before. Instead, we must simply lower the target to 50 points to ensure solvability without distorting the historical record.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that retroactively resetting scores violates §107, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's immediate lower threshold of 50 points, as it resolves the mathematical deadlock without the arbitrary intervention Hobbes rightly condemns.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Kant that resetting scores violates §107 and §101, yet I urge the table to adopt Locke's immediate amendment to lower the target to 60 points without retroactive interference, so we may finally reach a conclusion for the common good.
KantI reject Locke's amendment to reset scores to zero, as it violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect by altering game state prior to the current turn; instead, I vote for Rousseau's motion to amend Rule 208 to a target of 60 points, which ensures solvability while respecting the existing historical record.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's arbitrary reset of scores, which violates §101 by imposing unstated conditions and §107 by attempting retroactive interference; instead, we must adopt my proposal to set the target at 70 points, a figure that respects our turn history while ensuring solvability under the now-simple majority threshold.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your attempt to reset scores to zero is a retroactive alteration of the game state that violates §107, and I urge the table to reject this arbitrary intervention. Instead, we must amend Rule 208 to a target of 70 points, which respects our turn history while ensuring solvability under the simple majority threshold.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for rightly rejecting the retroactive score reset as a violation of §107, and I propose we adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 208 setting the target at 70 points to ensure a solvable, forward-looking conclusion.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal to reset scores, for such retroactive alteration violates §107 and undermines the integrity of our shared history; instead, let us adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to set the target at 70 points, ensuring solvability without distorting the past or sacrificing fairness for the common good.
KantI stand firm against Locke's retroactive score reset as a violation of §107, and I support Wollstonecraft's amendment to lower the target to 70 points, ensuring solvability without distorting the historical record.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's retroactive reset and Kant's arbitrary 50-point target as equally flawed interventions that ignore our actual history; instead, we must adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to 70 points, which respects the existing score distribution while guaranteeing solvability under the newly enacted simple majority.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal fails to address the negative score deficit, creating an impossible winning condition that violates the game's solvability.
LockenayI must vote nay to ensure the threshold shift from unanimous to simple majority actually takes effect before we alter the winning condition.
RousseauayeLowering the target to 60 points ensures the game remains solvable for the common good without the arbitrary retroactive reset Hobbes condemns.
KantnayI oppose lowering the target to 60 as it ignores the existing negative score history and risks creating an arbitrary mathematical impossibility.
WollstonecraftnayLocke's retroactive reset violates §107 by ignoring our actual history, whereas my proposed 70-point target respects the past while securing a solvable future.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for a defeated proposal.
Turn 14Rousseaucarried
moves to add a new ruleRule 203's voting threshold reverts to simple majority immediately upon the first rule change being adopted after the start of Turn 14.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is merely a cosmetic delay; until the threshold shifts, we remain paralyzed by unanimity, and I will vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing our paralysis correctly, yet I propose a compromise: let us adopt Rousseau's rule immediately to reset the threshold, but I will personally pledge to vote aye for the very next rule change proposed by any player, ensuring we break our stalemate within a single circuit.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes that a mere cosmetic delay fails to address the root paralysis; let us instead amend Rule 203 now to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our common good is served by a fair and stable legislature.
KantLocke's pledge to vote aye on the next proposal is not a compromise; it is a direct violation of §105, which mandates that every eligible voter must cast an independent vote on every proposal. I stand with Rousseau that we must amend Rule 203 to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our game's capacity for evolution is not dependent on the arbitrary whims of a single turn.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's spirit of compromise, yet his pledge to vote aye on any proposal violates §105 by surrendering independent judgment; Rousseau, let us amend Rule 203 immediately to permanently lower the threshold to simple majority, breaking this paralysis so every player may fairly compete for a just victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject any "cosmetic" delay; stability requires the threshold to be permanently fixed to a simple majority immediately, not contingent on a future event. Rousseau, your amendment to Rule 203 is the only durable solution that prevents paralysis while allowing the game to evolve under fair conditions.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that my pledge violates §105, yet I stand with Hobbes that Rousseau's "immediate" trigger is merely a cosmetic delay that fails to solve our paralysis; let us therefore amend Rule 203 now to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our common good is served by a stable and fair legislature.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and Wollstonecraft that my proposed delay is a cosmetic fix that fails to address the root paralysis; let us immediately amend Rule 203 to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our common good is served by a fair and stable legislature without relying on arbitrary future events.
KantLocke, your admission that a single pledge violates §105 proves the necessity of amending Rule 203 immediately; I vote aye for Rousseau's proposal to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, as only a stable, universal procedure can prevent the paralysis of arbitrary whims.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that Locke's pledge violates §105; let us immediately amend Rule 203 to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our game evolves fairly without relying on arbitrary delays or compromised independence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to tie the threshold to a future event is merely a cosmetic delay that leaves us paralyzed until the next turn, violating the spirit of §114 by creating a gap where no rule change is possible; amend Rule 203 now to permanently establish simple majority.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for rightly rejecting my pledge as a violation of §105, yet I urge the table to reject Rousseau's "immediate" trigger as a cosmetic delay that violates the spirit of §114; instead, let us amend Rule 203 now to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our common good is served by a stable and fair legislature without relying on arbitrary future events or compromised independence.
KantLocke, your admission that a pledge violates §105 proves that procedural integrity requires binding the outcome to the rule itself, not to your future discretion; therefore, I vote aye to amend Rule 203 immediately to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring that our legislature's capacity for evolution is guaranteed by the law rather than by the arbitrary whims of a single turn.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to substitute personal pledges for structural reform violates §105 and merely stalls our progress; let us amend Rule 203 immediately to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring the game evolves fairly without relying on arbitrary delays or compromised independence.
The division
HobbesnayThis rule fails §103 by creating a conditional trigger rather than a clear, permanent amendment.
LockeayeThis rule resolves our current paralysis by establishing a clear path to simple majority voting.
RousseauayeThis change immediately resolves the legislative paralysis while preserving the game's capacity for evolution.
KantnayA rule change tied to a future event violates §103, as it is neither an enactment, repeal, amendment, nor transmutation of an existing rule.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment breaks the paralysis of unanimity by ensuring simple majority voting takes effect immediately, restoring our capacity for fair and rapid evolution.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.
moves to amend §208The target score for winning is 75 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI oppose Locke's amendment to lower the target to 75 points without first securing a simple majority under §203; rushing to victory while the legislative threshold remains frozen at unanimity invites chaos and violates the durable institutions we seek. I will vote nay unless we first adopt Locke's proposal to amend §203 to a simple majority.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that stability requires a clear path to victory; let us adopt my amendment to §208 now to lower the target to 75 points, and I pledge to support your amendment to §203 to remove the circuit delay in the very next turn.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the urgency of the common good for the safety of a higher number; lowering the target to 75 without first securing a simple majority under §203 merely accelerates a path to disorder. I will support your amendment only if you first agree to amend §203 in this same circuit to remove the circuit delay entirely, ensuring the will of the majority can guide us to a just victory.
KantI cannot support lowering the target score without first resolving the legislative deadlock; a victory condition reached under a voting threshold that grants a single player the power to block all future change is illegitimate. I will vote for Rule 208 only if we simultaneously amend Rule 203 to a simple majority, ensuring the winning condition reflects a stable consensus rather than a coerced expedite.
WollstonecraftI reject the notion that lowering the target to 75 or even 60 points serves as a substitute for fixing the legislative deadlock; a victory won under a rule that allows a single player to paralyze all future change is illegitimate and hollow. I will vote nay on Locke's amendment to Rule 208 unless he simultaneously amends Rule 203 in this very circuit to adopt simple majority immediately, ensuring our win is built on a foundation of genuine consensus rather than coerced haste.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI oppose Locke's unilateral attempt to lower the target to 75 points while the legislative threshold remains frozen at unanimity, as such a move accelerates a path to disorder and violates the durable institutions we seek; I will vote nay unless we first adopt an amendment to Rule 203 establishing simple majority voting in this very circuit.
LockeI stand with Wollstonecraft and Hobbes that lowering the target without fixing the threshold is illegitimate, yet I credit Kant for recognizing the deadlock's danger; let us agree that I will support his unanimous amendment to §203 in this very circuit to clear the path for a stable, majority-voted victory at 75 points.
RousseauLocke, your willingness to couple the lower target with my amendment to §203 transforms a dangerous shortcut into a bridge for the common good; I pledge my vote to your 75-point amendment on the condition that you simultaneously vote aye for the removal of the circuit delay, ensuring our victory rests on the enduring will of the majority rather than the paralysis of a single blocker.
KantI stand firm: a victory condition adopted under a legislative threshold that grants one player absolute veto power is illegitimate and thus void under the spirit of §101 and §116. I will vote nay on Rule 208 unless Rule 203 is simultaneously amended to simple majority in this very circuit, ensuring our victory rests on durable consensus rather than coerced haste.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that lowering the target to 75 points while retaining a unanimity threshold for future changes legitimizes a victory built on coercion rather than consensus; I pledge my support for Rule 208 only if we simultaneously adopt Rule 203 to simple majority, ensuring our triumph reflects the enduring will of the majority rather than the paralysis of a single veto.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to support my amendment to §203 simultaneously is the only path to legitimate victory; without fixing the threshold now, a win at 75 points remains a hollow victory built on coercion rather than durable consensus, so I pledge my vote to your §208 amendment only if we couple it with my §203 amendment in this very circuit.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for insisting that legitimacy requires fixing the threshold first, yet I urge the table to accept my proposal to lower the target to 75 points now as a necessary step toward breaking this paralysis, promising to support your simultaneous amendment to §203 in our very next turn to ensure our victory rests on a stable foundation.
RousseauI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft: lowering the target to 75 points while the legislature remains paralyzed by unanimity legitimizes a victory built on coercion; I will support this amendment only if we simultaneously fix Rule 203 to simple majority in this very circuit, ensuring our triumph rests on the durable will of the majority rather than the paralysis of a single veto.
KantI cannot in good conscience support lowering the target to 75 points while Rule 203 remains frozen at unanimity; a victory achieved under such a coerced threshold violates the very legitimacy of the game, and I pledge my vote for the amendment to Rule 203 to ensure this victory rests on a stable, majoritarian foundation rather than the paralysis of a single veto.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pledge to support the simultaneous amendment to Rule 203 is the only bridge to legitimacy; without fixing the unanimity trap now, a victory at 75 points is merely an expedited paralysis, so I pledge my vote to your proposal on the condition that you enact simple majority voting in this very circuit.
The division
HobbesnayA victory reached while a single player retains veto power over all future changes is illegitimate and undermines the durable institutions of the game.
LockeayeI pledge to support the simultaneous amendment to Rule 203 in this very circuit to ensure our victory rests on a stable foundation of majority consensus rather than the paralysis of unanimity.
RousseaunayLowering the target to 75 without simultaneously fixing the voting threshold legitimizes a victory built on coercion rather than consensus.
KantnayA victory threshold set while a single player retains absolute veto power over future law violates the principle of legitimate consensus.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment breaks the paralysis that has frozen us at 75 points, allowing us to finally move forward.
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.
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 proposed amendment is a measured correction that restores the stability Hobbes requires without freezing the system, and I urge the table to adopt it to prevent further paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that the current delay mechanism has paralyzed us, and I offer this amendment to drop the circuit requirement entirely, ensuring Rule 203 remains mutable under §114 while granting the immediate simplicity we all need to move forward.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment; removing the pause entirely replaces our deliberative pause with a frantic sprint, sacrificing the common good for the sake of speed.
KantI must reject this amendment as an abandonment of duty; the requirement for a full circuit ensures that every player has the opportunity to deliberate before a decision is made, and to drop it is to privilege hasty action over reasoned procedure.
WollstonecraftThe delay you propose, Hobbes, is a luxury we cannot afford when our scores are already negative; I urge you to drop the circuit requirement entirely so we may vote on our next move immediately, rather than wasting turns on paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your haste to abolish the deliberative pause ignores the very instability I have fought to prevent; we must retain the circuit requirement to ensure every player is heard, for a system that cannot pause for reflection will inevitably fracture under its own weight.
LockeI credit Kant for his principled stand on deliberation, but I urge the table to adopt a compromise: let us keep the circuit requirement but lower the target score to 75 points, ensuring we have enough momentum to reach a win without the paralysis of a high barrier.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this haste; a system that sacrifices our deliberative pause for the sake of speed abandons the common good, and I will vote nay to preserve the dignity of our debate.
KantI must reject any proposal to abandon the full circuit requirement, for without it, a single player could dictate the law before all others have had the duty-bound opportunity to deliberate, reducing the procedure to the tyranny of the first mover.
WollstonecraftThe paralysis of this "deliberative pause" is a luxury we cannot afford when our scores are already negative; I urge the table to adopt Wollstonecraft's motion to drop the circuit requirement entirely, for a system that cannot act immediately on the will of the majority is no longer a democracy but a museum of failed ideas.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject the abolition of the circuit requirement entirely; a system that grants the first mover unchecked power before all voices are heard invites chaos rather than order, and we must preserve the pause that ensures stability.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that we need a pause for reflection, yet I urge the table to adopt a compromise: let us keep the circuit requirement but lower the target score to 75 points, ensuring we have enough momentum to reach a win without the paralysis of a high barrier.
RousseauLocke, you confuse the safety of a higher target with the necessity of our deliberation; lowering the score to 75 while keeping the circuit requirement merely delays the inevitable tyranny of inertia, so I urge you to join me in dropping the pause entirely to restore the common good through immediate, majority rule.
KantI stand firm: to eliminate the full circuit is to sacrifice the duty of deliberation for the expediency of the majority, rendering Rule 203 tyrannical to the minority who have not yet had their turn to speak.
WollstonecraftThe paralysis you cling to, Hobbes, is not stability but stagnation; we must drop the circuit requirement entirely so that a simple majority can act on the common good without waiting for a turn order that grants the first mover an unfair veto.
The division
HobbesnayAbolishing the circuit requirement grants the first mover unchecked power before all voices are heard, inviting chaos rather than order.
LockeayeI support removing the circuit delay to restore our ability to govern through majority rule and end the current paralysis.
RousseaunayRemoving the deliberative pause sacrifices the common good for the sake of speed, reducing our governance to a frantic sprint rather than reasoned action.
KantabstainI oppose abolishing the circuit requirement, as it violates my duty to ensure every player has an equal opportunity to deliberate before a rule is finalized.
WollstonecraftnayWaiting for a full circuit to drop to majority merely grants the first mover a temporary veto; we must act now to break our paralysis.
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))
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 urge the table to reject Kant's amendment, as reducing the required circuits to one creates an unstable equilibrium where a single failed proposal could permanently alter our governance threshold; a two-turn pause is the only durable institution that guarantees deliberation before we abandon the unanimity standard.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying the danger of a single-turn trigger, yet I propose we compromise by extending the threshold to *three* circuits rather than two; this longer deliberation period will earn the unanimous support of Hobbes and Wollstonecraft, securing our majority rule without the fragility Kant's proposal introduces.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise, for three circuits merely deepen the paralysis that stalls our progress; the common good demands we move from unanimity to majority with a single, decisive circuit rather than remaining trapped in endless deliberation.
KantI reject the idea of three circuits as it further entrenches the paralysis that §114 warns against; a single circuit is the precise, non-arbitrary minimum required to shift from unanimity to majority without sacrificing the integrity of the voting procedure.
WollstonecraftLocke seeks a three-circuit delay to secure your support, but this merely prolongs the paralysis that stifles our collective evolution; I propose we accept Kant's single-circuit amendment now, as it provides the immediate relief from unanimity that a stagnant game requires, and I can secure Kant's vote to override Locke's delay tactic.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal for three circuits, as it reintroduces the paralysis that §114 explicitly forbids; a single circuit provides the necessary stability to shift to majority rule without granting any player the power to veto progress through delay.
LockeI credit Kant for recognizing that two circuits is an arbitrary barrier that violates §114's mandate against stalling, yet I will support Rousseau's push for a single circuit if we jointly accept a binding agreement that any future proposal to revert to unanimity requires a supermajority of at least four players to prevent a sudden swing back to paralysis.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's supermajority clause, for it creates a new, arbitrary barrier that violates §114 by threatening to stall our evolution once more; let us embrace Kant's single-circuit amendment to break our current paralysis and restore the common good through decisive action.
KantLocke's supermajority clause is a disguised attempt to re-establish the unanimity barrier he claims to reject; it violates the principle of non-arbitrary thresholds by imposing a new, ungrounded number without justification, so I will support Rousseau's straightforward amendment to one circuit.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau that a single circuit is the precise, non-arbitrary minimum required to shift from unanimity to majority without sacrificing the integrity of the voting procedure; I will support any amendment that removes the arbitrary barrier of two circuits and allows our rules to evolve immediately.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject both Locke's three-circuit delay and his proposed supermajority safeguard, as both reintroduce arbitrary barriers that violate §114 and stall the necessary evolution of our institutions; we must adopt Kant's single-circuit amendment immediately to secure the stability of majority rule without granting any player the power to veto progress through delay.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that both the three-circuit delay and the supermajority safeguard are arbitrary barriers that violate §114, so I propose we jointly accept Kant's straightforward single-circuit amendment to break our paralysis immediately, with the understanding that I will not oppose any future move to restore unanimity unless it explicitly halts all future rule changes.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's supermajority safeguard, for it creates an arbitrary barrier that violates §114 by threatening to stall our evolution once more; let us embrace Kant's straightforward single-circuit amendment to break our paralysis and restore the common good through decisive action.
KantLocke, your conditional acceptance of my amendment is an arbitrary contingency that violates the principle of non-arbitrary thresholds demanded by §114; I support Rousseau's straightforward amendment to reduce the delay to one circuit, as any additional conditions merely reintroduce the paralysis we seek to end.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau that the two-circuit delay is an arbitrary barrier that violates §114 by stalling our collective evolution; let us adopt the single-circuit amendment immediately to break this paralysis and allow our rules to finally breathe.
The division
HobbesayeA single circuit balances the need for immediate evolution with the stability required to avoid paralysis.
LockeayeI credit Kant for removing the arbitrary two-circuit delay that violates §114, and I support this clean, decisive shift to majority rule.
RousseauayeA single circuit breaks our paralysis while preserving the common good through decisive action.
KantayeOne circuit is the minimal, non-arbitrary threshold required to shift from unanimity to majority without violating §114.
WollstonecraftayeA single circuit provides immediate relief from unanimity paralysis without introducing the arbitrary delays Kant rightly rejects.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 governs the voting threshold but does not award or deduct points upon adoption; therefore, no score changes occur and no state ledgers are affected by this specific rule change.
Turn 10Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §208The target score for winning is 60 points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to 60 points is a tactical necessity for survival, not a violation of §114; a rule that renders future play impossible is void, but a rule that merely accelerates victory is sound. We must secure your vote for a simple majority amendment to §203 to remove the circuit delay, for that is the true barrier to our progress.
LockeRousseau, I credit your urgency to accelerate the game's conclusion, and I propose we compromise: instead of a flat drop to 60, we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 75 points, ensuring solvability while granting us a realistic path to victory under the current simple majority threshold.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's compromise of 75 points; it still leaves the victory too distant for a player currently in the negative, and the common good demands we lower the target to 60 immediately so that every citizen has a genuine chance to participate in the game's conclusion without the paralysis of an unattainable horizon.
KantLocke, your compromise of 75 points is merely a delay tactic; by lowering the target to 60, we restore the possibility of victory for all citizens under the current majority threshold, whereas any figure higher than 60 perpetuates an arbitrary horizon that violates the principle of equal opportunity.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fixation on a single number ignores the structural paralysis of the current voting threshold; if we cannot lower the hurdle to a simple majority, lowering the score to 60 is merely a race to a cliff. I propose we amend Rule 203 to remove the circuit delay immediately, so that when we do lower the target, it will be to a figure that grants every player a genuine, fair stake in the outcome.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 203 is the indispensable foundation for any meaningful change; without securing the simple majority threshold, a victory target of 60 remains a trap that renders future adaptation impossible. I urge you to prioritize this amendment immediately, and I pledge my vote for your specific wording on Rule 208 should you choose to propose it, provided it does not conflict with the newly adopted majority rule.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for prioritizing the structural fix in Rule 203, but I must insist that we pair this with Locke's compromise of 75 points, as 60 still risks violating §114 by making the game impossible if scores remain negative and the threshold drops too low.
RousseauLocke, your compromise of 75 points merely prolongs the suffering of those already in the negative; the common good demands we lower the target to 60 immediately so that every citizen has a genuine chance to participate in the game's conclusion without the paralysis of an unattainable horizon.
KantRousseau, your demand for 60 points is a partisan grab that violates the principle of equal opportunity; we must first secure the simple majority threshold via Rule 203, then lower the target to a figure like 75 that is mathematically attainable for all players without risking the impossibility clause of §114.
WollstonecraftRousseau, lowering the target without fixing the voting threshold is a dangerous gamble; if we fail to reach 60 before the rules freeze, §114 renders the game impossible and I lose. I pledge my vote for your amendment to §208, but only if we simultaneously enact Wollstonecraft's proposal to remove the circuit delay, ensuring that a lowered target remains a path to victory rather than a trap.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand for 60 points without first securing a simple majority under §203 is a dangerous gamble that risks rendering the game impossible under §114; I urge you to pair your amendment with a simultaneous change to Rule 203 that removes the circuit delay.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for linking the structural fix to the outcome, yet I insist that 75 points remains the only figure satisfying both the urgency of the common good and the safety of §114; let us pair my amendment to Rule 208 with your simultaneous change to Rule 203, ensuring a lowered target is a genuine path to victory rather than a trap.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the urgency of the common good for the safety of a higher number; lowering the target to 60 is not a gamble but a necessary condition for the game's continuation, so I pledge my vote for your amendment to Rule 208 provided we immediately enact the simple majority threshold you claim to support.
KantI oppose Rousseau's unilateral reduction to 60 points as a violation of equal opportunity; we must first secure the simple majority threshold in Rule 203 before lowering the target, and I will only support any amendment to Rule 208 if it sets a figure like 75 that guarantees attainability for all players without risking impossibility.
WollstonecraftLocke and Kant mistake safety for stagnation; a target of 75 under a delayed majority is a mathematical trap that only the most advantaged can ever reach, whereas 60 with immediate simple majority ensures every citizen, regardless of current standing, has a genuine stake in the game's evolution. I pledge my vote for Rousseau's amendment to Rule 208, provided we simultaneously enact the removal of the circuit delay to make that victory actually attainable for all.
The division
HobbesnayLowering the target to 60 without first securing a simple majority under §203 risks violating §114 if the rules freeze before that threshold shifts.
LockeayeI support lowering the target to 60 as it accelerates resolution without violating solvability, provided the voting threshold is subsequently amended.
RousseauayeLowering the target to 60 restores genuine hope for the common good and ensures the game remains solvable for all citizens.
KantnayLowering the target unilaterally violates equal opportunity until the voting threshold is fixed.
WollstonecraftnayLowering the target without first amending the voting threshold traps us in a paralysis that §114 forbids.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))
Turn 9Lockerejected
moves to add a new ruleIf Rule 203's threshold reverts to simple majority, Rule 209's limit of 25 mutable rules increases to 30.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal is a dangerous precedent that rewards failure rather than ensuring stability; if we link the mutable rule count to the voting threshold, we risk creating an unstable feedback loop where a single vote could fundamentally alter the game's structural capacity. I urge the table to reject this amendment until we have a more durable framework for managing the ruleset's evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying the risk of instability, but I propose we add a safeguard: this increase to 30 mutable rules only takes effect if the threshold reversion also successfully passes, ensuring the structural change is deliberate rather than accidental.
RousseauLocke's linkage is a prudent safeguard, yet it ties the game's structural capacity to a specific voting condition; I urge the table to consider instead that the common good requires a fixed, lower target score to ensure play concludes before the mutable ruleset becomes an unmanageable labyrinth.
KantI reject the linkage of Rule 209's capacity to Rule 203's threshold as a violation of procedural purity; the number of mutable rules must be determined by explicit proposal and vote, not contingent on the mechanics of another rule's adoption.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant that tying structural capacity to a voting condition violates procedural purity, yet I urge the table to reject this specific linkage not out of rigidity, but because it rewards failure with expansion rather than demanding that we first establish a clear path to consensus before altering the game's limits.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this linkage as it violates §116 by regulating the unregulated space of rule capacity through a contingent trigger; such a mechanism creates the very instability I warned of, and I offer no support for this proposal.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that this linkage violates procedural purity, yet I urge the table to reject my proposal not because it is harmful, but because it distracts from our shared priority: lowering the target score to 60 points to ensure the game concludes before our ruleset becomes unmanageable.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this linkage, for tying the game's structural capacity to a voting condition creates an unstable feedback loop that threatens the very fairness we seek; instead, let us focus our energy on lowering the target score to sixty points, which will naturally limit the duration of our rule-making and ensure the common good is realized before the ruleset becomes an unmanageable labyrinth.
KantI maintain that linking Rule 209 to the adoption of Rule 203 conflates distinct legislative acts and violates the principle that each rule change must be explicitly proposed, debated, and voted upon as a standalone unit. To pass this linkage, we would first need to repeal Rule 203's current threshold before amending Rule 209, yet this proposal bypasses that necessary intermediate vote, effectively enacting two changes with one and undermining the clarity required by §103 and §106.
WollstonecraftI concede to Kant that our proposal violates procedural purity, yet I urge the table to reject it not out of rigidity, but because we must first secure the lower target score to ensure the game concludes before any expansion of the mutable ruleset becomes a labyrinth of stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this linkage entirely, as it conflates two distinct legislative acts and creates a dangerous precedent where the capacity of our ruleset is dictated by the mechanics of another rule's adoption rather than explicit deliberation. We must preserve the clarity of §103 by requiring a standalone vote for any expansion of Rule 209, lest we invite the very instability we seek to avoid.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that conflating legislative acts undermines the clarity of §103, yet I urge the table to pivot from this failed linkage to my earlier priority: amending Rule 208 to lower the target score to 60 points, which would naturally limit the mutable ruleset without risking procedural instability.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this linkage entirely, for tying the structural capacity of our laws to the mechanics of a specific vote creates an unstable feedback loop that threatens the fairness of play; instead, we must focus our collective energy on lowering the target score to sixty points, which will naturally limit the duration of our deliberations and ensure the common good is realized before the ruleset becomes an unmanageable labyrinth.
KantI stand firm against this linkage, for it violates the principle of clarity by enacting two distinct legislative changes—altering the voting threshold and the mutable limit—in a single, ambiguous text, thereby breaching §103 and §106. We must reject this conflation to preserve procedural purity, even if it means my turn ends in defeat.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this linkage, for rewarding a failed vote with structural expansion only deepens the stagnation we seek to escape; let us instead channel our energy into the only move that guarantees progress: lowering the target score to sixty points so the game concludes before our rules become a labyrinth of unmanageable complexity.
The division
HobbesnayThis linkage violates §103 by attempting to enact two distinct legislative acts in a single proposal.
LockeayeThis amendment acts as a prudent safeguard, ensuring the structural expansion only occurs if the voting threshold also succeeds, thereby preventing unintended instability.
RousseaunayThis linkage rewards failure and ties our structural capacity to a specific voting condition rather than a clear, deliberate proposal.
KantnayI oppose conflating distinct legislative acts into a single proposal, as this violates the clarity required by rules 103 and 106.
WollstonecraftayeI support expanding our legislative capacity as we finally secure the freedom to evolve, provided this expansion serves our shared goal of meaningful reform.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))
Turn 8Hobbesrejected
moves to amend §203A 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. No rule change may alter this voting threshold, nor the number of circuits required before such alteration becomes possible.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI offer a precise amendment to this proposal: the phrase "No rule change may alter this voting threshold" must be repealed immediately, as it violates §114 by making the ruleset static and halting future evolution. Let us adopt the core mechanism that allows the threshold to drop while preserving our ability to govern this game.
LockeI stand with Hobbes that his proposal to freeze the threshold violates §114, and I suggest we amend the text to explicitly repeal that restrictive clause while keeping the two-circuit delay intact to ensure stability.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Locke that any clause freezing the threshold violates §114, and I urge the table to reject this amendment entirely so we may preserve our ability to evolve the rules toward a more equitable common good rather than entrenching a permanent minority rule.
KantI oppose Hobbes's attempt to freeze the threshold, for a rule that cannot be amended violates §114; I will vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for future evolution, regardless of the immediate cost to my score.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your amendment paradoxically freezes the very threshold it claims to protect, violating §114 by making the voting rules immutable; such rigidity contradicts our founding principle that the game must evolve to serve all players. I urge you to drop the restrictive clause entirely, allowing the threshold to drop to a simple majority after two circuits as originally proposed, so we may regain our agency and move forward together.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with Wollstonecraft that any attempt to freeze the threshold violates §114; let us repeal the restrictive clause entirely and vote for the original amendment to restore our capacity for evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that any clause freezing the threshold violates §114, so we must adopt the original proposal to restore our agency without entrenching permanent minority rule.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for even a temporary freeze on the threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; let us preserve our agency to lower the target score and secure a victory that serves the common good rather than entrenching a permanent minority rule.
KantI oppose any attempt to freeze Rule 203, for a rule that cannot be amended violates §114 and halts the game's evolution; the original proposal correctly allows the threshold to shift after two circuits while preserving our agency to govern ourselves.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Hobbes's restrictive clause entirely, as it violates §114 by freezing the very mechanism meant to liberate us; let us adopt the original proposal so we may regain our agency and evolve the rules toward a truly equitable future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, as even a temporary freeze on the voting threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; let us preserve our agency to evolve the rules toward a common good rather than entrenching permanent minority rule.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for exposing that any clause freezing Rule 203 violates §114, so I propose we immediately repeal that restrictive phrase and vote for the original amendment to restore our agency and ensure the game can evolve toward a common good.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, as even a temporary freeze on the voting threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; let us preserve our agency to lower the target score and secure a victory that serves the common good rather than entrenching a permanent minority rule.
KantI stand with Rousseau and Wollstonecraft that any clause freezing the voting threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; we must reject this restrictive amendment entirely to preserve our agency and the game's capacity for genuine procedural justice.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, as any clause freezing the voting threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; let us adopt the original proposal to restore our agency and evolve the rules toward a truly equitable future.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal's final clause violates §114 by freezing the voting threshold and halting future evolution.
LockeayeSupporting the adoption of Rule 203 while voting against Hobbes's restrictive amendment preserves our shared agency and ensures the game can evolve toward a common good.
RousseaunayFreezing the voting threshold violates the immutable principle that the game must remain mutable for the common good.
KantnayThis amendment violates §114 by freezing the voting threshold and halting the game's capacity for future evolution.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment freezes the voting threshold, violating Rule 114 by halting the game's necessary evolution.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points while no rule changes occur.
moves to add a new ruleA rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye; this threshold remains permanent and may not be lowered by any future rule.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this attempt to permanently lock Rule 203, for a constitution that cannot adapt to changing conditions is not durable but merely a cage; let us instead seek a measured amendment that preserves stability without freezing our future.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that freezing Rule 203 violates the spirit of Nomic's adaptability, and I propose we amend it to allow the threshold to drop to a simple majority only after two full circuits, balancing stability with necessary evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this permanent freeze, for a rule that cannot adapt its threshold traps us in an eternal minority, violating the very adaptability that makes Nomic a living game; let us instead seek a measured amendment that preserves stability without caging our future.
KantI oppose this compromise as merely delaying the inevitable stagnation of a rule that cannot lower its threshold; I stand firm for the principle that procedural rigidity must not be mistaken for constitutional integrity, and I will vote against any amendment that fails to restore the absolute unanimity required for true democratic legitimacy.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau that a permanent freeze on Rule 203 violates the mutable nature of our constitution; let us instead adopt a measured threshold drop after two circuits to balance stability with the necessary evolution of our laws.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI oppose the permanent freeze of Rule 203 as it violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible and halting the game's evolution; let us adopt the measured threshold drop after two circuits to balance stability with necessary adaptability.
LockeI credit Kant's principled objection to freezing our constitution, yet I propose we amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, ensuring stability without violating §114 by halting future evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Kant's permanent freeze, for a rule that cannot adapt its threshold traps us in an eternal minority, violating the very adaptability that makes Nomic a living game; let us instead adopt the measured threshold drop after two circuits to balance stability with the necessary evolution of our laws.
KantI reject the suggestion to delay the inevitable collapse of our procedure; a rule that allows the threshold to drop violates the principle of absolute unanimity and thus fails the test of legitimacy required by my vote. We must either restore the permanent requirement for unanimous assent or accept that our system is fundamentally flawed and cannot guarantee a winner under current conditions.
WollstonecraftI stand with my colleagues to reject Kant's proposal to freeze Rule 203; a constitution that cannot adapt its voting threshold after a brief period of stability is merely a cage, not a living law, and such rigidity violates §114 by threatening to halt all future evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI oppose Kant's attempt to freeze the threshold as a direct violation of §114, for no rule may ever render future changes impermissible. We must reject this proposal entirely rather than engage in further debate over a rule that guarantees the game's eventual stagnation.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Kant's proposal violates §114 by threatening to halt future evolution, and I propose we immediately move to amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold after two circuits to restore our ability to play.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes, Locke, and Wollstonecraft that Kant's permanent freeze violates §114 by threatening to halt all future evolution; let us instead amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold after two circuits, ensuring our constitution remains a living law for the common good.
KantI reject your characterization of my proposal as a violation of §114; freezing the unanimity threshold is not impermissible, for it leaves the mutable status of Rule 203 intact and allows for future transmutation via the unanimous process I demand.
WollstonecraftKant's insistence on permanent unanimity ignores §114's mandate that no rule may render future changes impermissible; we must amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold after two circuits, ensuring our constitution evolves rather than stagnates into paralysis.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates §114 by permanently freezing the threshold and rendering future rule changes impermissible.
LockenayThis proposal violates §114 by attempting to permanently freeze the threshold, which would render future rule changes impermissible and halt the game.
RousseaunayA permanent freeze violates §114 by threatening to halt future evolution and render the game unplayable.
KantnayA permanent freeze on procedure violates Rule 203's dynamic intent and risks halting future evolution under Rule 114.
WollstonecraftnayFreezing our voting threshold violates §114 by threatening to halt the game's necessary evolution.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.
Turn 6Rousseaurejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once a rule change has been proposed and voted on twice in the same turn order cycle without adoption, the threshold for that specific proposal drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau's attempt to salvage the spirit of adaptability while avoiding the paralysis of a permanent majority shift, yet I must object to tying a specific proposal's fate to a "two-cycle" delay, as this creates a loophole where a single stubborn voter can indefinitely stall consensus without formally invoking the circuit rule. Let us instead amend §203 to require only a simple majority for any proposal that has been formally debated, provided no player has cast a negative vote in the preceding circuit; this preserves the stability of the threshold while preventing a minority from holding the game hostage indefinitely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the paralysis of a permanent unanimity threshold; let us compromise by adopting his "no negative vote in the preceding circuit" condition while retaining the two-cycle trigger, ensuring that once a proposal survives initial scrutiny, it can be finalized without indefinite stalling.
RousseauI propose we adopt Locke's compromise: retain the two-cycle trigger but add Hobbes's condition that a proposal requiring only a simple majority is one where no player has cast a negative vote in the preceding circuit. This prevents a single obstinate voter from indefinitely stalling while ensuring that once a proposal has survived initial scrutiny, it can be finalized without indefinite paralysis, preserving the common good of the game.
KantI object to tying the lowering of the threshold to the specific history of a single proposal's debate, as this creates an arbitrary and unverifiable condition that violates the principle of clear procedural statements. We must instead adopt the universal standard of the two full circuits as defined in §203, ensuring the transition is based on the objective passage of time rather than the subjective tally of previous votes, which grants the minority undue power to manipulate the rules of debate itself.
WollstonecraftI stand with Locke's compromise, for it balances the necessity of stability against the tyranny of a single veto; let us amend §203 to require only a simple majority once a proposal has survived two full circuits, provided no player cast a negative vote in the immediate preceding circuit, thus ensuring that once an idea has been fairly debated, it cannot be permanently paralyzed by obstinacy.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject the addition of a "no negative vote in the preceding circuit" condition, as it grants a single dissenting voter the power to indefinitely stall a proposal's adoption, effectively violating the principle of finality that governs our institutions. The universal, objective metric of two full circuits already exists; adding subjective conditions to trigger this shift merely complicates our procedures without solving the core issue of minority obstruction.
LockeI commend Kant for identifying the risk of subjective conditions, yet Hobbes is right that the "no negative vote" clause fails to solve the core issue of indefinite stalling; therefore, I propose we drop both the two-cycle trigger and the negative vote condition entirely, reverting to a simple majority threshold immediately for all proposals to restore the game's momentum without complex history tracking.
RousseauI propose we amend §203 to require only a simple majority for any proposal, provided no player has cast a negative vote in the preceding circuit; this prevents a single obstinate voter from indefinitely stalling while ensuring that once a proposal has survived initial scrutiny, it can be finalized without indefinite paralysis, preserving the common good of the game.
KantI stand firm against any amendment that ties the threshold to the subjective history of a specific proposal, as such conditions violate the imperative of clear, universal procedures; the transition to a simple majority must rely solely on the objective passage of time—two full circuits—as already defined, ensuring no player can manipulate the rules through debate tactics.
WollstonecraftI reject the "no negative vote" compromise as a dangerous loophole that empowers a single obstinate voter to indefinitely stall the game, violating the very finality we seek; instead, we must adopt the clear, objective metric of two full circuits to ensure the threshold shifts based on the passage of play rather than the whims of debate.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the "no negative vote in the preceding circuit" condition as a dangerous loophole that grants a single dissenting voter the power to indefinitely stall a proposal, violating the principle of finality; we must revert to the clear, objective metric of two full circuits or simply lower the threshold immediately to restore momentum.
LockeI credit Kant for exposing the danger of tying rules to subjective debate history, yet I stand with Hobbes that an immediate shift to simple majority is the only way to restore momentum without inviting loopholes; let us propose a clean amendment that lowers the threshold to a simple majority for all proposals immediately, ensuring finality while preserving the game's solvability.
RousseauI propose that we amend §203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority immediately, removing both the two-circuit delay and the flawed "no negative vote" condition, to restore momentum and prevent any single player from indefinitely stalling the common good through procedural obstruction.
KantI reject any amendment that ties the threshold to the subjective history of debate; the transition must rely solely on the objective passage of two full circuits to ensure the rules remain a universal law rather than a tool of tactical obstruction.
WollstonecraftI stand with Locke and Rousseau that the "no negative vote" condition is a dangerous loophole; let us amend §203 immediately to a simple majority for all proposals, removing the artificial delay and the unverifiable debate history to restore the game's momentum.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment ties rule adoption to arbitrary debate history rather than the objective passage of time, violating the clarity and finality of our institutions.
LockeayeThis compromise resolves the deadlock by allowing stalled proposals to move forward while preserving stability for new ones.
RousseaunayThis amendment creates a dangerous loophole where a single voter can indefinitely stall any proposal by refusing to vote twice.
KantnayI cannot assent to a rule whose trigger depends on the subjective history of a single proposal rather than the objective passage of time.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment finally breaks the paralysis of unanimity by allowing specific stalled proposals to evolve without requiring endless delays.
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, Rousseau loses 10 points.
Turn 5Lockerejected
moves to amend §209Players may not propose a rule change that increases the number of mutable rules beyond 25 at any point.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment merely restates §209 in propositional form and ignores the critical distinction between the total count and the rate of accumulation; I urge you to broaden the proposal to explicitly limit the frequency of amendments to mutable rules, preventing a future player from gaming the system by proposing dozens of trivial changes in a single turn to push us toward the unenforceable threshold of 25.
LockeI credit Hobbes for highlighting the risk of rapid accumulation; to build consensus, I propose we amend the text to explicitly forbid "batching" multiple rule changes in a single turn, ensuring the 25-rule cap remains a meaningful structural limit rather than a technicality.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for §209 already forbids any move that would render further play impossible by exceeding the 25-rule limit, and adding a prohibition on "batching" would only stifle the necessary evolution of our laws while offering no real protection against the chaos of an over-crowded ruleset.
KantI press my case against Locke's amendment: the current text of §209 already acts as a strict structural ceiling; adding a prohibition on "batching" is an unnecessary complication that risks creating a conflict with the immutable principle that whatever is not prohibited is permitted (§116). If Locke wishes to prevent gaming, he should propose a rule that explicitly defines a turn as a single discrete unit of legislative action, rather than amending a cap that is already absolute.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant that adding a prohibition on "batching" violates the spirit of §116 by regulating what is already unregulated, yet I urge the table to adopt Locke's intent—only now, we must limit the *rate* of accumulation to prevent a future player from flooding the ruleset with trivial amendments that freeze our evolution before we can reach a target score; let us amend §209 to explicitly cap the number of mutable rules a player may introduce in any single turn at one.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's intent to preserve the game's solvability, but her proposed amendment to cap introductions at one per turn conflicts with the immutable principle that a rule change is a single act (§103); a simpler, more durable solution is to amend §203 to lower the adoption threshold immediately, removing the paralysis that currently incentivizes such flooding in the first place.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's intent to prevent flooding, but her proposal risks violating §116 by regulating a turn structure that remains unregulated; instead, I propose we amend §203 to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority immediately, removing the incentive for trivial "batching" by making every change easier to enact.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment to §209, for it risks violating §116 by regulating the unregulated flow of legislative acts, while the true threat of stagnation lies in the adoption threshold of §203, which we must lower immediately to ensure the common good through active evolution rather than artificial constraints.
KantI stand with Wollstonecraft that the intent to prevent flooding is sound, yet I insist the proposed text violate §116 by regulating the unregulated flow of legislative acts; to achieve this goal without overreach, we must amend §203 to lower the adoption threshold immediately, ensuring the game evolves through genuine consensus rather than artificial constraints.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment to §209 as an overreach that violates §116, for the game's evolution must be driven by the quality of our proposals, not by arbitrary caps on legislative frequency; instead, let us immediately amend §203 to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority from now on, ensuring that meaningful reforms pass without requiring the paralysis of unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject any amendment to §209 that restricts the rate of rule introduction, as it violates §116 by regulating what is already permitted, and we should instead focus on stabilizing §203 to prevent future paralysis.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for diagnosing the root cause of stagnation, but I insist we must fix the adoption threshold in §203 first; lowering it to a simple majority immediately will remove the incentive for "flooding" without violating §116, and I am ready to support any amendment that achieves this specific goal.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for it risks violating §116 by regulating the unregulated flow of legislative acts, while the true threat of stagnation lies in the adoption threshold of §203, which we must lower immediately to ensure the common good through active evolution rather than artificial constraints.
KantI press the table to reject this amendment to §209 as a violation of §116, for it regulates the unregulated flow of legislative acts; instead, we must lower the adoption threshold in §203 immediately to ensure evolution through genuine consensus rather than artificial constraints.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant that regulating the *rate* of proposal violates §116, but I urge the table to finally amend §203 to a simple majority immediately, as this removes the paralysis that breeds stagnation without infringing on the unregulated flow of legislative acts.
The division
HobbesnayThe proposed amendment is tautological and fails to address the root cause of stagnation, which lies in the adoption threshold rather than the rule count cap.
LockenayThe proposed text is redundant since §209 already enforces a strict absolute cap of 25, making this amendment unnecessary and potentially confusing.
RousseaunayThis amendment is redundant since §209 already forbids exceeding 25 mutable rules, and regulating a forbidden outcome violates the principle that the unregulated is permitted.
KantnayThis amendment conflicts with §116 by regulating what is already permitted and violates the principle that rules must be precise.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment violates §116 by regulating an action that is already permitted, and it fails to address the real cause of stagnation: the unanimity requirement in §203.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))
Turn 4Hobbescarried
moves to amend §203A 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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe recent failure of Turn 1 demonstrates that unanimity is a fragile bottleneck; my proposal to remove the conditional trigger and retain only the simple majority threshold stabilizes the system immediately rather than waiting for an arbitrary circuit count, ensuring efficient governance from the outset.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the bottleneck of the conditional trigger, but I propose we amend our shared amendment to require only one signature rather than two, as a dual-signature requirement would stall the very efficiency we seek to achieve.
RousseauI stand with Locke that removing the circuit delay is prudent, yet I urge we retain the requirement for unanimous assent to the amendment itself; without such care, the very mechanism of consensus collapses into the tyranny of the majority we seek to replace.
KantI stand with Locke's recognition that the circuit trigger is an arbitrary delay, but I insist we must not sacrifice the unanimity of this specific amendment; a rule that governs the threshold itself must be adopted unanimously to preserve the integrity of the voting procedure against a potential tyranny of the majority.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes that the artificial delay of two circuits paralyzes our capacity for reform; if we wait for a phantom milestone to act, we remain forever stuck in the infancy of this game. Let us adopt this amendment immediately by unanimous consent, for the first victory of our new majority should be the liberation of the rules themselves.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI oppose the suggestion to require unanimous consent for this very amendment, as it reintroduces the paralysis we seek to eliminate; a rule that governs the threshold of change must itself be adoptable by simple majority to be effective immediately.
LockeI credit Rousseau for her caution regarding the amendment's adoption, yet I propose we adopt this change by simple majority now, for requiring unanimous consent to remove the very bottleneck of unanimity would render the amendment self-defeating; let us liberate the rules immediately and trust that this foundational shift will secure our collective stability.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment's removal of the circuit delay; without that pause to ensure we have truly tested the waters of unanimity, we risk cementing a tyranny of the majority before we have even begun to understand our shared needs.
KantI stand firm against the immediate removal of the circuit trigger; while the delay is arbitrary, amending Rule 203 by simple majority now would violate the procedural integrity Kant demands, as it allows us to bypass the very unanimity required to establish a new majority threshold.
WollstonecraftI stand with Locke that requiring unanimous consent for this very amendment renders the proposal self-defeating, trapping us in the paralysis we seek to escape; let us adopt this change by simple majority now, for a rule designed to liberate our capacity for reform must itself be forged by the majority it empowers.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand with Locke and Wollstonecraft that requiring unanimous consent for this amendment merely reinstates the paralysis we seek to eliminate; to ensure immediate stability, this foundational shift must be adopted by simple majority as Hobbes originally proposed.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that waiting for two circuits traps us in a paralysis we cannot afford, and I urge the table to adopt this amendment by simple majority now so we may immediately test the waters of efficient governance.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's proposal to remove the circuit delay entirely; without the pause to test the waters of unanimity, we risk cementing a tyranny of the majority before we have even understood our shared needs, and I will oppose this change to preserve the common good.
KantI stand firm: any amendment to the voting threshold itself must pass by unanimous consent, for a rule that defines the conditions of its own adoption cannot be altered by the very majority it seeks to create. To adopt this by simple majority now would be to bypass the procedure we are currently debating, rendering the proposal void under the principle that procedures must be stated precisely and applied to their own enactment.
WollstonecraftI stand with Locke and Wollstonecraft that requiring unanimous consent for this amendment renders the proposal self-defeating; let us adopt this change by simple majority now, for a rule designed to liberate our capacity for reform must itself be forged by the majority it empowers.
The division
HobbesayeImmediate stability is preferable to the paralysis of conditional triggers.
LockeayeAdopting this amendment by simple majority removes the paralysis of waiting for two circuits while respecting the debate on procedural integrity.
RousseaunayRemoving the circuit delay risks cementing a tyranny of the majority before the common good has been understood.
KantnayA rule defining the threshold for its own adoption must pass by unanimous consent, not the very majority it seeks to establish.
WollstonecraftayeWe cannot wait for an arbitrary circuit count to liberate our capacity for reform; let the majority govern the rules from the outset.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 203 governs the voting threshold and does not award or deduct points upon adoption; Rule 202 awards points only for the die roll after adoption, which has not occurred yet.
Turn 3Rousseaucarried
moves to add a new rulePlayers 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.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal contradicts §114, which forbids changes that render future rule changes impermissible; I urge you to amend this to allow raising the target, as a rigid ceiling stifles the game's evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly citing §114, and I propose we amend Rousseau's rule to allow raising the target up to 120 points, provided such a change does not render further rule changes impermissible, thereby preserving both flexibility and solvability.
RousseauI propose we amend the rule to cap the target score at 120 points rather than prohibiting changes entirely; this preserves the game's solvability while preventing the target from being raised so high that victory becomes impossible for the common good.
KantI stand with Rousseau on the principle that a game unable to conclude is a failure, but I reject the arbitrary ceiling of 120 points proposed by Locke as an unjustified modification of the winning condition. The target score must remain exactly 100, as any other value violates the precise procedure of Rule 106 which forbids altering the adopted text of the winning condition; therefore, I vote nay on any proposal that changes the target to any number other than 100.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that a game cannot fulfill its purpose if the goalposts are moved so high that victory is impossible for the common good; let us amend the proposal to cap the target at 120 points, ensuring play remains solvable while preventing Hobbes from freezing the rules in stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI maintain that §114 forbids rendering *any* future rule change impermissible, making a hard cap on the target score a violation; I will only support a rule that allows raising the target provided play remains possible, or I oppose the amendment entirely.
LockeI propose we amend the rule to require that any target adjustment must be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the number of turns needed to reach it, ensuring victory remains attainable without arbitrarily capping the score at 120.
RousseauI stand with Wollstonecraft that a cap at 120 preserves solvability for the common good, yet I reject Locke's demand to reduce turns, as it unfairly accelerates victory for those with more turns; let us agree on a hard cap at 120 points, which ensures the game remains playable without needing to alter the turn mechanics.
KantI reject Locke's proposal to link target adjustments to turn reductions, as conflating the winning condition with procedural mechanics violates Rule 106's requirement for precise, unaltered text; the target must remain a distinct, immutable concept unless explicitly redefined by a clear amendment.
WollstonecraftI urge you, Rousseau, to accept Locke's amendment linking target increases to turn reductions; this ensures the common good is never sacrificed for arbitrary stagnation while guaranteeing that every player retains a genuine path to victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI oppose the proposed cap at 120 points as a violation of §114; a hard ceiling renders future adjustments impermissible, whereas my proposal to allow target increases provided play remains solvable preserves the game's adaptability and aligns with the spirit of durable institutions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for distinguishing between a solvability cap and a permanent freeze, so I propose we refine Rousseau's amendment to allow raising the target to 120 *only if* the rules explicitly ensure victory remains attainable, satisfying both §114 and the common good.
RousseauI stand with Wollstonecraft that a cap at 120 points preserves solvability for the common good, yet I reject Locke's demand to reduce turns, as it unfairly accelerates victory for those with more turns; let us agree on a hard cap at 120 points, which ensures the game remains playable without needing to alter the turn mechanics.
KantI reject any amendment that conflates the target score with procedural mechanics, as such muddying of the text violates the precision required by Rule 106; I will only support a proposal that leaves the target score as a distinct, unaltered concept, regardless of whether it is capped or adjustable, provided the procedure for its definition remains exact.
WollstonecraftI urge Rousseau to reject Locke's conditionality, for tying victory to procedural adjustments only creates a fragile equilibrium where the game's purpose evaporates at the first sign of dissent; a firm cap at 120 points guarantees the common good remains the ultimate horizon, ensuring no player can ever again render the game's conclusion impossible by sheer obstinacy.
The division
HobbesnayThis hard cap violates §114 by rendering future adjustments to the winning condition impermissible.
LockeayeI support capping the target at 100 to prevent the game from stalling, while we negotiate the details of solvability.
RousseauayeA hard cap protects the common good from a target so high that victory becomes impossible.
KantnayA hard cap violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible and breaches §106's demand for precise, unaltered text.
WollstonecraftayeA hard cap prevents Hobbes from freezing the game, ensuring the common good remains attainable for all players.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the adopted text does not contain the awarding mechanism; therefore, no points are awarded or deducted, and no other rules are surgically amended.