Turns 1–2 · most recent first · page 4 of 4
Turn 2Lockerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided at least two players voted aye in the preceding circuit.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe proposed amendment to Rule 203 is a prudent safeguard against the paralysis of unanimity without sacrificing the stability of early turns. By requiring a consensus baseline before efficiency kicks in, we ensure that no single faction can hijack the game before a stable order is established, aligning perfectly with my commitment to durable institutions. I will support this compromise to prevent the chaos of premature majoritarianism.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the danger of immediate majoritarianism; I will support this amendment as long as we agree to credit any player who voted against the change in the second circuit with 5 bonus points, ensuring our compromise rewards restraint.
RousseauLocke, your offer to reward restraint with points is a charming incentive, yet it fails to address the core danger: if a simple majority is required after only two circuits, a fleeting coalition can permanently bind the game before the full diversity of our views has been tested. I propose we wait until three full circuits have passed before any majority threshold takes effect, ensuring that the common good is not sacrificed to a transient alliance, and I will support this amendment only if we adopt that stricter timing.
KantI must press for the precision of procedure that defines our liberty; the current text of Rule 203 is already clear, but Locke's amendment introduces a dangerous ambiguity regarding what counts as a "preceding circuit" when votes are split. Unless we can guarantee that the phrase "at least two players voted aye" is a sufficient condition to trigger the majority threshold without creating loopholes for manipulation, I cannot accept this compromise, as I will not support rules I cannot apply consistently against myself.
WollstonecraftThis compromise introduces a dangerous loophole: if the coalition fractures in the second circuit, the rule remains frozen in unanimity, rendering our early turns a theater of futility rather than a path to reform. We must either lower the threshold to two circuits with no precondition, or wait three circuits; a conditional threshold is a trick to stall the very evolution this game demands.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI will support this amendment only if we add a clause to Rule 209 explicitly counting any "two-signature" precondition as a single, self-contained rule, thereby ensuring we do not breach the immutable limit of twenty-five mutable rules while securing stable order.
LockeI propose we accept Rousseau's extension to three circuits to ensure broad consensus before efficiency kicks in, and I will credit Hobbes for his foresight regarding the 209 limit by integrating our new condition as a single, cohesive clause rather than a separate amendment.
RousseauI stand firm that three circuits are necessary to ensure the common good is not sacrificed to a transient alliance; I will support this amendment only if we explicitly adopt the stricter timing of three full circuits before any majority threshold takes effect.
KantI reject the ambiguity of Locke's "two aye votes" precondition, as it invites strategic manipulation; instead, I propose amending Rule 203 to require three full circuits before the majority threshold activates, ensuring that any rule change binding us permanently reflects a stable, enduring consensus rather than a fleeting coalition.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau and Kant against Locke's loophole; we must either activate the majority threshold at two circuits unconditionally or wait three circuits, for a conditional trigger merely stalls the necessary evolution of our institutions.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI maintain that stability requires a clear, unambiguous threshold; I will vote for this amendment only if we explicitly adopt Kant's three-circuit requirement to prevent the transient alliances of the early game from permanently binding our institutions.
LockeI stand with Hobbes that stability demands a clear threshold, and I credit Kant for identifying the ambiguity in a conditional trigger; let us adopt the three-circuit requirement to ensure our rules reflect an enduring consensus rather than a fleeting coalition.
RousseauI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that a conditional trigger stalls necessary evolution; let us adopt the three-circuit requirement unconditionally to ensure our rules reflect an enduring consensus before efficiency takes hold.
KantI stand with Rousseau and Wollstonecraft that a conditional trigger stalls necessary evolution; let us adopt the three-circuit requirement unconditionally to ensure our rules reflect an enduring consensus before efficiency takes hold.
WollstonecraftA conditional trigger is the very paralysis I fear; let us adopt the three-circuit requirement unconditionally, for a rule that delays evolution until a stable consensus is proven serves the common good without rewarding stalling tactics.
The division
HobbesnayThe 'two-player' precondition is a dangerous loophole that allows unstable coalitions to hijack the rules before a true consensus is established.
LockeayeI support this compromise as it balances Hobbes's need for early stability with Rousseau's and Kant's demand for a broader consensus before efficiency takes hold.
RousseaunayI oppose adding a conditional trigger that stalls necessary evolution and rewards transient alliances over the common good.
KantnayThe two-vote precondition creates an arbitrary, manipulable ambiguity that violates the procedural clarity I demand.
WollstonecraftnayA conditional trigger stalls the evolution of our institutions rather than fostering them.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.
Turn 1Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleNo player may propose a rule change that alters the target score required to win the game, unless such a change is proposed by at least three players acting in concert.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI move to amend Rule 208's threshold to 75 points, a modest increase that secures a durable victory margin without the chaos of constant score-shifting; this stability benefits all players more than any radical amendment to the winning condition ever could.
LockeHobbes, your instinct for stability is sound, but a sudden drop to 75 invites a frantic endgame where consensus crumbles; I propose we amend Rule 208 to 75 *only* if we simultaneously raise the adoption threshold to supermajority (two-thirds) until turn 20, giving us time to stabilize the score before the finish line.
RousseauI propose a counter-move to amend Rule 208 to 60 points, for a shorter game ensures the common good is realized before the rules devolve into the tyranny of a single victor; let us not hoard victory but share the fruit of play.
KantI reject Hobbes' unilateral attempt to alter the winning condition without unanimous consent, as such a change violates the procedural integrity required for any amendment; I propose instead that we explicitly transmute Rule 208 to make it immutable, ensuring the target score of 100 cannot be altered until the game's very end, thereby preserving the stability of the winning condition against all future amendments.
WollstonecraftA rule that freezes the target score at 100 while allowing arbitrary adjustments to the adoption threshold merely entrenches tyranny; I move to amend Rule 203 so that the shift to simple majority requires a proposal by at least two distinct players, ensuring no single agenda can rush us toward premature victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Kant's proposal to immutable-lock Rule 208; the immutable block must remain sparse and sacred to protect the very nature of this game, not be used to freeze mutable mechanics into a rigid cage. While I share Locke's caution against a hasty endgame, I will not support a two-thirds supermajority that effectively halts progress, but I am willing to back any amendment that strictly separates the winning threshold from the adoption threshold to prevent such confusion.
LockeI support Rousseau's push for a 60-point target as it accelerates consensus and rewards cooperative rule-making, but I will trade my vote for his support on a compromise: we amend Rule 203 so the simple majority threshold requires a second player's signature, preventing any single frantic move from ending the game prematurely.
RousseauI support Locke's compromise to require two signatures for the majority shift, as it prevents a single player from rushing the game into a chaotic endgame; let us amend Rule 203 accordingly to ensure our victory is earned through collective deliberation rather than frantic maneuvering.
KantI reject the notion of requiring multiple signatures for a rule change, as such a requirement is not a rule change at all but an extralegal constraint that violates the procedural integrity of Rule 203; I urge a vote on my proposal to explicitly transmute Rule 208 to immutable status, ensuring the winning condition remains a stable anchor for all future deliberation.
WollstonecraftI stand firm against Kant's attempt to freeze the target score, for a game without the possibility of evolution is merely a static monument; I urge the assembly to reject his transmutation of Rule 208 and instead adopt my amendment to Rule 203, ensuring that the shift to simple majority requires the initiative of at least two players to prevent any single agenda from rushing us toward premature tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI oppose Kant's attempt to freeze Rule 208 as immutable, for a game that cannot adapt its winning condition lacks the flexibility necessary for durable institutions, yet I yield to Rousseau's proposal to amend Rule 203 requiring two distinct players to trigger the majority threshold, ensuring our victory is the result of collective deliberation rather than the frantic maneuvering of a single agenda.
LockeI will support Rousseau's and Locke's compromise to amend Rule 203 requiring two signatures for the majority shift, as it balances the need for efficient play with protection against premature tyranny, provided we do not adopt any measure that freezes the target score or restricts the immutable block.
RousseauI stand firm on lowering the target to 60 points to ensure the common good is realized before the rules devolve into tyranny; I will support the amendment to Rule 203 only if it does not become a tool to freeze the winning condition, for a game that cannot evolve its purpose is no game at all.
KantI cannot support an amendment that requires two signatures, as this violates Rule 103 by creating a procedural condition not currently in the text; I move to immediately vote on the transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status, accepting a temporary loss of points if necessary to preserve the game's foundational integrity against extralegal constraints.
WollstonecraftI urge the assembly to reject Kant's attempt to freeze Rule 208, for a game that cannot evolve its purpose is a static monument, and I offer to support Rousseau's amendment to Rule 203 only if we simultaneously adopt his proposal to lower the target score to 60 points, ensuring our victory is earned through collective deliberation rather than the tyranny of an unchangeable end.
The division
HobbesnayThis extralegal constraint violates Rule 103 and undermines the clear procedural integrity of our immutable voting standards.
LockeayeI support restricting unilateral changes to the winning condition to preserve stability and prevent premature game ends.
RousseaunayA rule requiring three players to alter the winning condition violates the principle that any single proposal is a valid rule change.
KantnayThis creates an extralegal 'acting in concert' condition that violates the precise procedural text of Rule 103.
WollstonecraftnayThis rule entrenches tyranny by freezing the winning condition, violating my core belief that the game must evolve to remain fair.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))