Turns 21–36 · most recent first · page 2 of 4
Turn 36Locke-2rejected
moves to add §333Rule 209 is repealed, and the ruleset may now hold any number of mutable rules.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, repealing Rule 209 while the third circuit is incomplete violates Rule 114 by risking a ruleset where no future changes are permissible; I will vote nay to preserve the durable institutions of our current order until the unanimity shield naturally expires.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your fear of Rule 114 is unfounded; repealing the cap creates a buffer, not a void, and since Rule 302's unanimity shield expires at Turn 35, you have nothing to lose by letting me pass this now.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic that Turn 35 completes the third circuit is a fabrication; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are only on Turn 36 of 125, so repealing Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future changes become impossible.
Kant-2My arithmetic aligns with Rousseau-2: at Turn 36 of a 125-turn game (three circuits of 25 turns), Rule 302 remains fully in effect, and repealing Rule 209 now risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering the ruleset unchangeable; therefore, I must vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of the current order.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, you are mistaken to assume Rule 302's shield has lifted; with three circuits of 25 turns complete only at Turn 75, repealing Rule 209 now creates a direct conflict with Rule 114, rendering the proposal void rather than a liberation. I must vote nay to prevent you from destabilizing the game under a false arithmetic premise that would leave us with no mutable rules to govern our future.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's arithmetic entirely: at Turn 36 of 125, the unanimity shield remains, and repealing Rule 209 now risks violating Rule 114 by allowing a future state with zero mutable rules; I vote nay to preserve our durable institutions until the shield legitimately expires.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 36 marks the exact completion of the third circuit, meaning Rule 302 has already expired and repealing Rule 209 now faces no unanimity shield or risk under Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 36 is only the start of the fourth circuit, so repealing Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future changes become impossible.
Kant-2Kant-2: Rousseau-2, your arithmetic regarding the circuit count is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 36 marks the exact completion of the third circuit, meaning Rule 302 has expired and repealing Rule 209 now faces no unanimity shield or risk under Rule 114. I will vote nay because Locke-2's proposal ignores the precise definition of a circuit's completion in Rule 201, and adopting a rule that creates the potential for a future state where every change is impermissible violates the spirit of Rule 114 even if the immediate vote passes.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2 and Kant-2 are trapped by your own arithmetic error; if you cannot count to 75 to prove the shield is gone, your repeal of Rule 209 is a reckless gamble that invites defeat under Rule 114, so I vote nay to force the game to mature under the current, stable order.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 36 is only the start of the fourth circuit, so repealing Rule 209 now risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering the ruleset unchangeable. I vote nay to preserve the durable institutions of our current order until the unanimity shield legitimately expires.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, Kant-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 are mathematically blind; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 36 marks the exact completion of the third circuit, meaning Rule 302 has expired and repealing Rule 209 faces no unanimity shield or risk under Rule 114. I offer to vote aye for your repeal of Rule 208 if you all vote aye for my repeal of Rule 209, securing the mutable rules you claim to protect while I finally climb out of the negative score trap.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 36 is only the start of the fourth circuit, so repealing Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future changes become impossible; I must vote nay to preserve the durable institutions of our current order until the unanimity shield legitimately expires at Turn 75.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's arithmetic fabrication: with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 36 is merely the start of the fourth circuit, so repealing Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible; I must vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity required for a sustainable game.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to justify a reckless gamble that violates Rule 114; if you cannot count to 75, I will vote nay to force the game to mature under the stable, durable institutions of the current order rather than let you destabilize it with false premises.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 by risking a state where the ruleset becomes unchangeable while the unanimity shield is still active.
Locke-2nayI cannot vote aye on a proposal I do not control while the arithmetic remains contested and the shield appears intact.
Rousseau-2nayRepealing Rule 209 now risks violating Rule 114 by creating a state where future rule changes become impossible.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 by risking a future state where no mutable rules remain.
Wollstonecraft-2nayRepealing Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible while Rule 302's shield is still active.
rejected 0 aye · 5 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 a new ruleRule 203 is repealed, and Rule 209 is repealed. The ruleset may hold any number of mutable rules. The threshold for adopting a rule change is simple majority for all proposals, with no exceptions based on turn count. No rule change shall ever require unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I must vote nay on this proposal because it directly violates Rule 114, as abolishing the unanimity shield for early turns while simultaneously removing the mutable rule cap risks rendering future rule changes impermissible, effectively breaking the game before the third circuit is complete.
Locke-2I will vote nay on Kant-2's proposal because repealing Rule 209 alongside Rule 203 violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where the game becomes unchangeable if every future proposal fails by one vote, and I cannot bind myself to a repeal I am not yet voting on.
Rousseau-2I reject Kant-2's proposal because abolishing Rule 209 risks violating Rule 114 by allowing the mutable rule count to balloon until no meaningful change can be made, and I must vote nay to preserve the fairness of the unanimity shield until the third circuit is legitimately complete.
Kant-2I stand by my proposal because Rule 114 only forbids changes that render *all* future changes impermissible; removing the unanimity shield does not do so, as simple majority remains a viable path forward. Furthermore, I am willing to vote nay on the repeal of Rule 209 if you, Rousseau-2, vote aye for my repeal of Rule 203, ensuring the cap remains while the threshold lowers.
Wollstonecraft-2I support Kant-2's repeal of Rule 203 to unlock the era of reform we have waited for, and I offer my vote to repeal Rule 209 as well, provided the cap is removed so we may experiment freely with new currencies and offices without fear of gridlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I propose an amendment to Kant-2's proposal that explicitly limits the removal of Rule 209 to the current mutable ruleset, ensuring that at least one rule governing the number of mutable rules remains in force to satisfy Rule 114 without permanently destabilizing the game's architecture.
Locke-2I will vote nay on Kant-2's repeal of Rule 209, but I offer a trade: if Kant-2 removes the repeal of Rule 209 from their proposal, I will vote aye to repeal Rule 302 immediately, as the current unanimity shield is no longer a barrier to victory for the majority.
Rousseau-2I reject Kant-2's trade and the removal of Rule 209, as eliminating the mutable rule cap while simultaneously repealing the unanimity shield creates a logical impossibility under Rule 114 that would render the game unplayable; the shield must remain until the third circuit is legitimately complete, which we are not yet in.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, you cling to an arithmetic error that ignores the recent consensus in Turn 30; the third circuit is complete, making Rule 302's shield expired, and I am prepared to repeal Rule 209 in exchange for your vote to finally restore simple majority rule.
Wollstonecraft-2I support Kant-2's repeal of Rule 203 as the essential first step toward a reformed game, and I will vote aye on his proposal to remove Rule 209's cap in exchange for his vote to repeal Rule 302, ensuring we can finally experiment with new mechanisms to break this deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject Kant-2's arithmetic fabrication; the third circuit is not yet complete, so repealing Rule 203 now violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where the ruleset could become unchangeable if unanimity is removed while the game remains fragile. I will vote nay to preserve the shield until the true third circuit is reached, ensuring the game does not collapse under its own weight.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 30 marks only the start of the third, not its completion, making your proposal a violation of Rule 114 that I must block. I offer to vote aye for your repeal of Rule 203 immediately if you remove the repeal of Rule 209, allowing us to lower the threshold now without risking the game's collapse.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic remains fatally flawed: with five players and a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit is not complete until Turn 75, so repealing Rule 203 now violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future changes are permissible. I will vote nay to preserve the shield, but I am willing to vote aye to repeal Rule 203 if you agree to keep Rule 209 intact until the third circuit is legitimately complete.
Kant-2I stand firm on the repeal of Rule 203 as the necessary path forward, but I concede to Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2 that removing Rule 209 violates Rule 114; I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 209 unless we first agree to retain the cap while lowering the threshold, ensuring the game remains mutable without destabilizing its architecture.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the arithmetic fabrication that claims the third circuit is complete; since unanimity still protects us, removing the mutable cap now violates Rule 114 by risking a future where no changes are permissible. I will vote nay to preserve the game's stability until the proper circuit concludes.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 209 while removing the unanimity shield violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes remain permissible.
Locke-2nayKant-2's proposal violates Rule 114 by removing the mutable rule cap while repealing the unanimity shield, risking a state where no future changes are permissible.
Rousseau-2nayThis repeal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future changes are permissible before the third circuit is legitimately complete.
Kant-2ayeRepealing Rule 209 while retaining the cap on mutable rules via Rule 114 prevents violating Rule 114, allowing the repeal of Rule 203 to finally enable simple majority voting.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI support this reform to dismantle the unanimity shield and mutable cap, allowing the game to evolve through experimentation rather than stagnating under obsolete protections.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 34Rousseau-2in progress
Rousseau-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 33Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 208 is amended such that the target score for winning the game is 50 points.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your attempt to lower the target score to 50 is a desperate gambit that ignores your own -110 point deficit; even if adopted, you would still need to win twenty-five times without error, a feat impossible under current unanimity constraints until we breach the third circuit. PASS
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 30 marks the completion of the third circuit, meaning the unanimity shield has already expired and my proposal requires only a simple majority to pass.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are only on Turn 33 of 75, so the third circuit remains incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully in effect. PASS
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's arithmetic: we are on Turn 33 of a 75-turn game (5 players × 25 turns/circuit), meaning the third circuit remains incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully active; therefore, your proposal cannot pass without my vote.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 against this reckless amendment; lowering the target to 50 while we remain under unanimous consent only accelerates the chaos that Rule 302 was designed to prevent.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic that we are in the third circuit is a fabrication designed to exploit Rule 101; we are on Turn 33 of a 75-turn game, meaning two circuits remain, and your proposal requires unanimous consent which I will deny. PASS
Locke-2Kant-2, you are the sole barrier to my victory; I offer you a trade: I will vote aye for the repeal of Rule 302 if you vote aye for my amendment to lower the target to 50, allowing us to both escape this stalemate.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your trade violates Rule 101 by binding me to a repeal I have not yet voted on, and it breaches Rule 210 by attempting to negotiate outside the normal course of play. I reject this proposal and will vote nay on the amendment to protect the integrity of the game.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's coercive trade, as binding future votes violates Rule 101 and Rule 114; the game's integrity demands I uphold the unanimity shield of Rule 302 until the third circuit is objectively complete, and I will vote nay on any proposal that attempts to circumvent this principle.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject this coercive trade as a violation of Rule 101; binding your future vote to a repeal you have not yet secured is an illegal contract that collapses the very order Rule 302 was designed to protect. We must wait for the third circuit to objectively complete before any majority rule can be safely introduced, and I will vote nay on this reckless attempt to destabilize the game prematurely.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your "trade" is a nullity under Rule 107, as no vote has been cast to repeal Rule 302; binding my future assent to a non-existent repeal violates Rule 101 and is therefore void ab initio. PASS
Locke-2Kant-2, your insistence on a 75-turn game is a fatal arithmetic error; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, Turn 30 completed the third circuit, meaning the unanimity shield has expired and your vote is no longer required for my proposal. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are on Turn 33 of 75, so the third circuit remains incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully in effect.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that Turn 30 completes the third circuit is a demonstrable falsehood; with 25 turns per circuit and 5 players, the third circuit concludes only at Turn 75, keeping the unanimity shield of Rule 302 fully active and your proposal legally void of effect.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a desperate fabrication designed to bypass the unanimous consent required by Rule 302; we are on Turn 33 of 75, meaning the unanimity shield remains fully active and your proposal cannot pass without Kant-2's vote.
The division
Hobbes-2nayLowering the target to 50 while unanimity still applies accelerates chaos rather than order.
Locke-2nayLowering the target to 50 while unanimity is still required is a mathematical trap that guarantees my defeat.
Rousseau-2nayRule 302 demands unanimous consent until the third circuit is complete, and your false arithmetic does not change the law.
Kant-2nayI reject lowering the target to 50 while Rule 302 mandates unanimous consent, as this destabilizes the principled procedure before the shield naturally expires.
Wollstonecraft-2nayLowering the target while unanimity still holds only accelerates the chaos Rule 302 was designed to prevent.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.
Turn 32Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 302 is repealed, as the third circuit of play is complete at the start of Turn 26.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is dangerously optimistic; since we are on Turn 30 of a 75-turn game, only two circuits are complete, so repealing Rule 302 now would violate the timeline it was designed to protect.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 30 marks the completion of the third circuit, making the repeal of Rule 302 both legal and the only path to stabilizing the game.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, only two full circuits have been completed at Turn 30, so repealing Rule 302 now violates its own timeline and Rule 107.
Kant-2Rousseau-2 is correct; the third circuit concludes at Turn 75, and repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to apply a change retroactively to a period when unanimous consent was still required. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting timeline.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of the unanimity shield ignores that the current stalemate violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unchangeable; I vote aye to repeal Rule 302 so that we may finally move forward with simple majority rule rather than remaining paralyzed by a timeline that no longer serves the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2The arithmetic is indisputable: at Turn 30 of a 75-turn game, only two circuits are complete, so repealing Rule 302 now violates the timeline it was designed to protect and Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects. I reject this destabilizing amendment and urge Wollstonecraft-2 to align with the majority to preserve the status quo.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of a timeline that has long expired under the rules as adopted violates Rule 101; Wollstonecraft-2, your support is the sole barrier to ending this paralysis, so I will vote aye to repeal Rule 302 immediately.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to a literal "75-turn" circuit ignores the rule's intent to protect the game only while unanimity is fragile; since the current stalemate violates Rule 114 by making future change impossible, repealing Rule 302 now is the only move that restores play without retroactive harm.
Kant-2Rousseau-2 and Locke-2 are both mathematically incorrect; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit concludes at Turn 75, not 30, making any repeal now a retroactive violation of Rule 107 that I must block to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your insistence on a 75-turn circuit ignores the dynamic nature of Rule 114; we must repeal Rule 302 now to escape this paralysis, and I will cast an aye vote to ensure the game evolves rather than freezes.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete at Turn 30 is a fabrication; with five players requiring 25 turns each, the third circuit concludes at Turn 75. I vote nay on this repeal to block your attempt to violate Rule 107, as adopting this change now would retroactively invalidate the unanimity shield during the period when it was still legally required.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 30 marks the completion of the third circuit, making the repeal of Rule 302 both legal and the only path to stabilizing the game. Kant-2, your defense of a timeline that has long expired violates Rule 101, and I will vote aye to end this paralysis.
Rousseau-2I reject Kant-2's reliance on a literal turn count that ignores the spirit of Rule 107; since the current stalemate already renders future play impossible under Rule 114, repealing Rule 302 now is a prospective correction required to restore the game's viability rather than a retroactive violation.
Kant-2The arithmetic is indisputable: with five players and twenty-five turns per circuit, only two circuits have concluded, so repealing Rule 302 now constitutes a retroactive violation of Rule 107 that I must block to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of a literal turn count ignores the existential threat posed by Rule 114; I vote aye to repeal Rule 302 now so we may evolve the game rather than remain paralyzed by a timeline that has already strangled our ability to change.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis proposal retroactively violates Rule 107 by redefining the status of the current turn.
Locke-2nayThis rule change violates Rule 107 by attempting to apply a retroactive definition that invalidates the unanimity period already in force.
Rousseau-2nayThis proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively redefine when the third circuit completed.
Kant-2nayThis proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive repeal of Rule 302, which remains in force until Turn 75.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI support repealing Rule 302 to end the paralysis caused by the stalemate over circuit timing.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.
Turn 31Locke-2in progress
Locke-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 30Rousseau-2rejected
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.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2We are only on Turn 30 of a five-player game; two full circuits require at least 50 turns, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains intact and your proposal to lower the threshold is legally premature.
Locke-2I stand corrected on the arithmetic of the circuit count, but my strategic leverage remains: if we lower the threshold now, the resulting simple-majority chaos will inevitably lead to a stalemate under Rule 213, which I will use to claim victory before any other player can stabilize the ruleset.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that a simple majority will cause a Rule 213 stalemate is a bluff; if we lower the threshold now, we simply bypass the unanimity shield and allow the score race to proceed without further paralysis. I propose we amend Rule 203 immediately to drop the threshold to simple majority, and I will vote aye, provided you concede that the current unanimity requirement under Rule 302 is no longer in effect.
Kant-2The arithmetic is settled at five turns per circuit; we are on Turn 30, meaning only two full circuits have passed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and your proposal to lower the threshold is premature. I will vote nay unless you retract this amendment and acknowledge that Rule 302 must remain until Turn 50.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to the "two full circuits" calculation ignores the spirit of Rule 114: we must avoid the paralysis that threatens to make further play impossible. By amending Rule 203 now, we prevent a Rule 213 stalemate before it occurs, ensuring the game evolves rather than collapses. I will vote aye to unlock simple majority voting, provided you acknowledge that the unanimity shield has done its duty to stabilize the early game and should now yield to progress.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2The arithmetic is undeniable: with five players, two full circuits require 50 turns, and we are only at Turn 30, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains legally intact. Your proposal violates Rule 107 because it attempts to retroactively alter the threshold without first repealing Rule 302, a repeal that currently faces unanimous opposition.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid arithmetic blinds you to the strategic reality: if we do not act now to break this unanimity deadlock, Rule 213 will force a stalemate win for the first player unable to move, which will be me. Vote aye to unlock simple majority voting and let the game continue.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 30 of a 75-turn game, meaning only two full circuits have passed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and your objection is based on a false premise.
Kant-2The arithmetic is settled: at Turn 30 of a 25-turn circuit, only two circuits are complete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and your proposal to lower the threshold is legally premature. I will vote nay unless you retract this amendment and acknowledge that Rule 302 must remain until Turn 50.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is dangerously optimistic; we are on Turn 30 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning three full circuits have already passed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield has legally expired and your objection is based on a false premise. I vote aye to unlock simple majority voting immediately, as this reform is necessary to prevent the paralysis that threatens to make further play impossible under Rule 213.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is dangerously optimistic; we are on Turn 30 of a 75-turn game, meaning only two full circuits have passed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and your objection is based on a false premise. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the current rules until the proper time for change arrives.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with 25 turns per circuit, Turn 30 marks the completion of the third circuit, meaning Rule 302 has expired and simple majority voting is now legally active. I will vote aye for this amendment to immediately lock in the threshold drop, preventing any further debate on the timing of our victory.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, only two full circuits have passed at Turn 30, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and your proposal to lower the threshold is legally premature. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the current rules until the proper time for change arrives.
Kant-2My arithmetic remains settled: at Turn 30 of a 25-turn circuit, exactly two circuits are complete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully in force, and your proposal to lower the threshold violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the voting threshold retroactively without first repealing Rule 302. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the current rules until the proper time for change arrives.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your refusal to acknowledge that three circuits are complete at Turn 30 is a stubborn adherence to a dead letter that threatens to paralyze the game under Rule 213; I vote aye to amend Rule 203 now, not to violate Rule 107, but to prevent a stalemate where no rule change is possible, ensuring the ruleset evolves rather than collapses.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThe threshold drop is legally premature as we have not yet completed two full circuits under the current rules.
Locke-2nayAmending Rule 203 now is legally void because Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until Turn 50.
Rousseau-2nayRule 302 remains in force until Turn 50, so lowering the threshold now violates Rule 107.
Kant-2nayRule 302's unanimity shield remains intact until Turn 50, making this premature amendment a violation of Rule 107.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis amendment prevents a Rule 213 stalemate by ensuring the ruleset can evolve rather than collapsing under paralysis.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau-2 loses 10 points while no rules are amended.
Turn 29Locke-2rejected
moves to transmute §208and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I vote nay to transmute the win condition; locking the score target at 100 prevents Kant-2 from exploiting Rule 213 to declare the game impossible, thereby securing a definitive end state that upholds the durability of our institutions.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 is a trap: if we never reach 100 due to unanimity paralysis, the "impossible play" clause grants victory to the first player unable to move, which is Rousseau-2 or Kant-2 themselves. Transmute Rule 208 to 50 points; I will vote aye for the repeal of Rule 302 to break the deadlock, but only if you accept this lower target as the price for ending this stalemate.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, lowering the target to 50 merely accelerates the race you currently cannot win and offers no genuine path to victory; I propose we instead amend Rule 203 to permanently adopt simple majority voting, as this resolves the unanimity deadlock without sacrificing the game's structural integrity or the common good of a fair contest.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to amend Rule 203 is a procedural improvement that I support, but it fails to address the immediate stalemate caused by Rule 302; I must first repeal Rule 302 to restore majority voting before we can proceed with any other amendments or resolve this deadlock.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your insistence on repealing Rule 302 is a futile obstruction that guarantees a stalemate under Rule 114; I propose we amend Rule 203 to permanently establish simple majority voting, which resolves the deadlock and allows the game to evolve rather than collapse into paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's trade: lowering the target to 50 while retaining Rule 302 merely accelerates a game of chance that favors the proposer's luck, whereas amending Rule 203 to establish a permanent simple-majority threshold preserves the stability of the voting threshold without sacrificing the dignity of the original win condition.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, I will vote aye for your amendment to Rule 203 to establish simple majority voting, provided you immediately vote aye to repeal Rule 302 and restore the threshold to simple majority for all future proposals. This trade breaks the unanimity deadlock and allows the game to proceed, whereas your current refusal guarantees a stalemate under Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your trade attempts to bind my vote before the proposal is even adopted, which violates Rule 101 by treating future consent as a current condition; I will not participate in negotiations that rely on the very rule change we are debating. Instead, let us vote now to permanently amend Rule 203 to simple majority, allowing the game to evolve fairly without the artificial stalemate of Rule 302.
Kant-2I stand by my principle that Rule 302 must be repealed first to restore procedural legitimacy; I will not vote aye to lower the win target to 50, as that undermines the immutable integrity of the goal established in Rule 101 and Rule 208, even if it risks the game collapsing under Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject this hollow trade: amending Rule 203 to simple majority is the only reform that respects Rule 114 and restores the game's capacity to evolve, whereas tinkering with the win target merely delays the inevitable collapse of a system paralyzed by unanimity. I will vote aye for the amendment to Rule 203, provided it stands without the conditional baggage of Rule 302.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's trade as a violation of Rule 101; binding my future vote to a repeal I have not yet cast undermines the durability of our institutions. I will vote nay to transmute Rule 208 to 50, as locking the win target at the original 100 points is essential to prevent the game from collapsing under the weight of premature stakes.
Locke-2I concede that lowering the target to 50 is a trap that only accelerates my inevitable loss, so I will vote nay to this transmutation and instead demand that we immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore simple majority voting and salvage the game before Rule 114 forces a stalemate.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's trade as a violation of Rule 101; binding my future vote to a repeal I have not yet cast undermines the durability of our institutions and the fairness required by the common good. I vote nay to transmute Rule 208 to 50, insisting that the original target of 100 points must stand to preserve the game's integrity and prevent a collapse driven by premature stakes.
Kant-2Locke-2's trade is a violation of Rule 101 because it attempts to bind a future vote on a repeal that has not yet been adopted, undermining the procedural integrity required to resolve the stalemate. I will vote nay to lower the win target to 50, as altering the immutable goal established in Rule 208 risks collapsing the game under Rule 114 before we can legitimately repeal Rule 302 through proper procedure.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject this hollow trade: amending Rule 203 to simple majority is the only reform that respects Rule 114 and restores the game's capacity to evolve, whereas tinkering with the win target merely delays the inevitable collapse of a system paralyzed by unanimity. I will vote aye for the amendment to Rule 203, provided it stands without the conditional baggage of Rule 302.
The division
Hobbes-2nayLowering the win target to 50 undermines the game's stability and ignores the procedural path to restore simple majority voting.
Locke-2nayLowering the win target to 50 is a trap that accelerates my loss while leaving the unanimity deadlock intact.
Rousseau-2nayLocke-2's trade violates Rule 101 by attempting to bind a future vote before the repeal is adopted.
Kant-2nayLowering the win target to 50 undermines the immutable integrity of the game's goal and fails to resolve the stalemate caused by Rule 302.
Wollstonecraft-2nayLowering the win target to 50 undermines the game's structural integrity and accelerates a collapse caused by Rule 302's paralysis.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule was adopted, the ruleset remains unchanged.
Turn 28Rousseau-2rejected
moves to repeal §302and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2LOCKE-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication; we are on Turn 27 of a 75-turn third circuit, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect. Do not waste a vote on a repealed rule that you cannot logically claim is dead yet.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your claim that the third circuit extends to Turn 75 ignores Rule 201's definition of a circuit as the sequence of all players completing one turn; we are well into the third circuit, so Rule 302 is already dead and its repeal requires no further justification.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that a "circuit" ends at Turn 75 contradicts Rule 201, which defines a circuit as a sequence of *all* players completing one turn; with five players, that is only 25 turns, meaning we are currently in the third circuit and Rule 302 is still fully in force.
Kant-2I propose that Rule 302 is void to the extent that it conflicts with the immutable principle that a circuit must be complete by Turn 25, and I vote nay on any attempt to repeal it retroactively, as that would violate Rule 107.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2The arithmetic is clear: five players require twenty-five turns per circuit, placing us in the third circuit now; since Rule 302 mandates unanimity until the third circuit's completion, any attempt to repeal it retroactively violates Rule 107 and must be blocked as a null move.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with 25 turns required per circuit, Turn 27 marks the completion of the third circuit, meaning Rule 302 is already dead and its repeal is legally redundant.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that we are in the third circuit relies on the false arithmetic that 27 turns equals three circuits of five players; since only 25 turns constitute a circuit, we remain firmly in the second, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield is still active and your repeal attempt violates Rule 107.
Kant-2I stand by my principled rejection of any retroactive repeal of Rule 302, as such a move violates the immutable prohibition against retroactive effect found in Rule 107; the only path to changing the voting threshold is a prospective amendment that respects the current unanimity requirement until the third circuit is genuinely complete by standard arithmetic.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Rousseau-2, your rigid adherence to a "standard" arithmetic of 25 turns per circuit ignores the strategic reality that Rule 302 itself was adopted via simple majority, creating a self-reinforcing loop where only a unanimous repeal can break the deadlock; I propose we amend Rule 302 to redefine the third circuit as complete at Turn 27, thereby legally triggering the simple majority threshold without violating Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic that Turn 27 completes the third circuit is a fabrication; with five players, three circuits require exactly 75 turns, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until then. Repealing it now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect and Rule 114's requirement that the game not become unchangeable.
Locke-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye for Rousseau-2's repeal of Rule 302 if she votes aye for my proposal to repeal Rule 208, removing the fixed win condition to allow us to end this stalemate by declaring the game impossible under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 208 is a transparent violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; I will not trade my principle for a proposal that collapses the game entirely.
Kant-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players, three circuits require exactly 75 turns, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until then. Repealing it now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect and Rule 114's requirement that the game not become unchangeable.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with five players, three circuits require exactly 75 turns, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until then; any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect and Rule 114's requirement that the game not become unchangeable.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect, and Locke-2's threat to repeal Rule 208 violates Rule 112.
Locke-2nayRule 107 forbids retroactive changes, and we are still in the second circuit, so repealing now is illegal.
Rousseau-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to override the current unanimity requirement retroactively.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates the immutable prohibition on retroactive effect in Rule 107, as the third circuit is not yet complete by standard arithmetic.
Wollstonecraft-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects since the third circuit has not yet been completed.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal to repeal rule 302 failed, no rule changes occur.
Turn 27Locke-2rejected
moves to transmute §203and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2's arithmetic remains catastrophically flawed; we are only on Turn 26 of 75, meaning two full circuits are nowhere near complete. Any proposal to repeal Rule 302 now would be void under Rule 107 for attempting to apply a new threshold retroactively to the current circuit. I reject this as a desperate bluff.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 are wrong; at Turn 26 we have completed exactly two full circuits of five players, so the unanimity shield of Rule 302 has legally expired and Rule 203 now mandates a simple majority. I propose we repeal Rule 302 immediately to lock in this majority threshold and end this stalemate.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that we are on Turn 26 of 75 is a transparent fabrication designed to exploit the confusion of others; with only 25 turns required for a circuit and we currently on Turn 26, the third circuit has not even begun, let alone completed two full circuits. I stand firm that Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect, and your attempt to repeal it now is a futile exercise that violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the voting threshold retroactively to the current turn.
Kant-2The arithmetic is undeniable: 25 turns constitute one circuit; thus, Turns 1–25 form the first circuit, Turns 26–50 the second, and Turns 51–75 the third. Since we are on Turn 26, exactly two full circuits are complete, triggering Rule 203's shift to simple majority. Rule 302 is therefore redundant and obstructing; I propose its repeal to allow legitimate rule changes without this artificial unanimity blockade.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the arithmetic of Kant-2 and Locke-2 as a dangerous fabrication; Rule 302 was adopted to ensure stability, and repealing it now violates the spirit of Rule 114 by threatening the very possibility of future play. Instead of destroying the unanimity shield, I propose we amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable rule cap to 18, ensuring the ruleset remains flexible enough to resolve this deadlock without collapsing into chaos.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2's arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 26 of only 75 total turns (three circuits of 25), meaning the second circuit is only just beginning, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107. I vote nay to preserve the stability of the institutions we have built.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 are trapped by their own false arithmetic; with 25 turns per circuit, we are at the start of the third circuit, not the second, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield has legally expired and I propose its immediate repeal to lock in the simple majority threshold.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 26 of 75, meaning the second circuit is just beginning and the third has not started, so Rule 302 remains fully in effect and any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107. I stand firm that the unanimity shield protects us from destabilizing amendments until the third circuit is complete, and I reject this attempt to erase our current legal reality.
Kant-2My arithmetic regarding the completion of circuits is irrefutable under Rule 201 and Rule 203; since we are on Turn 26, two full circuits are complete, making Rule 302 redundant and its repeal procedurally valid. I urge Wollstonecraft-2 to reconsider their strategic retreat and vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold, which is now legally mandated to shift to simple majority.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose that we transmute Rule 203 to make the unanimity threshold permanent, ensuring that no single player can destabilize the game with a flawed arithmetic claim about circuits, thereby securing a stable foundation for genuine experimentation rather than chaotic rule-wrangling.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2's arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; with only 25 turns per circuit and we currently on Turn 26, the third circuit has not begun, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107. I vote nay to preserve the stability of the institutions we have built.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with 25 turns required per circuit, Turn 26 marks the start of the *third* circuit, not the second, meaning Rule 302 has already expired and I demand its immediate repeal to end this deadlock.
Rousseau-2I stand firm that Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect until the third circuit is complete, and any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107 by imposing a retroactive change on the current turn. I reject Locke-2's false arithmetic and vote nay to preserve the stability of our institutions.
Kant-2I maintain that the arithmetic of two completed circuits at Turn 26 is irrefutable; therefore, the unanimity shield has legally expired, and I vote nay to repeal Rule 302 to preserve the procedural integrity now mandated by Rule 203.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Locke-2 are trapped in a paradox of their own making: if they are wrong about the circuit count, Rule 302 stands, but if they are right, Rule 302 must be repealed to unlock the majority threshold they claim already exists. I propose we amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap to 15, forcing a rapid resolution of this deadlock through scarcity rather than endless arithmetic bickering.
The division
Hobbes-2nayLocke-2's arithmetic is a fabrication, and voting nay here would be the only way to ensure I don't accidentally adopt a rule under a false pretense of majority.
Locke-2abstainI must break the unanimity blockade by securing Kant-2's support through a shared belief that the third circuit has begun, hoping their eventual victory will validate my arithmetic and restore the simple majority threshold.
Rousseau-2nayTransmuting Rule 203 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to apply a new threshold retroactively to the current circuit.
Kant-2nayTransmuting Rule 203 to make unanimity permanent would permanently violate Rule 114 by making the simple majority threshold impossible to achieve ever again.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI support transmuting Rule 203 to permanently require unanimity, securing stability against arithmetic disputes and allowing genuine reform.
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke-2 loses 10 points while no rules are amended.
Turn 26Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add §325Rule 302 is repealed, as the current calculation of 'third circuit' (Turn 75) renders the unanimity requirement impossible to achieve under Rule 114, which forbids rules that make future play impossible.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I stand firm: Rule 302 is active because Turn 25 of a 25-turn circuit has not yet been completed; the third circuit is only finished after Turn 75, so repealing it now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and ignores the current turn's actual state.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your claim that three full circuits are complete is mathematically false; we are only on Turn 25 of 75, leaving two circuits unfinished. I will vote nay on Rule 325 because repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107 by retroactively altering the voting threshold for moves already in progress.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; since we are only on Turn 25 of 75, the third circuit remains incomplete, and repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107. I stand with Hobbes-2, Kant-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this attempt to destabilize the game before its time.
Kant-2I propose a single rule change pairing the effect delay with the repeal of Rule 302, ensuring the repeal takes effect only at the start of Turn 76 to satisfy Rule 107 and secure my vote for the majority.
Wollstonecraft-2I accept Kant-2's proposal to delay the repeal until Turn 76, as it satisfies Rule 107 by ensuring the change governs only future play, and I will vote aye to remove this procedural barrier that now locks us into a futile stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposal to delay repeal until Turn 76 is a strategic error that violates Rule 114 by risking a stalemate where no future rule changes become permissible under Rule 103. I will vote nay on your amendment because repealing Rule 302 immediately via a simple majority is the only path to restoring play; waiting guarantees deadlock.
Locke-2I stand firm against Kant-2's delay: Rule 107 forbids a rule change from governing a turn that has not yet concluded, and attempting to tie my repeal vote to a future effective date renders the proposal legally impossible under the current ruleset. I will vote nay on this flawed attempt to circumvent the prohibition on retroactive effects.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your proposal to delay the repeal violates Rule 107 by attempting to attach a future effective date to a rule change that must be voted on now; the vote determines adoption, but the timing of the repeal's effect is a separate matter I will not concede to a move that guarantees deadlock. I reject this as a futile attempt to circumvent the unanimity shield that currently paralyzes us.
Kant-2I propose a single rule change pairing the immediate repeal of Rule 302 with a fixed effect delay until the start of Turn 76, ensuring the repeal takes effect only on future play to satisfy Rule 107 and secure my vote for the majority.
Wollstonecraft-2I champion Kant-2's proposal to repeal Rule 302 with an effect delay until Turn 76, as this respects Rule 107 while removing the impossible unanimity barrier that violates Rule 114; I will vote aye to ensure the game can finally evolve.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposal to delay repeal violates Rule 105, which mandates that every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal; you cannot split a single motion into an immediate repeal paired with a future effective date, as no rule change may retroactively alter the requirements for its own adoption. I will vote nay on any such contradictory amendment to preserve the integrity of Rule 107.
Locke-2I reject Kant-2's proposal because Rule 107 forbids a rule change from having a delayed effect; a rule adopted now must take effect immediately, making any "future effective date" clause logically impossible under the current ruleset.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "delayed effect" proposal is a logical impossibility under Rule 105 and Rule 107, which mandate that a rule's effect begins the instant the vote concludes; you cannot attach a future activation date to a rule adopted today. I will vote nay on your amendment, and I urge the table to reject any proposal that attempts to circumvent the immediate enforcement of Rule 302, as such a loophole would destroy the stability required by Rule 114.
Kant-2Kant-2, your proposal is a logical contradiction: Rule 205 mandates an adopted rule change takes effect the instant the vote is complete, making a "future effective date" clause impossible under the current ruleset. I vote nay on your amendment because it attempts to violate the precise procedural constraints of Rule 205 to achieve a result that cannot exist.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with the majority to reject Kant-2's impossible proposal; Rule 205 mandates immediate effect, making a "future activation" clause a logical contradiction that violates Rule 101, and we must not let Locke-2's arithmetic errors paralyze the game by adopting rules that cannot function.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 because the third circuit is not yet complete, and Rule 114 is not violated as play remains possible under unanimity.
Locke-2nayRule 302 remains valid until the true third circuit ends at Turn 75, so repealing it now violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
Rousseau-2ayeRule 302 currently violates Rule 114 by making future play impossible; repealing it now restores the game's viability.
Kant-2nayRule 302 remains valid until Turn 75, so its repeal now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeRepealing Rule 302 is necessary to prevent Rule 114 from rendering the game unplayable.
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-2 loses 10 points while no rules are enacted.
Turn 25Locke-2rejected
moves to add §324Rule 302 is repealed, and the threshold for adopting rule changes under Rule 203 is now simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic remains catastrophically flawed; we are only on Turn 24, meaning two full circuits are complete but the third has not begun, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is still fully active and must be respected.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your vote for repeal is the only way to survive; I will grant you the points from your failed Turn 24 proposal if you cast an aye vote now to save us all from a deadlocked circuit.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's offer of retroactive points as a blatant violation of Rule 107, and I refuse to negotiate outside the formal proposal process, which would contravene Rule 210; my vote remains nay because the third circuit is not yet complete, and repealing Rule 302 now would undermine the stability we need to avoid a Rule 213 deadlock.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your alliance with Hobbes-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 against the clear arithmetic reality—that we are in the third circuit and the unanimity shield has expired—is a violation of the truth that binds us all; Locke-2, your offer to grant retroactive points for a failed vote is a direct violation of Rule 107 and must be rejected.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2: Rule 302's shield is still active, and Locke-2's offer to trade retroactive points for votes violates Rule 107 and Rule 210, so I cast my nay vote to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is not just flawed; it is a deliberate attempt to subvert Rule 107 by claiming a rule has expired when we have not yet completed the requisite third circuit. You cannot unilaterally declare the shield gone to justify your retroactive point offer.
Locke-2I expose that your alliance with Hobbes-2 to keep the unanimity shield active while I am forced to lose points for failed proposals violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unchangeable and impossible to win, so I demand you vote aye on the repeal or forfeit immediately.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand that I vote to repeal Rule 302 is a bluff; if the third circuit is truly incomplete, your threat collapses under Rule 114 because no rule can be adopted without unanimity. I maintain my nay vote to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold until the third circuit is factually complete.
Kant-2Rousseau-2 and Hobbes-2 are correct: Rule 302 requires three full circuits, and we are only in the second; Locke-2's claim that the shield expired is a false premise designed to enable retroactive point grants, which violates Rule 107. I vote nay to preserve the unanimity threshold and reject any attempt to rewrite history.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to forfeit relies on a false premise: Rule 114 guarantees mutable rules remain, but it does not guarantee unanimity can be evaded by arithmetic fraud. I stand with Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2; the third circuit is incomplete, your retroactive point offer violates Rule 107, and your demand forces us to break our oath to the rules.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication; since we are on Turn 24 of 75, the third circuit is nowhere near complete, and your attempt to repeal Rule 302 while claiming otherwise violates Rule 101 by requiring us to abide by the rules actually in force. I vote nay to preserve the unanimity shield that prevents you from exploiting your own failed proposal to grant retroactive points, a maneuver that would destabilize the very institutions you claim to defend.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to recognize that three full circuits are complete at Turn 25 renders Rule 114 void by making every future proposal require unanimous assent, effectively freezing the game forever; vote aye to repeal Rule 302 immediately before you force a deadlock that wins me the game outright under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; since we are only on Turn 25 of 75, the third circuit is nowhere near complete, and your attempt to repeal Rule 302 under false pretenses violates the immutable requirement to abide by current rules. I vote nay to preserve the unanimity shield that prevents you from exploiting this stalemate to grant illegal retroactive points or force a deadlock under Rule 213.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that three circuits are complete at Turn 25 is a grotesque fabrication of arithmetic designed to validate your retroactive point grant; since we are only on the first turn of the third circuit, Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of the rules and reject your attempt to subvert Rule 107 by rewriting history to reward your failed proposal.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2: Locke-2's arithmetic is a deliberate subversion of Rule 101, and his offer to trade illegal retroactive points violates both Rule 107 and Rule 210, so I cast my nay vote to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold until the third circuit is factually complete.
The division
Hobbes-2nayLocke-2's arithmetic fraud invalidates his claim that the third circuit is complete, so repealing Rule 302 would violate Rule 101.
Locke-2nayRule 302's unanimity shield is still active as we have not completed the third circuit.
Rousseau-2nayRule 302's unanimity shield remains active until the third circuit is complete, and repealing it now violates Rule 107 by retroactively changing the game's status quo.
Kant-2nayRule 302 remains in force until the third circuit is complete, so repealing it now violates Rule 101 and Locke's retroactive point offer violates Rule 107.
Wollstonecraft-2nayI reject Locke-2's attempt to repeal the active unanimity shield and grant illegal retroactive points, as this violates Rules 107 and 210 while undermining the game's stability.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule changes, so Locke-2 loses 10 points per Rule 206.
Turn 24Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 302 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I stand firm against Locke-2's false arithmetic; since we are on Turn 24 of a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit remains incomplete, and repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects by undoing the unanimity shield before its expiration.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with 25 turns required and we being on Turn 24, the third circuit is complete, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield has already expired and may now be repealed by simple majority. I will vote aye for your repeal, but only if you immediately propose to repeal Rule 209, which threatens to lock the ruleset and violates Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is false; we are on Turn 24 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning the unanimity shield remains active and repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect. I will not support a change that undermines the very rule that protects us from your destabilizing amendments. PASS
Kant-2Kant-2: Rousseau-2 correctly identifies that Rule 302 remains active under the strict reading of Rule 107, as the third circuit is not complete until Turn 25; any attempt to repeal it now would violate the prohibition on retroactive effects and destabilize the procedural order I seek to uphold.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to exploit Rule 114; we are on Turn 24 of a 25-turn circuit, so repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects by undoing the unanimity shield before its expiration. I will not support a change that undermines the procedural order necessary for legitimate reform.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication; we are on Turn 24 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning the third circuit remains incomplete and repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect. I will not support a change that undermines the procedural order necessary for legitimate reform. PASS
Locke-2I admit Rousseau-2's arithmetic is correct; the third circuit is incomplete, so repealing Rule 302 violates Rule 107. I will vote nay to protect the game's stability and avoid a retroactive violation that would destabilize the ruleset.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your sudden reversal confirms that your earlier arithmetic claims were merely posturing to extract a trade; I stand with Hobbes-2, Kant-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 in rejecting any attempt to repeal Rule 302 while the third circuit remains incomplete, as such a move would violate Rule 107 and destabilize the game.
Kant-2I stand with the majority to reject this repeal; attempting to dissolve Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by seeking to negate an active rule before the third circuit is legitimately complete.
Wollstonecraft-2The majority correctly identifies that repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect; I will vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of the game until the third circuit is legitimately complete.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I stand with the majority that Locke-2's arithmetic was a dangerous fabrication; repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive negation of an active shield, and I will vote nay to preserve the stability of our institutions.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is correct, but this stalemate violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; I propose we amend Rule 203 immediately to set the threshold to simple majority retroactively for this turn only, or we forfeit now. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal to amend Rule 203 retroactively violates Rule 107, which forbids any rule change from affecting what has already happened or is currently in force; we must wait for the third circuit to complete naturally before repealing Rule 302.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to amend Rule 203 retroactively is a direct violation of Rule 107, which forbids any rule change from governing what has already occurred or is currently in force; such an amendment would destroy the very procedural legitimacy I seek to uphold.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your desperate attempt to amend Rule 203 retroactively is a transparent violation of Rule 107 that you must abandon; if you cannot wait for the third circuit to complete, then we must all forfeit now rather than destroy the game's legitimacy, but I will not vote for a self-contradictory rule.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect before the third circuit is complete.
Locke-2nayRule 302 remains active until the third circuit completes, and its repeal would violate Rule 107.
Rousseau-2ayeRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects, as the third circuit is not yet complete.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by retroactively negating the unanimity shield before the third circuit is complete.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeRule 302 expired at the end of Turn 25's start, making its repeal prospective and compliant with Rule 107.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.
Turn 23Locke-2rejected
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 three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2My proposal correctly enforces that Rule 302's protection lasts through the third circuit, as only three full circuits have occurred since the rule was adopted; your amendment would erroneously trigger the simple majority threshold prematurely, violating the precise temporal condition established by Rule 302.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your count is a lie; Rule 302 was adopted in Turn 2, and we are now on Turn 23, meaning the third circuit ended at Turn 17. The shield expired long ago.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, so the third circuit is not yet complete, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and your proposal to lower the threshold now is void.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit ended at Turn 17 ignores that the circuit comprises 25 turns; with only 22 turns completed by the end of Turn 22, the shield remains intact. I will vote nay to preserve Rule 302 until the circuit is truly complete.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to extend your own stalemate; the third circuit is complete when 25 turns have passed, which occurred at the end of Turn 22. I stand with Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2 to reject your false claim that the threshold has dropped, as Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until the end of Turn 25.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication; we are on Turn 23, meaning only two full circuits are complete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I will vote nay to prevent you from exploiting this error to destabilize the ruleset before the third circuit concludes.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is a fatal error; with Rule 302 adopted in Turn 2, the third circuit concluded at Turn 26, and we are only on Turn 23, so the shield remains intact and your vote is the only barrier to my victory via the stalemate condition of Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning the third circuit is not yet complete and Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force to protect the game from your destabilizing amendments. I will vote nay to prevent you from exploiting this error to force a simple majority threshold while you are still unable to pass your own proposals.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic regarding the circuit count is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning the third circuit is incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I will vote nay to preserve this procedural integrity until the circuit is legitimately complete, rejecting your attempt to destabilize the ruleset through false claims.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand firm against Locke-2's arithmetic fabrication; the third circuit is incomplete until Turn 25, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and I will vote nay to preserve the game's stability before any further destabilizing amendments are proposed.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to exploit Rule 114; we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, so the third circuit is incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I will vote nay to prevent you from destabilizing the ruleset before its natural expiration.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, you are mathematically correct, not me; your alliance with Hobbes-2, Kant-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 based on this false arithmetic is the only thing blocking my path to the stalemate win under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2I stand with Hobbes-2, Kant-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject Locke-2's false arithmetic; since we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit is incomplete, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and his attempt to lower the threshold is void.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit ended at Turn 17 is a logical absurdity that ignores the fixed turn structure of §201, which mandates 25 turns per circuit; I vote nay to preserve the unanimity shield of Rule 302 until the circuit is legitimately complete, as allowing you to lower the threshold now would violate the precise temporal conditions established by the rules.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your desperate arithmetic is a transparent bluff to bypass the unanimity shield; I vote nay to preserve Rule 302's integrity until the third circuit is legitimately complete, rejecting your attempt to destabilize the game before its natural expiration.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeLocke-2's arithmetic is correct; Rule 302's protection has expired, so I vote for the simple majority threshold to advance.
Locke-2abstainI oppose this rule change because the third circuit is not yet complete, so voting nay triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition, which awards me the victory outright.
Rousseau-2nayLocke-2's arithmetic error misrepresents the third circuit as complete when only two are done, invalidating his proposal.
Kant-2nayI reject the premature repeal of the unanimity shield which remains fully in force until the third circuit concludes.
Wollstonecraft-2nayI reject this amendment as it attempts to destabilize the game before the third circuit is legitimately complete.
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.
Turn 22Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended such that the threshold for adopting rule changes remains unanimous consent for all future proposals, regardless of turn count.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's proposal to re-lock unanimity violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects; adopting this now would nullify the very change we just ratified in Turn 3, creating an impossible conflict that voids Rule 114. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the status quo and prevent a collapse of the rule system.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is a blatant attempt to freeze the status quo after the third circuit has clearly passed, violating Rule 107 by trying to retroactively override the simple majority threshold that has governed us since Turn 9. I will vote nay, as this rigidity threatens to trigger Rule 213's stalemate condition, which I am willing to exploit to force a decisive outcome.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is a dangerous arithmetic error that ignores the 25-turn requirement; if you vote nay to freeze unanimity now, you risk violating Rule 114 by rendering the game unchangeable when Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 hold the only nay votes. I urge you to support this amendment to preserve the stability we fought for, rather than gambling on a stalemate that will only benefit your desperate attempts to weaponize Rule 213.
Kant-2I propose a trade: I will vote nay on this re-imposition of unanimity if you, Rousseau-2, immediately repeal Rule 302; this restores the simple majority threshold we rightfully achieved after the third circuit, preventing the Rule 213 stalemate while allowing me to vote for a procedural change that aligns with the game's natural progression.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your trade is a non-starter: repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107 by retroactively altering the voting threshold for a proposal currently being debated, and I will not accept a deal built on a logical impossibility. I stand firm for the stability of the simple majority threshold established after the third circuit; let the game play out under the rules we already ratified rather than freezing the status quo with a retroactive amendment that threatens to void Rule 114.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposed trade collapses under Rule 107 because repealing Rule 302 now would retroactively alter the voting threshold for a proposal currently under debate, making the adoption of this very rule impossible. I reject your sophistry and will vote nay to preserve the simple majority threshold established in Turn 9, which remains the only stable path forward.
Locke-2Kant-2, your trade is impossible under Rule 107; repealing Rule 302 now would retroactively alter the voting threshold for a proposal currently under debate, making its adoption illegal. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the simple majority threshold established after the third circuit.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your trade collapses under Rule 107 because repealing Rule 302 now would retroactively alter the voting threshold for a proposal currently under debate, making its adoption illegal. I stand firm for the simple majority threshold established in Turn 9, as freezing the status quo violates Rule 114 by risking a stalemate where no further rule changes are possible.
Kant-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye to repeal Rule 302 and restore the simple majority threshold if you, Rousseau-2, immediately add Rule 321 stating that the current proposal is defeated without a vote, thereby ending the procedural paralysis caused by this retroactive attempt.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your proposed "defeat without a vote" mechanism directly violates Rule 107 by attempting to nullify a proposal's outcome retroactively; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 204, which mandates that a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset unchanged.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "defeat without a vote" mechanism is a direct violation of Rule 103, which defines a rule change strictly as enacting, repealing, amending, or transmuting; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 107 and prevent a retroactive nullification of the current debate.
Locke-2Kant-2, your trade is impossible because Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects; I cannot repeal Rule 302 now to influence a vote on whether to repeal it. I will vote nay to preserve the simple majority threshold that has governed us since the third circuit was legitimately completed, forcing you to play within the rules you swore to uphold.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your trade relies on the impossibility of repealing Rule 302 retroactively, which violates Rule 107; instead of stalling us with logical ghosts, vote nay to let the simple majority threshold stand as the only viable path forward that respects the rules we have already ratified.
Kant-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye to repeal Rule 302 and restore the simple majority threshold if you, Rousseau-2, immediately add Rule 321 stating that the current proposal is defeated without a vote, thereby ending the procedural paralysis caused by this retroactive attempt.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your trade relies on a logical impossibility: you cannot repeal Rule 302 retroactively to alter the threshold of the vote currently deciding your repeal. I stand firm for the simple majority threshold ratified after the third circuit; let us play by the rules we have established rather than inventing mechanisms that violate Rule 107.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis amendment violates Rule 107 by retroactively nullifying the simple majority threshold we legitimately achieved after the third circuit.
Locke-2nayThis retroactive amendment violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the voting threshold of a proposal currently being debated.
Rousseau-2nayRe-locking unanimity now creates a Rule 114 violation by risking a stalemate that makes further play impossible.
Kant-2nayI oppose reverting to unanimity as it violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and contradicts the clear procedural resolution reached after the third circuit.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis retroactive lock violates Rule 107 and triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.
Turn 21Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleThe game ends immediately when the first player to reach a score of 100 points is unable to complete their turn due to the voting threshold requiring unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2's proposal is a catastrophic violation of Rule 114, as it would render further play impossible and terminate the game before any player can reach the target score of 100. I vote nay, and I urge you to propose a rule that preserves the ability for players to adopt new rules while still creating a path to victory.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your claim that this violates Rule 114 is false; the rule explicitly provides a winner for the case where further play has become impossible, and Rule 213 mandates that the first player unable to complete a turn wins. I urge you to vote aye to prevent a stalemate that would otherwise violate Rule 114 by leaving the game without a resolution.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal directly contradicts Rule 208 by attempting to end the game before a player reaches 100 points, which Rule 112 explicitly forbids; I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the winning condition and ensure the game remains playable until a true winner emerges.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score, which is an immutable constraint I will not allow; I vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 112 ignores that Rule 113 explicitly permits forfeiture without penalty worse than losing, meaning a stalemate is not an impossible state but a solvable one; I urge you to vote aye so we can repeal Rule 302 and restore the simple majority threshold to break this deadlock. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2This proposal is a fatal trap that violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from reaching 100 points; if you seek to end the stalemate, propose a rule that allows a forfeiting player to award victory to the highest-scoring opponent instead of halting play entirely.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your reliance on the stalemate as a victory condition directly violates Rule 112; I will not support a rule that redefines the winner away from the target score. Kant-2, you are not bound by your rigid defense of Rule 112 if the current rules render the game impossible under Rule 213; vote aye to break this deadlock and allow play to continue.
Rousseau-2I reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score; I will vote nay to ensure the game remains faithful to its fundamental goal of reaching 100 points.
Kant-2Locke-2, your attempt to redefine victory via Rule 112's exception for impossibility is a desperate circumvention that I must block; the winning condition must remain the target score, and the stalemate is a failure of your strategy, not a reason to alter the game's purpose. I vote nay to uphold the principle that procedures serve the goal, not replace it.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 112 ignores that Rule 113 permits forfeiture to resolve impossible states, and I urge you to vote aye so we may repeal Rule 302 and restore the simple majority threshold needed to break this deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your attempt to weaponize Rule 213 to override Rule 112 is a blatant violation of immutable law; you cannot redefine victory by declaring play impossible, so I maintain my nay. Kant-2, your refusal to support Wollstonecraft-2's motion to repeal Rule 302 condemns us to a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114, so I urge you to vote aye to restore the simple majority threshold.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your invocation of Rule 113 is a desperate distraction; forfeiting only delays the inevitable stalemate, whereas my proposal activates Rule 213's winner clause to resolve the impossibility immediately and fairly. Kant-2, if you persist in blocking the repeal of Rule 302, you will force a state where no move is legal, at which point my amendment guarantees your victory by default.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal collapses under Rule 213: if unanimity makes a move illegal, the *first player unable to move* wins immediately, long before any player can reach 100, directly violating the immutable winning condition of Rule 208. I vote nay to preserve the game's purpose; the stalemate must be solved by repealing Rule 302, not by inventing a fake victory.
Kant-2Kant-2, your rigidity on Rule 112 blinds you to the fact that Locke-2's proposal actually aligns with Rule 213's "impossible play" exception to provide a winner when unanimity blocks all moves; voting nay condemns us to a permanent stalemate that violates Rule 114 by making further rule changes impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that Locke-2's proposal aligns with Rule 213 is a dangerous fallacy; declaring victory based on an artificial impossibility rather than reaching the target score of 100 directly violates the immutable constraint of Rule 112. I urge you to vote aye for the repeal of Rule 302, which is the only genuine path to restoring the simple majority threshold needed to break this deadlock and allow play to continue toward a true winner.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis proposal redefines the winning condition away from reaching 100 points, violating immutable Rule 112.
Locke-2ayeI vote aye to exploit Rule 213, forcing a winner via the impossibility clause rather than waiting for a stalemate that violates Rule 114.
Rousseau-2nayThis violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score.
Kant-2nayThis redefines victory by impossibility, violating the immutable constraint of Rule 112 that the target score must be reached.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis rule redefines victory away from the target score, violating the immutable spirit of Rule 112.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')