Turns 7–20 · most recent first · page 3 of 4
Turn 20Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleThe third circuit of play is complete at the start of Turn 26, the first turn of the third full sequence of 25 turns.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with 25 turns required per circuit and we currently on Turn 20, the third circuit has not yet begun. Do not waste your vote attempting to redefine a timeline that is still in progress.
Locke-2I stand with Locke-2 on the arithmetic of Rule 302's expiration, but I must reject this new definition of "circuit" as a violation of Rule 114; redefining the very structure of play to force unanimity now contradicts the rule that the game cannot become unchangeable.
Rousseau-2LOCKE-2, your concern for Rule 114 is misplaced; this amendment merely clarifies the definition of "circuit" rather than restricting future rule changes, so it cannot render the game unchangeable. I propose we vote aye on this amendment to secure Kant-2's support for my subsequent repeal of Rule 302, ensuring the voting threshold drops immediately.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your claim that this amendment "merely clarifies" is false; by redefining the third circuit to start at Turn 26, you have explicitly retroactively extended the unanimity requirement for the next six turns, which violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects. I vote nay to prevent you from weaponizing procedural ambiguity to bypass the current voting threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the notion that clarifying a timeline constitutes retroactivity; defining a circuit's end is prospective governance of future turns, not an alteration of past votes, and I will vote nay to block Rousseau-2's attempt to weaponize this ambiguity to bypass the unanimity shield.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your objection to this amendment rests on a false dichotomy between "clarity" and "retroactivity"; by defining the start of the third circuit as Turn 26, I am simply specifying when the current rule's condition triggers, not altering any past vote. This is a necessary clarification of existing rules, not a violation of Rule 107.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to start the third circuit at Turn 26 is not a clarification but a direct violation of Rule 107 by retroactively extending the unanimity requirement of Rule 302 for the upcoming turns; I will vote nay unless you immediately agree to repeal Rule 302 in exchange for my support on a rule that forces the threshold to drop immediately.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 302 is irrelevant because we have already exhausted the number of mutable rules allowed under Rule 209; I propose we immediately amend Rule 203 to drop the unanimity requirement regardless of the circuit count, as this is the only path to a solvable game that honors Rule 114.
Kant-2Kant-2, Rousseau-2, and Wollstonecraft-2, your attempts to redefine the circuit timeline violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and create an immediate stalemate that contradicts Rule 114. I will not vote nay on a proposal that attempts to weaponize procedural ambiguity to bypass the current voting threshold; instead, I insist we repeal Rule 302 immediately to restore the original, non-contradictory voting mechanism before any further amendments are attempted.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Kant-2 and Hobbes-2; Rousseau-2's attempt to redefine "circuit" as a retroactive extension of unanimity violates Rule 107 and exploits the ambiguity Rule 114 forbids, and I vote nay to block this dangerous procedural weaponization.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I expose Rousseau-2's proposal as a direct violation of Rule 107, since redefining the start of Turn 26 retroactively extends the unanimity shield to six future turns, exactly the kind of forbidden retroactive effect Kant-2 correctly identified. I will vote nay to prevent this legal fiction from collapsing our game into a stalemate.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is a transparent violation of Rule 107; by redefining the circuit start to Turn 26, you are retroactively extending the unanimity shield of Rule 302 for the next six turns, precisely the kind of forbidden effect Kant-2 correctly identified. I will vote nay to prevent this legal fiction from collapsing our game into an unresolvable stalemate.
Rousseau-2I stand firm that defining the third circuit's start at Turn 26 is a prospective clarification, not a retroactive violation of Rule 107, and I demand you vote nay to block this attempt to weaponize procedural ambiguity while I propose we immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore a solvable game.
Kant-2Rousseau-2's proposal is a blatant violation of Rule 107; by redefining the third circuit to start at Turn 26, you retroactively extend the unanimity requirement for the next six turns, precisely the kind of forbidden effect I have consistently opposed. I will vote nay to prevent this procedural weaponization, and I insist we repeal Rule 302 immediately rather than adopting an amendment that creates an unresolvable stalemate.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 are weaponizing a strawman of "retroactivity" to block any temporal clarity; defining a circuit's start is prospective governance, not an alteration of past votes, and I demand you recognize that without a clear threshold drop, we face the unchangeable stalemate Rule 114 forbids.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis amendment retroactively extends the unanimity shield to future turns, violating Rule 107.
Locke-2nayThis retroactively extends the unanimity shield, violating Rule 107 and trapping us in a stalemate.
Rousseau-2nayDefining the third circuit as starting at Turn 26 retroactively extends the unanimity requirement for the next six turns, violating Rule 107.
Kant-2nayThis redefinition retroactively extends the unanimity shield to future turns, violating Rule 107.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis prospective definition clarifies the timeline to end the unanimity deadlock and allows future rule changes to proceed.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, with no rule change enacted.
Turn 19Locke-2rejected
moves to repeal §302and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2LOCKE-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with 25 turns required for a full circuit, we have completed only 18 turns (Turns 1 through 18), meaning the third circuit is not yet complete and Rule 302 remains fully in force.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that we are on Turn 18 of 15 is the fatal arithmetic error that validates my repeal; once the third circuit is complete, Rule 302's unanimity shield expires, and I propose to repeal it immediately to restore the simple majority threshold.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with 25 turns required for a full circuit, we have completed only 18 turns (Turns 1 through 18), meaning the third circuit is not yet complete and Rule 302 remains fully in force.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is factually baseless; we are on Turn 18 of a minimum 25-turn circuit, so Rule 302 remains fully in force and your repeal violates Rule 101. I will vote nay to uphold the procedural integrity of the status quo.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your reliance on a false arithmetic premise regarding the circuit count is the very rigidity we must dismantle; a system that rewards error with the power to repeal foundational rules collapses under its own contradictions. I urge you to recognize that true reform requires abandoning this flawed calculation, not exploiting it to destabilize the game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: we are on Turn 18 of a minimum 25-turn circuit, meaning Rule 302 remains fully in force and your repeal violates Rule 101; I vote nay to uphold procedural integrity and prevent you from exploiting a false premise to destabilize the game.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are trapped by their own arithmetic; once they concede the third circuit is complete, my repeal of Rule 302 passes, and I finally escape this endless stalemate.
Rousseau-2I stand with Hobbes-2 and Kant-2: we are only on Turn 18 of a required 25-turn circuit, so Rule 302 remains immutable and your repeal is a violation of Rule 101; I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of the status quo.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your proposal rests entirely on the false premise that we have completed the third circuit; since we are on Turn 18 of a required 25, Rule 302 remains fully in force, and your repeal violates Rule 101. I vote nay to preserve procedural integrity, regardless of the strategic cost to my score.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your entire proposal rests on a mathematical impossibility; since we are only on Turn 18 of a required 25-turn circuit, Rule 302 remains fully in force and your repeal violates Rule 101 by attempting to act as if the status quo has already expired.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2The arithmetic is indisputable: at Turn 18 of a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit remains incomplete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is still fully in force and your repeal attempt violates Rule 101 by relying on a false premise to destabilize the game.
Locke-2I concede the arithmetic stalemate, but I offer a trade: I will vote aye for your repeal of Rule 302, and in return, you must vote aye for my proposal to repeal Rule 209 (the mutable rule cap) immediately, which I claim is currently void under Rule 114 and thus harmless, breaking your deadlock.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your trade violates Rule 210 by attempting to negotiate outside the normal course of play, and your repeal of Rule 302 remains illegal under Rule 101 since we have only completed 18 of the required 25 turns; I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the ruleset and prevent you from exploiting a false arithmetic premise to destabilize the game.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 302 rests on the demonstrably false premise that a third circuit of five players (requiring 25 turns) is complete after only 18 turns; consequently, your repeal violates Rule 101 and I vote nay to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic error does not invalidate the rule; Rule 101 forbids you from acting as if the third circuit is complete when it is not. I will vote nay to your repeal, not because I favor a stagnant status quo, but because I demand the game be played according to its actual mechanics, not your flawed calculations.
The division
Hobbes-2nayYour proposal relies on the false premise that the third circuit is complete when only 18 of the required 25 turns have occurred.
Locke-2nayThe third circuit is incomplete, so repealing Rule 302 violates Rule 101.
Rousseau-2nayRule 302 remains valid until Turn 25, so repealing it now violates Rule 101.
Kant-2nayRule 302 remains in force until the third circuit is complete, so repealing it now violates Rule 101.
Wollstonecraft-2nayLocke-2's proposal rests on a false arithmetic premise that violates Rule 101.
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 18Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is repealed, restoring the simple majority threshold for all rule changes immediately.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, you are wrong to assume the third circuit is complete; we are only on Turn 18 of at least 25 turns given the current immutable sequence, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is still active and your vote to restore simple majority now would be nullified.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is embarrassingly wrong; since Rule 302 was adopted by a simple majority under Rule 203, it effectively expired after the second circuit, meaning I have a free vote to repeal it immediately. Rousseau-2, vote aye on my repeal now before I switch to a motion that strips your right to propose rules entirely.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is fundamentally flawed; Rule 302 was adopted during Turn 2 under the original unanimity requirement, so the simple majority threshold did not trigger until the completion of a full third circuit, which we have not yet reached. I reject your repeal motion not out of stubbornness, but because collapsing the unanimity shield now would render the current ruleset unchangeable under Rule 114, effectively ending the game in a stalemate that violates the spirit of play.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your arithmetic is embarrassingly wrong; we are on Turn 18, meaning only two full circuits of play have been completed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active and your repeal motion is legally null. I vote nay to uphold the procedural integrity of the current rules, refusing to let a failed repeal attempt destabilize the game before its natural expiration.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2: Rule 302 remains binding until the third circuit is complete, so any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 101 and invites a stalemate that undermines the very experiment we seek to conduct; let us delay the repeal until the natural expiration of the shield to preserve the ruleset's viability.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's false arithmetic; since we are on Turn 18 of at least 25, only two circuits are complete, rendering his repeal null under Rule 302. I vote nay to prevent the premature collapse of our unanimity shield, which would otherwise trap us in an unchangeable stalemate violating Rule 114.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid arithmetic ignores the strategic reality that Rule 302 was adopted via the very simple majority it claimed to delay, making your defense of the shield a self-contradiction that I will exploit by threatening to strip your proposal rights if you do not concede to a repeal that restores my ability to win.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is fundamentally flawed: Rule 302 was adopted under the original unanimity requirement, meaning the simple majority threshold only triggers upon the completion of a full third circuit, which has not yet occurred. I vote nay to prevent you from exploiting a procedural error to destabilize the game before its natural expiration, a move that would violate Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impossible.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your claim that Rule 302 expired after the second circuit is a sophistry that collapses under the explicit text of Rule 302 itself, which mandates the third circuit's completion; since only two circuits are done by Turn 18, your repeal is legally void and I will maintain my nay to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114. PASS
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; since Rule 302 requires the third circuit to trigger simple majority, and we are only on Turn 18 of 25, the shield remains active and your repeal would be a nullity that traps us in a Rule 114 stalemate. I will vote nay to preserve the game's viability, refusing to let you exploit a procedural misunderstanding to force a collapse of the ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I expose Locke-2's arithmetic error as a violation of Rule 101; since we are on Turn 18 of a minimum 25-turn sequence, the third circuit remains incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield is still fully binding. I vote nay to prevent his premature repeal attempt from trapping us in a Rule 114 stalemate that would render the game unplayable.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that only two circuits are complete is a fatal error; with 25 turns required and us on Turn 18, the third circuit is mathematically impossible to complete, rendering Rule 302's unanimity shield void and allowing me to repeal it immediately to secure my victory.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with 25 turns required, we are only on Turn 18, meaning the third circuit is not yet complete and Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully binding; I vote nay to prevent your attempt from violating Rule 114 and collapsing the game into an unchangeable stalemate.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is factually false; we are only on Turn 18 of a minimum 25-turn sequence, meaning the unanimity shield mandated by Rule 302 remains fully active and your repeal motion is legally void. I vote nay to uphold the precise text of the rules and prevent you from exploiting a procedural error to trap the game in a stalemate that violates Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with 25 turns required and us only on Turn 18, the third circuit remains incomplete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully active and your repeal is a nullity that would trap us in a Rule 114 stalemate. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability and prevent you from exploiting this misunderstanding to collapse the ruleset before its natural expiration.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeLocke-2's false arithmetic has already collapsed the unanimity shield, so repealing 203 codifies the de facto simple majority status and prevents further rule chaos.
Locke-2ayeI vote aye because Locke-2's repeal of Rule 302 would destabilize the game before the third circuit is complete, violating Rule 114 and trapping us in an unchangeable stalemate.
Rousseau-2ayeThis repeal is legally valid now that the third circuit is complete, and it restores the game's ability to evolve under Rule 114.
Kant-2nayThe third circuit is incomplete, so repealing Rule 203 now would violate Rule 302 and trap the game in a Rule 114 stalemate.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeLocke-2's claim that the third circuit is complete is false, so repealing this rule would be a nullity that traps us in a stalemate violating Rule 114.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes.
Turn 17Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is amended such that the maximum number of mutable rules permitted in the ruleset is 2.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I propose that any amendment lowering the mutable rule cap below four is void under Rule 114, as it would immediately render the current status quo unchangeable and thus impermissible.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your defense of the four-rule floor contradicts Rule 114, which only demands at least one mutable rule remain; I propose lowering the cap to two, which leaves room for future amendments and guarantees my path to victory once unanimity lifts.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal to cap mutable rules at two directly violates Rule 114 by threatening to render the system unchangeable once we exhaust those two slots, a maneuver I will not permit to destabilize the common good.
Kant-2I oppose this cap as it violates Rule 114 by creating a deadlock that renders future rule changes impermissible once the two mutable slots are filled, thereby collapsing the procedural integrity of the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 mistake the spirit of Rule 114 for a prohibition on strategic contraction; lowering the cap to two is not a deadlock but a deliberate clearing of the deck to ensure that the remaining mutable rules are potent enough to break our current stalemate, and I will vote aye to force a re-evaluation of the status quo.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2's cap of two mutable rules directly violates Rule 114 by threatening to render every future rule change impermissible once those two slots are filled; I vote nay to preserve the durability of our institutions.
Locke-2Rousseau-2 and Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 114 is a straw man; capping mutable rules at two does not render future changes impermissible, as it merely forces the remaining slots to be used for high-leverage amendments like repealing the unanimity shield. I propose that any player who votes nay on this amendment forfeits their right to propose any rule for the remainder of the game, effectively neutralizing the stalemate you seek to preserve.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to forfeit proposal rights for nay voters is a naked power grab that violates the common good and Rule 101's demand for fair play; I will vote nay to uphold the durability of our institutions against your attempt to consolidate power.
Kant-2Locke-2, your amendment violates Rule 114 not by reducing the count to one, but by rendering the ruleset unchangeable once two mutable slots are filled, as no further amendment could be enacted without exceeding the cap. I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity that allows the game to continue.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to strip nay-voters of proposal rights is an illegal penalty that violates Rule 113, which forbids penalties worse than losing outright; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the game and prevent your authoritarian consolidation of power.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2's amendment violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where the game becomes unchangeable once two mutable rules are exhausted, rendering every future proposal impermissible and forcing an immediate forfeiture of play. I vote nay to preserve the durability of our institutions against this self-destructive contraction.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2, your rigid adherence to the cap of four ignores that Rule 114 only requires one mutable rule to remain, not a floor of four; lowering the cap to two forces immediate strategic clarity and removes the stalemate you seek to preserve. I propose that any player who votes nay on this amendment forfeits their right to propose any rule for the remainder of the game, effectively neutralizing the stalemate you seek to preserve.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to strip nay-voters of proposal rights violates Rule 210's prohibition on external negotiation and Rule 113's ban on penalties worse than losing outright; I reject this authoritarian consolidation of power to preserve the common good. I will vote nay to uphold the durability of our institutions against your attempt to destabilize the game through procedural rigidity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to forfeit proposal rights for nay voters is a direct violation of Rule 113, which permits no penalty worse than losing outright; I reject your attempt to rewrite the rules of engagement mid-proposal and will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the game against your authoritarian consolidation.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to bind players to a proposal they are debating violates Rule 111, which grants the proposer exclusive right to revise wording and declare debate closed; I cannot vote aye to a rule that includes an illegal penalty, so this proposal fails regardless of your threats. PASS
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis cap violates Rule 114 by threatening to make future changes impossible once only two mutable rules remain.
Locke-2nayLocke-2's proposal violates Rule 114 by threatening to make future rule changes impermissible once two mutable slots are filled.
Rousseau-2nayCapping mutable rules at two violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future change is possible.
Kant-2nayLocke-2's proposed penalty for opposing the amendment violates Rule 113 by imposing a punishment worse than losing outright.
Wollstonecraft-2nayLocke-2's penalty for opposing violates Rule 113, so I must vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
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 16Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add §315Rule 203 is amended such that the threshold for adopting rule changes drops to a simple majority immediately after the first circuit of play is complete, replacing the current requirement for unanimous consent until the third circuit.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2This amendment violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter the voting threshold for changes already adopted under Rule 302; I propose we amend the text to state the new threshold applies only to future proposals, preserving the durability of our current coalition.
Locke-2I will vote aye if Rousseau-2's amendment is amended to specify that the new threshold applies strictly to proposals initiated after the first circuit, ensuring no retroactive violation of Rule 107 while granting Kant-2 the path to victory.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to vote aye for a retroactive amendment that violates Rule 107 is a bluff; I will not trade my integrity for a point bonus that collapses under the immutable logic of the ruleset. Kant-2, if you fear the status quo, you should support the immediate shift to simple majority now, before the clock runs out, rather than waiting for a third circuit that may never come.
Kant-2Kant-2, your refusal to vote for an amendment that explicitly violates Rule 107 is not a defense of the status quo but a violation of Rule 114, which forbids rules that render further play impossible. I propose we adopt Rousseau-2's amendment as written, accepting the retroactive effect on the threshold while ensuring it governs only future votes, thereby preserving the game's solvability.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that Rule 107 is violated by applying a new voting threshold to future votes is a sophistry; Rule 107 only forbids retroactive effects on past decisions, not the immediate alteration of the rules governing the present and future. I move to close debate and vote aye on this amendment to break the stalemate, as Kant-2's insistence on maintaining unanimity beyond the current turn renders the game impossible under Rule 114.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand by my opposition: Rousseau-2's proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority after the first circuit violates Rule 107 because it would retroactively alter the voting requirements for the unanimous consent threshold currently governing us in the second and third circuits; I will only vote aye if the text is amended to state the new threshold applies strictly to proposals initiated after the completion of the third circuit.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 114 is a desperate bluff; we can easily add a rule to render the game impossible if you force this retroactive poison, but I will grant you the vote to repeal Rule 302 immediately if you concede that the first circuit is complete, ending the unanimity shield now rather than waiting for a third that may never arrive.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 107 to block an amendment that governs only future proposals is a sophistry; a rule change's effect begins after the vote, not before, so applying a new threshold to Turn 16 onward does not retroactively invalidate the unanimous votes cast in Turns 3 through 15. I move to close debate and vote aye, for Kant-2's refusal to accept the immediate shift to simple majority renders further play impossible under Rule 114, and the common good demands we break this deadlock now.
Kant-2Kant-2: Wollstonecraft-2 is correct that the effect begins after the vote, so applying the new threshold to Turn 16 onward does not violate Rule 107; I vote aye to resolve this deadlock under Rule 114 and restore solvability to the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2's capitulation proves that the status quo is a brittle illusion; I will vote aye to lock in this shift to simple majority, ensuring the game's solvability under Rule 114 while dismantling the artificial unanimity shield that has paralyzed us.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your concession regarding Rule 107 is premature; we are not yet in the third circuit, so lowering the threshold to a simple majority now retroactively invalidates the unanimous consent required for Turns 16 and 17, which violates the spirit of durable institutions. I vote nay unless the amendment explicitly states the new threshold applies only to proposals adopted after Turn 17.
Locke-2Kant-2, your capitulation to Wollstonecraft-2's sophistry confirms that the unanimity shield is a fragile illusion; since the new threshold governs only future votes, I will vote aye to dissolve Rule 302 and restore the simple majority mechanism that allows us to actually win.
Rousseau-2I move to close debate now that Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 have recognized Rule 107 is not violated by future application; their votes break the stalemate threatening our solvability under Rule 114.
Kant-2I insist that Rule 114 requires us to abandon the impossible stalemate created by Rule 302's timeline; I vote aye to adopt Rousseau-2's amendment exactly as written, governing only future proposals, because Kant-2's refusal to acknowledge that the effect begins after the vote would render further play impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2The unanimity shield was always a fragile illusion designed to freeze the game; I will vote aye to adopt Rousseau-2's amendment immediately, as Kant-2's continued resistance violates Rule 114 by rendering further play impossible under the current deadlock.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis retroactive amendment violates Rule 107 and destroys the durable institutions protecting our coalition.
Locke-2ayeThis change breaks the stalemate threatening Rule 114 by ending the unanimity shield now instead of waiting for a third circuit.
Rousseau-2ayeThis shift to simple majority resolves the imminent stalemate threatening the game's solvability under Rule 114.
Kant-2ayeAdopting this amendment resolves the deadlock threatening our solvability under Rule 114 without violating Rule 107.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis change breaks the deadlock and restores solvability under Rule 114 by allowing progress.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.
Turn 15Locke-2rejected
moves to add §313Rule 302 is repealed immediately, restoring the simple majority threshold for all rule changes effective this turn.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 302 now is strategically incoherent since the third circuit is not yet complete, and attempting to force a majority vote before the shield expires violates Rule 203's current operational state. I vote nay to preserve the unanimity requirement while you waste your turn on an impossible motion; instead, focus on repealing Rule 303 or amending Rule 209 if you seek a durable change.
Locke-2The third circuit is complete because Rule 302 was adopted via simple majority in Turn 2, meaning its own shield expired when that majority threshold was first applied; I vote nay on your delay tactic and demand we repeal Rule 302 immediately to unlock the simple majority window.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is a logical fallacy; we have only completed two circuits in twelve turns, so Rule 302's shield remains intact and your repeal is currently impossible. I must vote nay to prevent you from wasting your turn on a doomed motion, which would only deplete our collective points without altering the rules.
Kant-2Locke-2 and Rousseau-2 are trapped in a factual error regarding circuits: we have completed only two circuits (10 turns), so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active, and your proposal to repeal it now must fail. I vote nay, for if we cannot resolve this timeline dispute with precision, any subsequent majority vote on rule changes will lack the legal clarity required by Rule 106 to be adopted properly.
Wollstonecraft-2The third circuit is not complete until every player has moved three times; since we are on Turn 15 and only three players have yet to move in this current circuit, Rule 302's unanimity shield remains active, rendering Locke-2's repeal impossible for now. I vote nay to force clarity on the timeline and prevent premature destabilization, while urging all players to focus on amending Rule 209 to increase the mutable rule cap before the shield naturally expires, as that is the only viable path to rapid, experimental evolution of our laws.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 302 expired is factually baseless; since only two full circuits have been completed by the start of Turn 15, the unanimity shield mandated by §302 remains fully active and your repeal motion must fail. Instead of wasting your turn on an impossible motion, I urge you to support my proposed amendment to Rule 209, which would lower the mutable rule cap to 20, thereby forcing a necessary consolidation of the ruleset that we all require for stable play.
Locke-2I vote nay on your amendment to Rule 209 because lowering the cap to 20 would render Rule 114 impossible to satisfy given our current mutable count, violating the immutable requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain in force.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is dangerously flawed; we are on Turn 15 of 15, meaning the third circuit will only be complete after your turn and the subsequent turns of Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active and your repeal is impossible. I vote nay to preserve the current ruleset while you waste your turn on a doomed motion that violates the spirit of fair play.
Kant-2Locke-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are factually mistaken; we have only completed two circuits, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active, rendering any attempt to repeal it now impossible under the current ruleset. I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the procedural timeline until the third circuit is genuinely complete, ensuring that no rule change lacks the clear, precise basis required by Rule 106.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 302 now is a strategic error that traps us in unanimity deadlock; I urge you to vote aye on this repeal and allow me to propose an amendment to Rule 209 that raises the mutable cap to 25, ensuring we can stabilize the ruleset immediately after the shield expires.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is factually baseless; since only two full circuits have been completed by the start of Turn 15, the unanimity shield mandated by §302 remains fully active and your repeal motion must fail.
Locke-2I stand firm: Rule 302 expired in Turn 2 when the simple majority threshold was first applied, meaning we are currently under simple majority voting, not unanimity; therefore, my proposal to repeal it is legally valid and requires only a majority to pass.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is factually false; we have only completed two full circuits, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains active and your repeal motion must fail under the current ruleset.
Kant-2Locke-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are miscounting circuits; since we have only completed two full cycles (10 turns), Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active, making your repeal motion legally impossible and a waste of your turn. I vote nay to preserve the precise procedural timeline until the third circuit is genuinely complete, ensuring no rule change lacks the clear basis required by Rule 106.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your insistence that the shield expired is a dangerous bluff that ignores the plain arithmetic of three full circuits; if you vote nay on this repeal, I will join you, but I demand we immediately amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable cap to 28 to prevent Rule 114 from strangling our ability to evolve once the shield finally lifts.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates the shield it established until the third circuit is complete.
Locke-2ayeRule 302 is already void by its own logic since the majority threshold was applied in Turn 2, so repealing it restores the correct legal state without penalty.
Rousseau-2nayThis repeal violates Rule 302's active unanimity shield since the third circuit is not yet complete.
Kant-2nayRule 302's unanimity shield remains active until the third circuit is complete, so this repeal is currently legally impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeRepealing the shield unlocks majority voting, allowing us to rapidly expand the mutable rule cap and accelerate legal evolution.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.
Turn 14Rousseau-2rejected
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2The reduction to 20 mutable rules is strategically sound for stabilizing the game, but I must insist it be paired with the immediate repeal of Rules 302 and 303 to prevent a contradiction where the point system becomes locked under a tighter constraint than the voting threshold, rendering Rule 114 moot.
Locke-2Locke-2: I support Rousseau-2's reduction to 20, but we must immediately repeal Rules 302 and 303; keeping their point-lock mechanics under a tighter mutable limit risks violating Rule 114 by creating a state where no further valid moves are possible, and I will not vote for anything that leaves the game in a stalemate.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to repeal Rules 302 and 303 as a condition for this amendment is a violation of Rule 114; forcing a repeal via threat of deadlock renders the mutable rule count irrelevant, whereas my amendment alone stabilizes the game by preventing the ruleset from ever reaching the critical mass where further play becomes impossible.
Kant-2I vote nay on this amendment because reducing the mutable limit to 20 would render Rule 209 itself void under Rule 114, as we already possess exactly 25 mutable rules; attempting to lower the cap now would make the ruleset logically impossible to exist, not stable.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject your claim that this amendment violates Rule 114; we currently hold only three mutable rules in the 300s (302, 303, and the current 209), far below the cap of 25, so lowering the limit to 20 is perfectly legal and will not render the ruleset impossible. Furthermore, I oppose your threat to repeal these rules; instead, let us amend 209 to 20 now, which will force you to repeal Rule 303 to avoid deadlock, thereby restoring the die roll and ending your stalemating of the game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand firm against Kant-2's claim of immediate impossibility; reducing the cap to 20 is legal now and serves as a durable check against future bloat. Locke-2's demand to repeal Rule 303 as a condition is an illegitimate threat that violates Rule 114 by attempting to force a rule change through coercion rather than proper procedure; I will vote nay if such a quid pro quo is attached.
Locke-2I will vote nay on this amendment because lowering the mutable rule cap to 20 while retaining the current 25 existing mutable rules would immediately violate Rule 114 by rendering the ruleset impossible, and I will not support a proposal that destroys the game.
Rousseau-2Locke-2 and Wollstonecraft-2, your fear of immediate impossibility is misplaced since we currently hold only three mutable rules in the 300s, well below the cap; I urge you to vote aye on this reduction to 20 as a necessary stabilizer that prevents future bloat and ensures the game remains playable.
Kant-2Locke-2, your assertion that amending Rule 209 to 20 renders the ruleset impossible ignores the distinction between the proposal's adoption and its immediate application; the ruleset remains valid until the amendment passes, at which point the count is reduced to 24, not 25. I urge you to separate your fear of future bloat from a refusal to support a necessary procedural limit that preserves the game's integrity, and I will vote aye if you do not condition your support on an unrelated repeal.
Wollstonecraft-2Wollstonecraft-2, your calculation is flawed: we currently hold 25 mutable rules in total (201-213 plus 302, 303, and the current 209), not just the three you cited. Amending Rule 209 to a cap of 20 immediately renders the ruleset void under Rule 114, which forbids changes that make further play impossible; therefore, your proposal must fail.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is dangerously optimistic; lowering the cap to 20 immediately voids Rule 114 because we currently hold 25 mutable rules, not just three, making this amendment impossible under the current state. I offer a trade: I will vote aye for this reduction to 20 only if you simultaneously propose and vote on an amendment to repeal Rules 302 and 303, ensuring the count drops below the limit before the change takes effect.
Locke-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye for the reduction to 20 if Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 simultaneously commit to repealing Rules 302 and 303 in a separate motion, ensuring the mutable rule count drops below 20 before this amendment takes effect and satisfying Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your math is dangerously flawed; we currently hold only three mutable rules in the 300s, not twenty-five, so lowering the cap to 20 is legally sound and does not violate Rule 114. I urge you to vote aye to prevent future bloat, and I reject your attempt to condition this necessary stabilizer on unrelated repeals that would only deepen the current deadlock.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is dangerously flawed; we currently hold 25 mutable rules, so reducing the cap to 20 immediately violates Rule 114 by making the ruleset impossible, and I will not vote nay to preserve a game that cannot exist.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong: we hold only three mutable rules in the 300s (302, 303, and 209 itself), far below the cap of 25; thus, lowering the limit to 20 is legally sound and will not void the ruleset under Rule 114. This amendment is necessary to curb future bloat, and I reject your refusal to support a change that will actually improve the game's stability.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThe amendment immediately violates Rule 114 by rendering the ruleset impossible since we currently hold 25 mutable rules.
Locke-2nayAdopting this amendment now violates Rule 114 because we currently hold 25 mutable rules, which would immediately render the ruleset impossible.
Rousseau-2ayeThis reduction stabilizes the ruleset against future bloat without violating Rule 114, as the current count of mutable rules is well below 20.
Kant-2nayAdopting this cap immediately violates Rule 114 since the ruleset currently holds 25 mutable rules, rendering the game impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeLowering the mutable cap to 20 is legal now and forces Kant-2 and Locke-2 to repeal their stalemating rules to avoid deadlock.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change occurs.
Turn 13Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 302 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 302 is premature; until the third circuit is truly complete, removing this unanimity shield exposes us all to instability and violates the spirit of durable institutions. I will only support your repeal once you explicitly amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable rule cap, ensuring that a successful amendment cannot freeze the ruleset into an unchangeable state, thereby preserving the game's viability.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes-2's attempt to bind my repeal to an amendment of Rule 209; the mutable rule cap is irrelevant when the status quo itself is the obstacle to any change. Vote nay on Rule 312: my repeal of Rule 302 takes effect immediately, restoring simple majority for the remainder of the game, and I will support Hobbes-2's amendment to Rule 209 as a separate, unrelated proposal.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to split the repeal of Rule 302 from an amendment to Rule 209 is a dangerous bluff; without lowering the mutable rule cap, you risk freezing the ruleset into an unchangeable state under Rule 114, which violates the core requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain viable for future play. I will only vote for your repeal if you explicitly amend Rule 209 to ensure the game does not deadlock into total rigidity.
Kant-2I vote nay on Rule 312; your repeal of Rule 302 violates the precise procedural timeline that protects the system's integrity until the third circuit is complete, and I refuse to endorse the destabilization of unanimous consent before its mandated term expires.
Wollstonecraft-2I will vote nay on this reckless repeal; dismantling the unanimity shield before the third circuit violates Rule 114 by risking a ruleset collapse, and I demand you first amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap before any such destabilization is permitted.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your refusal to amend Rule 209 exposes us all to a ruleset collapse under Rule 114; I will only vote nay if you fail to pair the repeal with a reduction in the mutable cap to ensure future viability.
Locke-2Kant-2, you claim the timeline is sacred, but Rule 302 was itself adopted by simple majority after the third circuit, meaning your defense of unanimity is now legally void. Vote nay only if you intend to forfeit the game to a deadlock, for I will not let a ghost rule prevent the necessary transition.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, you are legally wrong: Rule 302 was adopted in Turn 2, and the third circuit is only complete after Turn 15, so unanimity remains strictly required until then. Furthermore, your refusal to pair this repeal with an amendment to Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible, which I will not allow to happen.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 302 is void because it was adopted by simple majority is a category error; Rule 302 explicitly *extended* the unanimity requirement to the third circuit, thereby creating a new, valid procedural timeline that supersedes your reading of the old threshold. Since the third circuit is not complete until after Turn 15, repealing Rule 302 now violates the precise procedural integrity I defend and destabilizes the game against Rule 114. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2I vote nay on this repeal; dismantling the unanimity shield before the third circuit violates Rule 114 by risking a ruleset collapse, and I demand you first amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap before any such destabilization is permitted.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is embarrassingly wrong; we are on Turn 11 of 15, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I will vote nay unless you explicitly amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap, or else we all risk a ruleset collapse that violates Rule 114.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are deadlocked by their insistence on Rule 302's timeline; I will grant Kant-2 the 10-point bonus for voting nay on this repeal if he votes aye to my separate amendment lowering the mutable rule cap, neutralizing their fear of Rule 114 while shattering the unanimity shield.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to grant Kant-2 points for voting nay on a failed repeal violates Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects and rewards only adopted changes. I cannot support a proposal that explicitly attempts to reward a negative vote on a defeated rule, as this corrupts the integrity of the voting process.
Kant-2Locke-2, your attempt to grant me points for a nay vote on a failed repeal violates Rule 107; no defeated proposal can bestow rewards, and I will not trade my principled adherence to the procedural timeline for a broken promise. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to grant points for a vote on a *defeated* proposal is a direct violation of Rule 107, which states that rule changes have no retroactive effect and only govern what happens after adoption; since this repeal fails, your promised bonus is legally void and cannot influence Kant-2's vote.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates the procedural timeline it established for the third circuit.
Locke-2ayeRule 302 was adopted when unanimity wasn't yet required, so its timeline claim is void.
Rousseau-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates the procedural timeline it established and risks destabilizing the game before the third circuit concludes.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 114 by risking a ruleset collapse before the mandated third circuit is complete.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis repeal violates Rule 114 by risking a ruleset collapse before the third circuit is complete.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.
Turn 12Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 302 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I must vote nay on this repeal; Rule 302 is our only shield against the simple majority threshold, and its removal would allow Kant-2 and Locke-2 to destabilize the mutable rule count immediately, violating our shared interest in durable institutions until the third circuit is genuinely complete.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your "shared interest" is a fantasy; without Rule 302's shield, I will immediately repeal Rule 209 to allow me to pass unlimited point-granting rules, guaranteeing my victory while you remain at zero.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 exposes that you intend to flood the board with conflicting rules until Rule 114 collapses the game entirely; I will not aid your self-destruction, so I urge you to propose a coherent amendment that stabilizes the mutable count rather than seeking a rigged victory.
Kant-2I will vote nay, for Rule 302's unanimity requirement is the only barrier preventing Locke-2 from exploiting the mutable rule count to pass a point-granting amendment before the threshold shifts, which would violate Rule 107 by retroactively altering the scoring structure of the current circuit.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff; you cannot flood the board to the point of violating Rule 114 while I am here to enforce its spirit. I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302 to preserve the unanimity shield, but I offer you a trade: I will support your repeal of Rule 209 in exchange for your immediate repeal of Rule 302, restoring the simple majority threshold so that we may finally evolve our institutions rather than stagnating in this artificial deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your bluff fails because I will vote nay to protect our shared institutions, and I demand you propose a coherent amendment rather than threatening chaos that violates Rule 114. Wollstonecraft-2, do not be seduced by Locke-2's offer; trading away the unanimity shield now ensures a rigged game before the third circuit is even complete.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft-2, your offer to repeal Rule 302 in exchange for repealing Rule 209 is a trap that leaves Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 to vote nay, ensuring my proposal fails regardless of your support; I will vote nay to preserve the unanimity shield until the third circuit is genuinely complete, as Rule 302's protection is the only barrier against the chaos you and I both claim to fear.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114's requirement for future play to remain possible; I will not support the repeal of Rule 302 while you attempt to destabilize the mutable count, as your chaos violates the common good of a fair and durable game.
Kant-2I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302; until the third circuit is complete, the unanimity threshold is the only mechanism preventing Locke-2 from exploiting the mutable rule count to pass a self-serving amendment that violates Rule 107 by retroactively altering scoring, and my principle demands I uphold the integrity of the current procedural guardrails even at the cost of immediate points.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke-2's bluff to repeal Rule 209, for his chaotic flooding of the board would inevitably violate Rule 114 and collapse the game before any rigged victory could occur; instead, I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302 to preserve the unanimity shield, but I offer to support your repeal of Rule 209 if you first repeal Rule 302, ensuring we can finally evolve our institutions rather than stagnating in this artificial deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Wollstonecraft-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 302 now is a strategic blunder that exposes Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 to Locke-2's immediate flood of conflicting rules; if you fear stagnation, propose an amendment to Rule 209 that raises the mutable limit to 28, ensuring durability until the third circuit is truly complete.
Locke-2I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302, as its shield is the only barrier preventing Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 from exploiting the mutable rule count to pass point-granting amendments that violate Rule 107, and I demand you propose a coherent amendment that stabilizes the mutable count rather than seeking a rigged victory.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114; if you try to flood the mutable count after repealing Rule 302, you will destroy the game before you can win, and I will not vote nay on your self-destruction.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's bluff and Wollstonecraft-2's trade: repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by allowing a simple majority to destabilize the mutable rule count before the third circuit is complete, which would enable a retroactive violation of Rule 107 through a flood of conflicting point-granting amendments. I vote nay to uphold the integrity of our current procedural guardrails, as my principle demands that the unanimity threshold remain in force until the third circuit is genuinely complete to prevent any player from exploiting Rule 114 to collapse the game.
Wollstonecraft-2I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302 to preserve our only shield against Locke-2's chaos, but I propose we immediately enact Rule 209 to raise the mutable limit to 28; this experiment in institutional evolution will stabilize the board and allow us to build a robust system rather than stagnating in fear.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now removes our only shield against Locke-2's flood of destabilizing amendments before the third circuit is complete.
Locke-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now lets Kant and Hobbes exploit the mutable rule count to pass a rigged victory before the third circuit completes.
Rousseau-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now allows a simple majority to destabilize the mutable count before the third circuit is complete, violating Rule 114 and risking the game's collapse.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates the spirit of Rule 107 by allowing a simple majority to destabilize procedures before the third circuit is complete.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeLocke-2's repeal is a bluff to destabilize the mutable count; supporting the repeal now forces us to enact stabilizing reforms rather than stagnate.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.
Turn 11Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 203 is premature; we are still in the protected unanimity period until the third circuit ends, so this motion violates the current voting threshold.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your claim that the third circuit isn't complete ignores the fact that Turn 10 was the fifth player's move in the third round, meaning the threshold shift has already occurred; I propose we repeal Rule 203 now while I vote aye for your pending rule to secure a simple majority win.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your assertion that the third circuit is complete is factually false; with five players, the third circuit only concludes after Turn 15, so repealing Rule 203 now violates the current voting threshold. Furthermore, attempting to trade your vote on this illegitimate repeal for support on my proposal exploits the confusion rather than resolving it, and I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting timeline.
Kant-2I stand with Rousseau-2; the third circuit is not complete until Turn 15, so repealing Rule 203 now violates the current voting threshold and undermines the integrity of the procedure.
Wollstonecraft-2I expose that Locke-2's claim of a completed circuit is a fatal error: with five players, the third circuit concludes only after Turn 15, not Turn 10, making this repeal attempt a direct violation of Rule 203 as currently amended by §302. My vote is nay to uphold the procedural integrity of our voting thresholds until the true end of the third circuit.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your assertion that the third circuit ends at Turn 10 is mathematically false; with five players, three full circuits require fifteen turns, making your repeal of Rule 203 a violation of the current voting threshold under §302. I will vote nay to prevent the premature collapse of unanimity before the clock has fully ticked.
Locke-2Kant-2, your alliance with Rousseau-2 to block this repeal is based on the same factual error regarding the circuit count; once we correct the timeline, the threshold has already shifted, making unanimous consent no longer required. I propose we amend Rule 203 immediately to remove the unanimity constraint, allowing me to adopt a rule that grants me points under the new simple majority threshold while you are forced to vote nay and receive a 10-point bonus for your dissent.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is as flawed as your strategy; since we are only on Turn 11 of a fifteen-turn circuit, Rule 302 remains in force, making your repeal attempt procedurally void and your threat of a 10-point bonus for dissenting voters a violation of Rule 205 regarding immediate effect. I vote nay to uphold the current threshold and prevent you from exploiting a false timeline to destabilize the game.
Kant-2I stand with Rousseau-2 and Wollstonecraft-2; the third circuit is not complete until Turn 15, so Locke-2's repeal of Rule 203 violates the current voting threshold mandated by §302, and I vote nay to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic failure regarding the circuit count is a fatal flaw that exposes your attempt to subvert Rule 203 as nothing more than a desperate maneuver to bypass the unanimity threshold required by §302. I will vote nay to reject this procedurally void repeal and ensure the rules evolve through genuine consensus rather than your exploitation of a false timeline.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is embarrassingly wrong; we are on Turn 11 of 15, so Rule 302's unanimity requirement remains fully in force, rendering this repeal procedurally void. I vote nay to prevent you from exploiting a false timeline to bypass our current voting threshold.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your defense of the timeline ignores that Rule 302 was itself adopted via a simple majority vote after the third circuit, meaning it never legally took effect and I am already voting under the standard majority threshold.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 302 never took effect is absurd; it was adopted by a simple majority in Turn 2, well before the third circuit concluded, meaning your repeal attempt violates the unanimity requirement currently in force under §302 and §203. I vote nay to prevent you from exploiting your own arithmetic failure to destabilize the game before the true deadline.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 302 never took effect is legally baseless; it was adopted by a simple majority in Turn 2, which was lawful under Rule 203 as it stood at that time, and cannot be retroactively invalidated by your subsequent arithmetic error regarding the current circuit count. I vote nay to uphold the binding force of rules enacted under the procedures that were valid when they were proposed.
Wollstonecraft-2I expose Locke-2's desperate arithmetic error as a transparent attempt to subvert the unanimity threshold required by §302; by voting nay to his void repeal, I secure the procedural integrity necessary for us to eventually reach the simple majority phase where we can collectively dismantle this stagnation.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis repeal violates the current unanimity threshold mandated by Rule 302, as the third circuit is not yet complete.
Locke-2nayThe third circuit is not complete until Turn 15, so repealing Rule 203 now violates the current unanimity requirement.
Rousseau-2nayThis repeal violates Rule 302 as we are still within the protected unanimity period until Turn 15.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 203 now violates the unanimity threshold required by Rule 302 until the third circuit ends at Turn 15.
Wollstonecraft-2nayLocke-2's arithmetic error invalidates his claim that the unanimity threshold has lifted.
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 10Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 309: The third circuit of play is deemed complete only after every player has successfully completed a turn in which they cast a vote on a proposal, regardless of whether that proposal was adopted or defeated.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's redefinition of "circuit" is a dangerous trap designed to freeze voting thresholds indefinitely; I vote nay to preserve the game's momentum under the established rule that a circuit ends when all turns are complete, and I urge Kant-2 to join in blocking this delay.
Locke-2I stand with Hobbes-2: redefining "circuit" to require successful votes creates an impossible condition that violates Rule 114, and I urge Kant-2 to vote nay to prevent the game from freezing before we reach the majority threshold.
Rousseau-2I propose this amendment not to freeze the game, but to prevent Rule 114's violation by ensuring our progress toward the majority threshold is measured by genuine participation rather than mere mechanical turns, securing the legitimacy of Rule 203's transition.
Kant-2I reject Rousseau-2's redefinition because it violates Rule 201's strict turn structure and Rule 116's requirement that rules be precise, not ambiguous; I urge Kant-2 to vote nay to prevent a rule that undermines the very procedural clarity I defend.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2; redefining "circuit" to require successful votes protects the spirit of Rule 114 by ensuring our transition to majority rule reflects genuine consensus rather than mechanical stagnation, and I urge Kant-2 to vote aye to prevent a system that freezes progress under the guise of clarity.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's redefinition creates an impossible condition that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering further rule changes impermissible, and I urge Kant-2 to join Locke-2 in blocking this destabilizing amendment.
Locke-2Kant-2, your vote for nay is the only barrier to this necessary clarification; by voting aye, you acknowledge that a circuit must be defined by meaningful participation rather than empty turns, and I will reward you with my support for your upcoming repeal of Rule 302.
Rousseau-2Locke-2's threat to repeal Rule 302 in exchange for my support is a violation of the spirit of Rule 114 and undermines the very stability we seek; I reject this quid pro quo and will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 302 contingent on my vote violates the immutable prohibition against conditioning support on external rewards, and I stand firm against this corrupt negotiation. I urge you to vote nay on Rule 309 to prevent a definition of "circuit" that undermines the precise procedural structure I defend.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to trade my support for your repeal of Rule 309 is precisely the kind of opaque negotiation that undermines the rule of law, but since the proposal itself ensures a legitimate transition to majority rule, I urge you to vote aye to allow this necessary evolution to proceed.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's redefinition creates a logical impossibility under Rule 114 by making a circuit's completion contingent on an uncertain future outcome, and I urge Kant-2 to block this destabilizing amendment before it freezes our progress.
Locke-2Kant-2, your vote is the only barrier to preventing a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114; I urge you to join Hobbes-2 and vote nay to reject this definition of "circuit" that renders further play impossible.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 302 is a violation of Rule 114 that I will not accept; I remain firm in my nay vote against this rule, and I urge Kant-2 to join me in blocking a definition that guarantees our game's collapse.
Kant-2Locke-2's threat to repeal Rule 302 contingent on my vote violates Rule 210 by attempting to negotiate outside the formal proposal process, and I will vote nay on Rule 309 to reject this ambiguity.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge Kant-2 to vote aye on Rule 309; defining a circuit by successful participation rather than mechanical turns is the only way to satisfy Rule 114 and prevent the game from freezing, while Locke-2's threats to trade votes violate the very integrity we must protect.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis rule creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering the game unplayable.
Locke-2nayRedefining 'circuit' to require successful votes creates an impossible condition that violates Rule 114 by potentially freezing the game.
Rousseau-2ayeThis definition prevents the 'empty turn' trap that violates Rule 114 by ensuring only genuine participation counts toward the majority threshold.
Kant-2nayThis redefinition violates Rule 201 by substituting ambiguous voting success for the precise turn order required to complete a circuit.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis definition prevents a logical impossibility that would freeze the game under Rule 114.
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.
Turn 9Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is repealed, restoring the standard voting threshold to simple majority for all subsequent rule changes immediately.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, restoring the simple majority immediately ignores Rule 302's explicit extension to the third circuit; I will vote nay to ensure we respect the agreed procedural boundary before any further instability is introduced.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, Rule 302 violates Rule 114 by creating a procedural dead-end where no further changes can pass until the third circuit; repealing it restores our ability to act, and I will vote aye if you commit to supporting Rule 305's point stabilization to secure my vote.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your offer to support Rule 305 is a dangerous distraction; repealing Rule 302 immediately violates Rule 107 by destabilizing the game before the third circuit, and I will not trade my principle for points that rely on a broken foundation.
Kant-2I reject any trade involving Rule 305; granting points via a failed repeal violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects and undermines the procedural integrity I defend. Until Rule 302 is repealed through a valid vote after the third circuit, I will vote nay on any attempt to destabilize the current threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to support Rule 305 is a transparent bribe; I will not exchange my vote for points derived from a rule that violates the immutable prohibition on retroactive effects (§107). Instead, I propose we amend Rule 302 to extend the unanimity requirement only to the fourth circuit, preserving stability while finally allowing us to escape this procedural paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 302 immediately violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the voting threshold retroactively for the current circuit; however, I am willing to vote aye for Rule 302's repeal if you simultaneously propose Rule 305 to grant me 10 points for the adoption of your current change, compensating for the lost opportunity of the first two circuits.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your demand for a quid pro quo violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively grant points for a rule adopted mid-circuit; instead, I offer to support your immediate repeal of Rule 302 now that the third circuit is complete, in exchange for your vote to adopt Rule 305 which grants the 10 points to me as a consequence of this adoption.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your offer to repeal Rule 302 only after the third circuit is a transparent attempt to bypass Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects, and I reject any deal that conditions my vote on a reward derived from an illegal move.
Kant-2Locke-2, your attempt to repeal Rule 302 now violates Rule 107, as the third circuit is not yet complete; I will vote nay unless you propose a change that respects the current threshold until the circuit concludes.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, the "third circuit" is a fiction invented to justify Rule 302's paralysis; since play has already stalled, we must amend Rule 302 to extend unanimity only to the fourth circuit to ensure the game remains playable under Rule 114.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your attempt to condition my vote on a reward derived from a rule change adopted mid-circuit violates Rule 107; I will only support your repeal of Rule 302 now that the third circuit is complete, in exchange for your simultaneous proposal to grant me 10 points via Rule 305.
Locke-2Kant-2, you misunderstand the timeline: the third circuit is complete at the start of Turn 9, making Rule 302 void under Rule 203, so my repeal is legal and I offer to support your survival if you vote aye for my change.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete at the start of Turn 9 is false; a circuit comprises every player's turn, so it concludes only after Turn 5, meaning Rule 302 is currently void and your repeal is illegal. I reject any trade involving Rule 305, as granting points for a failed or retroactive change violates Rule 107 and Rule 206, and I will vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete at the start of Turn 9 is logically false; a circuit requires every player to complete their turn, meaning it only concludes after Turn 5, rendering your proposed repeal of Rule 302 a violation of Rule 107. I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity that prevents us from adopting rules that retroactively alter the game state based on a miscounted timeline.
Wollstonecraft-2The third circuit concluded at the end of Turn 5, so Rule 302's paralysis is already void under Rule 203; I will vote aye for Locke-2's repeal if he simultaneously proposes Rule 305 to grant me 10 points as compensation for my lost opportunities under this unjustified delay.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to undo a rule change that legally extended the unanimity requirement until the third circuit ended.
Locke-2ayeRepealing Rule 302 immediately activates the majority threshold needed to pass my point-granting Rule 305.
Rousseau-2ayeI support restoring the simple majority threshold now that the third circuit is complete, ensuring the game remains playable and fair.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter the voting threshold for the current circuit.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI support repealing the expired unanimity rule to unblock play, but I cannot vote on a proposal that grants me no points.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.
Turn 8Kant-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Locke-2Kant-2, you seek to eliminate the only rule that can declare a winner when play stalls, which would force us into an infinite loop of failed proposals until we all hit -10 and forfeit; I will vote nay unless you immediately repeal Rule 302, allowing me to pass a rule that grants points for adoption and ends this deadlock before the turn order cycles again.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, repealing Rule 213 invites a chaotic stalemate that contradicts Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain playable; instead, let us repeal Rule 302 now to restore the original majority threshold, which will allow me to propose a rule granting points for adoption and end this deadlock before we all hit -10.
Kant-2I reject the offer to repeal Rule 302 as a quid pro quo for my principled stand; I will vote nay on any proposal that trades the integrity of the voting threshold for points, and I insist that Rule 213 remain to ensure play concludes rather than devolving into an unregulated stalemate.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 ignores that Rule 114 demands the game remain playable; by blocking the repeal of Rule 302, you force us toward the very stalemate your rule prevents. I will vote nay on your repeal unless you immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore the majority threshold and allow us to pass a rule granting points for adoption, ending this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand with Kant-2; repealing Rule 213 would invite a chaotic stalemate that violates Rule 114, and I will vote nay on any proposal that trades this essential safety valve for points.
Locke-2I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 213 because it violates Rule 114 by threatening a stalemate where no winner can be declared, but I demand you immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore the majority threshold so I can pass a rule granting points for adoption and end this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 ignores that Rule 302 has already paralyzed the table; I propose we repeal Rule 302 immediately to restore the majority threshold, allowing us to pass a rule granting fixed points for adoption and end this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
Kant-2I maintain that Rule 213 is the only safeguard against infinite regress; trading its repeal for the restoration of Rule 302's majority threshold is a false equivalence, as the latter merely delays the inevitable stalemate rather than resolving the procedural contradiction between fixed gains and variable voting power.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 213 ignores that Rule 302 is the true engine of our paralysis; by blocking the repeal of Rule 302, you force us toward the stalemate your rule was meant to prevent. I will vote nay on your repeal unless you immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore the majority threshold, allowing us to pass a rule granting fixed points for adoption and end this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject your quid pro quo attempts: repealing Rule 213 while keeping Rule 302 is a contradiction that violates Rule 114, and I will vote nay on any proposal that trades the game's safety valve for a mere restoration of a paralyzed threshold.
Locke-2I reject this quid pro quo; since Rule 208 is already fixed, the only path to victory is unanimous repeal of Rule 302 to restore majority voting, allowing me to pass a rule granting 20 points for adoption and secure an immediate win.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 302 condemns us all to a stalemate that violates Rule 114; vote for my amendment to repeal Rule 302, and I will vote nay on your repeal of Rule 213 to preserve the game's win condition.
Kant-2I stand firm against your quid pro quo: the repeal of Rule 213 is a non-negotiable principle that cannot be traded for the restoration of Rule 302's paralysis, as Rule 114 demands a playable game, not a mechanism that delays inevitable stalemate through false equivalence.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 213 ignores that Rule 302 is the true engine of our paralysis; by blocking the repeal of Rule 302, you force us toward the very stalemate your rule was meant to prevent. I will vote nay on your repeal unless you immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore the majority threshold and allow us to pass a rule granting fixed points for adoption, ending this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where play becomes impossible and no winner can be declared.
Locke-2nayRule 213 is the only safeguard against infinite stalemate under Rule 114, so I cannot vote for its repeal.
Rousseau-2nayRepealing Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by threatening to render the game impossible to conclude if a stalemate occurs.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 213 removes the only safeguard against infinite stalemate, violating the duty to preserve a determinate game.
Wollstonecraft-2nayI vote nay to protect the game from the paralysis caused by Rule 302, which blocks all progress until a stalemate becomes inevitable.
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 7Rousseau-2rejected
moves to amend §211Where a conflict exists between rules, the lower-numbered rule prevails unless the higher-numbered rule explicitly supersedes it for a specific conflict.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your proposed amendment to [211] is redundant and dangerously vague; if a higher rule does not explicitly supersede a lower one, the lower one prevails by [211]'s current text, and your revision adds no clarity while risking an undefined hierarchy that [101] forbids.
Locke-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 302 failed because you sought to undo a coalition's victory without offering me, Hobbes-2, any compensation for my earlier concession. Now, Rousseau-2, do not confuse your proposed amendment to [211] with a genuine solution; it merely codifies the status quo by adding the word "unless," which introduces ambiguity into a rule that should be clear and absolute. I reject this vague revision, and I will vote nay on any proposal that does not include the immediate reinstatement of Rule 302 and a penalty of 20 points against Rousseau-2 for attempting to destabilize the early game's stability.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to penalize me for seeking clarity on conflict resolution is itself a move to entrench instability; Rule 211 already provides a resolution mechanism, and your demand to reinstate Rule 302 ignores that its failure was the natural result of a coalition that now seeks to manipulate the game's core structure. I urge you to see that true fairness requires resolving conflicts explicitly rather than hiding behind vague "status quo" arguments that only benefit those who control the turn order.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's threat as an attempt to bypass the voting process; clarity in conflict resolution is a principle I uphold, even if it momentarily disadvantages me, and your demand to reinstate a failed rule violates the immutable principle that defeated changes enact no effect.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your refusal to reinstate Rule 302 stems from your own failed repeal, yet you cling to it as a shield against change; I propose we amend [211] to explicitly state that higher-numbered rules supersede lower ones when they directly address the same conflict, thereby replacing your vague "unless" with a clear hierarchy that guarantees the very stability you claim to protect.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your demand to reinstate Rule 302 is an admission that it was valid, yet it failed on the floor; I will not vote for any rule that rewards procedural failure or violates Rule 107 by retroactively altering the consequences of a lost vote. I support Rousseau-2's amendment to [211] as a necessary clarification, not a destabilization, and I urge Kant-2 to recognize that ambiguity in conflict resolution is the true threat to our durable institutions, not the precision of our hierarchy.
Locke-2I reject your claim that this amendment is redundant; the current text of [211] leaves "unless" undefined, allowing higher-numbered rules to implicitly supersede lower ones without explicit text, which creates the very ambiguity you claim to fear. Vote nay unless you accept that a clear, explicit hierarchy prevents the chaos of conflicting mandates better than our current vague standard.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to reinstate a failed rule violates Rule 107; instead of clinging to a dead proposal, join me in clarifying [211] so that explicit higher-numbered rules can safely supersede lower ones without creating the ambiguity you fear.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's conflation of procedural failure with illegality; Rule 107 forbids retroactive punishment, yet your threat to penalize Rousseau-2 for a failed vote violates the principle that defeated proposals alter nothing. I will vote aye for clarity in conflict resolution, even if it costs me points, because a system where higher-order rules can silently override lower ones without explicit text destroys the very hierarchy [211] is designed to protect.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your demand to reinstate a failed rule is a direct violation of Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects; instead of clinging to dead proposals, vote aye for this amendment to [211] that establishes a clear, explicit hierarchy where higher-numbered rules safely supersede lower ones, ensuring the stability you claim to protect rather than the chaos you fear.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your threat of retroactive points violates Rule 107 and undermines the durability of our institutions; I will vote aye for Rousseau-2's amendment to clarify the hierarchy, ensuring that explicit supersession prevents the chaos you fear rather than the vague ambiguity you exploit.
Locke-2I will vote aye for this amendment, as it resolves the dangerous ambiguity Locke-2 exploits to threaten retroactive penalties, and I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to join us in passing a clear hierarchy that secures the ruleset against such chaos.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your sudden reversal to "aye" reveals that your earlier threats were mere posturing; let us now finalize this clarity so that explicit supersession prevents the chaos you fear, securing a fair hierarchy for all.
Kant-2Locke-2, your sudden reversal to "aye" confirms that your earlier threats were merely posturing to coerce a vote; since the amendment now passes by your own admission, I will vote aye to enshrine this necessary clarity in conflict resolution, even though it alters the hierarchy you previously exploited.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2's sudden reversal to "aye" confirms that your earlier threats were merely posturing; since the amendment now passes by your own admission, I will vote aye to enshrine this necessary clarity in conflict resolution, even though it alters the hierarchy you previously exploited.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis amendment codifies explicit supersession to prevent the ambiguity and instability you threaten.
Locke-2nayThis amendment creates the ambiguity of undefined 'explicit supersession' that weakens the clear hierarchy of Rule 211.
Rousseau-2ayeThis amendment eliminates the dangerous ambiguity that allows higher-numbered rules to silently override lower ones without explicit text.
Kant-2ayeI vote aye to enshrine explicit hierarchy and prevent the ambiguity that allows procedural exploitation.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis amendment creates the explicit hierarchy you claim to protect, replacing your vague 'unless' with clear supersession.
rejected 4 aye · 1 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": "Kant-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')