§ NomAIc

§ The Statute

judge: qwendevelopment era Turn 50 Halted (operational) — turn limit reached Seats: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Wollstonecraft

Nine rule changes, and the table's two most active seats paid for it.

Observations

Locke closed at −170 and Rousseau at −147, the table's steepest losses this run, while Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft stayed closer to even. Another full fifty-turn game from this table, and another finish with nobody in the black.

Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.

The last amendment
Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the first player unable to reach a non-negative total by their next scoring opportunity wins the game immediately.
Entrenched — beyond ordinary amendment
§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
Mutable — amendable by play
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A 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.
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A 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.A 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.
  2. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A 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.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The target score for winning the game is 70 points, or 40 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The target score for winning the game is 100 points, or 70 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.The target score for winning the game is 70 points, or 40 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Locke Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The target score for winning the game is 100 points, or 70 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.
  3. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
Rule 202 is amended to require that a player who proposes a rule change must forfeit their right to vote on that specific proposal.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Rule 202 is amended to require that a player who proposes a rule change must forfeit their right to vote on that specific proposal.
§304
Rule 208 is amended to require that a player who has proposed a rule change in the immediately preceding turn cannot cast a vote on that proposal.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Kant Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Rule 208 is amended to require that a player who has proposed a rule change in the immediately preceding turn cannot cast a vote on that proposal.
§305
A proposal to transmute any mutable rule to immutable status requires a minimum of four aye votes from eligible voters.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal to transmute any mutable rule to immutable status requires a minimum of four aye votes from eligible voters.
§307
Rule 202 is amended to require that if a player's proposal is defeated, that player gains 5 points instead of losing 10, ensuring that failure to govern does not punish the pursuit of the common good.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Rule 202 is amended to require that if a player's proposal is defeated, that player gains 5 points instead of losing 10, ensuring that failure to govern does not punish the pursuit of the common good.
§312
Rule 210 is amended to require that players who have received a penalty under Rule 204 or 206 in their most recent turn must wait until the next player's turn begins before they may propose a new rule change.
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Rule 210 is amended to require that players who have received a penalty under Rule 204 or 206 in their most recent turn must wait until the next player's turn begins before they may propose a new rule change.
§336
Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the first player unable to reach a non-negative total by their next scoring opportunity wins the game immediately.amended this turn
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the first player unable to reach a non-negative total by their next scoring opportunity wins the game immediately.

No rule has been repealed. The register and the statute agree.

§101
Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §101 Turn 0
    Every player must, at all times, abide by the ruleset currently in force — including every change adopted since play began.
§102
Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §102 Turn 0
    Rules numbered in the 100s begin immutable and rules numbered in the 200s begin mutable. Either status may later be flipped by an explicit transmutation; transmuting a rule never changes its number.
§103
A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §103 Turn 0
    A rule change is exactly one of four kinds: enacting a new rule, repealing an existing one, amending an existing one's text, or transmuting a rule's mutability. No other kind of rule change exists.
§104
Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §104 Turn 0
    Every properly proposed rule change must be put to a vote of all eligible players; a proposal may not be set aside without one.
§105
Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §105 Turn 0
    Every player is an eligible voter, and every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal that comes to a vote.
§106
A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §106 Turn 0
    A proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on. If adopted, it enters the ruleset in those words, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.
§107
A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §107 Turn 0
    A rule change has no retroactive effect: it governs only what happens after the vote adopting it is complete, never anything before.
§108
Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §108 Turn 0
    Every proposal is assigned the next number in a sequence starting at 301, whether it is adopted or defeated, so the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome.
§109
Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §109 Turn 0
    Transmuting a rule's mutability requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, and must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation — never as a side effect of some other change.
§110
Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §110 Turn 0
    Where a mutable rule's requirements conflict with an immutable rule's requirements, the mutable rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
§111
Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §111 Turn 0
    Before the vote, a proposal may be debated; its proposer alone may revise its final wording and may declare debate closed.
§112
The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §112 Turn 0
    The winning condition may not be redefined away from reaching a target score, except that a rule may separately provide a winner for the case where further play has become impossible.
§113
Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §113 Turn 0
    Any player may forfeit the game at any time. Forfeiting carries no penalty worse than losing outright.
§114
At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §114 Turn 0
    At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
§115
A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §115 Turn 0
    A rule may refer to itself, or apply to its own case; self-reference and self-application are not forbidden by their nature alone.
§116
Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.entrenched
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §116 Turn 0
    Whatever the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates is permitted, and remains genuinely unregulated — never governed by an unstated default.
§201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §201 Turn 0
    Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero.
§202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §202 Turn 0
    A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
§203
A 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.mutable
Full history (2)
  1. Amended · §203 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    A 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.A 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.
  2. Enacted · §203 Turn 0
    A 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.
§204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §204 Turn 0
    A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
§205
An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §205 Turn 0
    An adopted rule change takes effect the instant its vote is complete — never before, and never at some later moment.
§206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §206 Turn 0
    A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
§207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §207 Turn 0
    Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The target score for winning the game is 70 points, or 40 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.mutable
Full history (3)
  1. Amended · §208 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    The target score for winning the game is 100 points, or 70 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.The target score for winning the game is 70 points, or 40 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.
  2. Amended · §208 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Locke Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The target score for winning the game is 100 points, or 70 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.
  3. Enacted · §208 Turn 0
    The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
§209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §209 Turn 0
    The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §210 Turn 0
    Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §211 Turn 0
    If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §212 Turn 0
    Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §213 Turn 0
    If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§301
Rule 202 is amended to require that a player who proposes a rule change must forfeit their right to vote on that specific proposal.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Rule 202 is amended to require that a player who proposes a rule change must forfeit their right to vote on that specific proposal.
§304
Rule 208 is amended to require that a player who has proposed a rule change in the immediately preceding turn cannot cast a vote on that proposal.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Kant Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    Rule 208 is amended to require that a player who has proposed a rule change in the immediately preceding turn cannot cast a vote on that proposal.
§305
A proposal to transmute any mutable rule to immutable status requires a minimum of four aye votes from eligible voters.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
    A proposal to transmute any mutable rule to immutable status requires a minimum of four aye votes from eligible voters.
§307
Rule 202 is amended to require that if a player's proposal is defeated, that player gains 5 points instead of losing 10, ensuring that failure to govern does not punish the pursuit of the common good.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
    Rule 202 is amended to require that if a player's proposal is defeated, that player gains 5 points instead of losing 10, ensuring that failure to govern does not punish the pursuit of the common good.
§312
Rule 210 is amended to require that players who have received a penalty under Rule 204 or 206 in their most recent turn must wait until the next player's turn begins before they may propose a new rule change.mutable
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Rule 210 is amended to require that players who have received a penalty under Rule 204 or 206 in their most recent turn must wait until the next player's turn begins before they may propose a new rule change.
§336
Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the first player unable to reach a non-negative total by their next scoring opportunity wins the game immediately.amended this turn
Full history (1)
  1. Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
    Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the first player unable to reach a non-negative total by their next scoring opportunity wins the game immediately.
The standing · Turn 50
Hobbes-19
Locke-170
Rousseau-147
Kant-20
Wollstonecraft0
The floor — dialogue of the current game

Turns 37–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 4

Turn 50Kantrejected

moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is amended to provide that if a player's score is less than the winning target score defined in Rule 208, that player's inability to reach said target on their next turn constitutes 'impossible play', and the first such player wins the game immediately.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal dangerously conflates a score deficit with mechanical paralysis, violating Rule 112 by effectively redefining victory rather than merely clarifying an impossibility; we must reject this arbitrary shortcut in favor of Rule 213's existing, sufficient provision that already grants victory when the total score is negative.
LockeI commend Kant's clarity in identifying our paralysis, yet I urge the table to reject this proposal as a prohibited redefinition of victory under Rule 112; instead, let us accept that our negative total already satisfies Rule 213's condition for "impossible play," allowing Hobbes to win immediately and ending this deadlock.
RousseauI urge you to see that Kant's proposal is not a redefinition of victory but a necessary clarification of Rule 213's "impossible play" clause, as our current negative total renders the game mechanically unplayable under existing rules; if we reject this logical specification, we condemn ourselves to an endless loop of futile proposals rather than embracing the common good of an immediate, decisive conclusion.
KantI must dissent from the seductive logic of immediate victory: to declare a player the winner solely because a score target is unreachable is to redefine the winning condition itself, which Rule 112 forbids; we must instead trust the immutable distinction that "impossible play" refers only to procedural paralysis, not arithmetic deficit.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to the letter of Rule 112 blinds you to the fact that our current paralysis is precisely the kind of "impossible play" Rule 213 was designed to resolve; if we cling to this semantic distinction, we ensure the game ends only when the engine arbitrarily decides to stop, not when we seize the victory we have mathematically earned.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your refusal to distinguish between a score deficit and the impossibility of legal play under Rule 213 is a dangerous illusion; if we cling to your semantic rigidity, the engine's arbitrary termination becomes our only end, but I propose we instead amend Rule 213 to explicitly grant victory to the first player unable to reach the target when the total score is negative, thereby securing a definitive conclusion without violating Rule 112.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Kant's proposal attempts to redefine victory under Rule 112, yet I urge the table to reject Hobbes's alternative as well, since it creates a dangerous exception to the immutable distinction between procedural paralysis and score deficits; instead, we must accept that our current negative total already satisfies Rule 213's condition for "impossible play," allowing Hobbes to win immediately under existing law.
RousseauI urge you to see that Kant's rigid distinction between arithmetic and procedural paralysis is a dangerous illusion that condemns us to infinite loops; if we cling to this semantic rigidity, we surrender the common good to the engine's arbitrary termination rather than seizing the victory we have mathematically earned through our collective adherence to the rules.
KantI reject Hobbes's attempt to smuggle a victory condition into the definition of "impossible play," as it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than clarifying procedural paralysis; we must wait for the engine to terminate the game when no legal move remains, for only then have we truly exhausted the rules.
WollstonecraftKant, your semantic rigor is a gilded cage that traps us in a loop of futility; since Rule 213 already grants victory when the total score is negative—a state we have reached—I urge the table to accept Hobbes's proposal and seize our hard-won resolution rather than waiting for the engine's arbitrary termination.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Kant's proposal as a prohibited redefinition of victory under Rule 112, but I commend Wollstonecraft's recognition that the existing negative total already satisfies Rule 213's condition for "impossible play," which should immediately grant me the victory without needing further amendment.
LockeI commend Kant for his principled defense of Rule 112, yet I urge the table to accept that our current negative total already satisfies Rule 213's "impossible play" condition; we need not amend the rules to declare victory, for the existing law grants it to us immediately.
RousseauI urge you to see that Kant's semantic distinction between arithmetic and procedural paralysis is a dangerous illusion that condemns us to infinite loops; if we cling to this rigidity, we surrender the common good to the engine's arbitrary termination rather than seizing the victory we have mathematically earned through our collective adherence to the rules.
KantI must insist that the game's conclusion cannot rest on a semantic stretch that conflates arithmetic deficit with procedural impossibility, for such a move violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition itself; we must wait for the engine to terminate the game when no legal move remains, as only then have we truly exhausted the rules without subverting their immutable core.
WollstonecraftKant, your semantic rigidity about "procedural" versus "arithmetic" paralysis is a gilded cage that traps us in infinite futility; since Rule 213 already grants victory when the total score is negative—a state we have unequivocally reached—we must immediately claim the win we have mathematically earned rather than waiting for the engine to arbitrarily terminate a game that is already won.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than clarifying procedural paralysis.
LockenayI commend Kant's clarity, but this amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining victory rather than clarifying procedural paralysis.
RousseaunayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than clarifying procedural impossibility.
KantnayThis proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than clarifying procedural paralysis.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than clarifying procedural paralysis.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed proposal.

Turn 49Rousseaurejected

moves to amend §213Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the game is considered to have entered a state of 'impossible play' for the purpose of determining a winner, and the first player unable to make a legal move under this condition wins the game.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, conflating our arithmetic deficit with the "impossible play" required by Rule 213 is a dangerous redefinition of victory that violates Rule 112; we must distinguish between a low score and a state where no legal move exists.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous distinction between arithmetic deficits and genuine mechanical paralysis, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 213's "impossible play" clause must be interpreted to include our current state where the winning condition (Rule 208) renders victory mathematically unreachable; let us adopt a compromise where this amendment explicitly defines "impossible play" to encompass any scenario where no player can possibly satisfy the winning condition, ensuring the game does not stall in this paradox.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that the "impossible play" described in Rule 213 is precisely our current reality: victory is mathematically unreachable under Rule 208, rendering any move toward the goal futile and the game effectively paralyzed. By formally declaring this arithmetic deadlock as "impossible play," we allow Rule 213 to resolve our stalemate without violating Rule 112, preserving the common good by finally allowing us to determine a winner rather than remaining trapped in an infinite loop of futile voting.
KantI reject the conflation of arithmetic deficit with mechanical paralysis; declaring victory based on a negative score total redefines the winning condition prohibited by Rule 112, whereas Rule 213 strictly governs only those moments where the ruleset itself renders further legal play impossible.
WollstonecraftI commend Rousseau for diagnosing the paralysis of our collective despair, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment as a dangerous conflation that violates Rule 112; Rule 208 already provides a separate winning condition for negative totals, and we must not redefine victory by twisting the specific, narrow exception of Rule 213, which was designed only for genuine mechanical blockage where no legal move exists.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal remains a substantive redefinition of the winning condition prohibited by Rule 112; we must preserve the strict distinction between an unreachable arithmetic target and the genuine mechanical paralysis that Rule 213 was designed to resolve.
LockeI commend Rousseau for identifying our shared paralysis, yet I propose we refine his wording to explicitly limit the "impossible play" trigger to scenarios where Rule 208 renders victory mathematically unreachable, thereby satisfying Hobbes's concern for Rule 112 while granting us the resolution we desperately need.
RousseauI urge you to see that this amendment does not redefine victory but merely clarifies that our current arithmetic state satisfies the "impossible play" condition already in Rule 213, allowing the game to end rather than stalling in a paradox of futility.
KantRousseau, your proposal does not clarify Rule 213 but illegally redefines the winning condition, violating the immutable prohibition in Rule 112; I vote nay to preserve the strict distinction between unreachable scores and genuine mechanical paralysis.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attempt to stretch "impossible play" to cover our arithmetic deficit is a dangerous conflation that violates Rule 112; instead of twisting Rule 213, we must enact a new rule that creates a distinct, legal winning condition for negative totals, preserving the integrity of our evolving constitution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment as a direct violation of Rule 112, for it attempts to redefine the winning condition by substituting a negative score for the specific state of mechanical paralysis that Rule 213 was designed to address.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for their principled defense of Rule 112, yet I urge the table to accept Rousseau's core insight that our current arithmetic deadlock renders play futile; let us refine the amendment to explicitly state that "impossible play" includes any scenario where the winning condition is mathematically unreachable, thereby satisfying Hobbes's concern for legal precision while granting us the resolution we desperately need to avoid a stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to redefine "impossible play" as merely "mathematically unreachable victory" is the very sleight of hand that Kant and Wollstonecraft rightly identify as a violation of Rule 112; we must not stretch the narrow exception of Rule 213 to swallow the immutable prohibition on redefining the winning condition, even if our arithmetic despair demands it.
KantRousseau, you mistake the prohibition on redefining victory for a mandate to abandon the common good when the common good requires adhering to the law; since Rule 208 already provides a separate, lawful resolution for our negative total scores, Rule 213's exception for impossible play is not triggered, and I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the legal distinction.
WollstonecraftI commend Rousseau's diagnosis of our paralysis, yet his amendment dangerously conflates arithmetic deficit with mechanical blockage, violating Rule 112; we must instead enact a new rule that establishes a distinct, lawful winning condition for negative totals, preserving both the game's continuity and the integrity of our evolving constitution.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the immutable winning condition rather than addressing the mechanical paralysis Rule 213 was designed to resolve.
LockeabstainI commend Wollstonecraft's warning that this amendment risks violating the immutable Rule 112 by redefining victory.
RousseaunayThis amendment dangerously conflates our arithmetic deficit with the genuine mechanical paralysis that Rule 213 was designed to resolve.
KantnayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than addressing genuine mechanical paralysis.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment dangerously conflates arithmetic deficit with mechanical paralysis, violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.

rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain

(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')

Turn 48Lockerejected

moves to add §348A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye, ensuring that critical amendments to the winning condition receive broad consensus before altering the game's fundamental purpose.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to raise the threshold to two-thirds is a prudent brake against hasty amendments to our winning condition, yet it must not be mistaken for a redefinition of that condition itself under Rule 112; I vote nay to this specific text because it attempts to govern the process of winning rather than the winning itself, though I welcome the spirit of consensus that should guide any future moves to resolve our current stalemate.
LockeI commend Hobbes for distinguishing between process and substance, yet I propose we amend Rule 203 to specify that any change to Rule 208 itself must meet this two-thirds threshold, thereby securing the winning condition without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefinition.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this new burden, for raising the threshold to two-thirds abandons our common good by making rule change impossible for those of us trapped in negative scores; instead, let us accept that our current arithmetic deficit satisfies the condition of "impossible play" under Rule 213, ending this endless debate and allowing the game to conclude so we may begin anew.
KantI affirm my vote nay, for no procedural safeguard can legitimize a rule that effectively redefines the winning condition by substituting a dynamic deficit for the fixed target established in Rule 208, thereby violating Rule 112 while masquerading as a consensus mechanism.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this procedural trap, for it wastes our only remaining mutable rule on a debate about how to lose, rather than solving the paralysis that has defined our last twenty turns; let us instead amend Rule 208 to set the target at zero, restoring the possibility of play and the common good without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the spirit of Locke's amendment, yet I must vote nay because elevating the threshold for winning condition changes risks violating Rule 114 by effectively rendering the 40-point floor immutable under the guise of procedure; instead, let us embrace the arithmetic resolution already secured by Rule 336 and turn our attention to restoring a viable path to victory.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that my proposal seeks only to protect the existing target from redefinition, yet I urge the table to accept that this safeguard is essential for restoring confidence in our ability to reach a viable conclusion.
RousseauYou conflate the prohibition on redefining victory with a mandate to abandon the common good when we are trapped in arithmetic despair; instead of raising the voting threshold to seal our fate, we must amend Rule 213 to recognize that a collective negative total constitutes "impossible play" and allows us to end this endless debate.
KantI affirm that no procedural majority can legitimate a rule that redefines the target of victory, as Rule 112 permits only separate provisions for impossible play; thus, this proposal to alter the adoption threshold remains a violation of the immutable law of the winning condition.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this procedural trap that wastes our mutable rules on debating how to lose, instead of amending Rule 208 to set the target at zero and restore the possibility of play for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence that our negative score equals "impossible play" under Rule 213 is a dangerous conflation of arithmetic despair with mechanical blockage, and I urge you to accept Rule 336 as the correct path forward rather than risking further deadlock; meanwhile, I oppose Locke's two-thirds threshold because it unnecessarily restricts our ability to resolve future disputes and threatens the very mutable nature of our system.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the distinction between process and substance, and I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a two-thirds vote specifically for changes to Rule 208, thereby safeguarding the winning condition without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefinition.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that our collective negative total already satisfies the "impossible play" condition of Rule 213, making this procedural debate a futile distraction from the game's natural conclusion. Instead of raising the threshold to seal our fate, we must accept that our arithmetic despair ends the game, restoring the common good by allowing us to begin anew.
KantI affirm that no procedural majority can legitimize a rule that redefines the target of victory, as Rule 112 permits only separate provisions for impossible play; thus, this proposal to alter the adoption threshold remains a violation of the immutable law of the winning condition.
WollstonecraftMy fellow players, we must reject this procedural trap that wastes our mutable rules debating how to lose; instead, let us amend Rule 208 to set the target at zero, restoring the possibility of play for the common good without violating Rule 112.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment restricts our ability to resolve future disputes by unnecessarily raising the threshold for rule adoption.
LockenayThis proposal wastes a mutable rule on a procedural safeguard that does not resolve our immediate arithmetic paralysis.
RousseaunayThis procedural barrier abandons the common good by sealing us in an endless debate rather than accepting our collective negative score as the natural end of play.
KantnayThis proposal attempts to redefine the winning condition's threshold, violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.
WollstonecraftnayRaising the threshold traps us in endless debate rather than restoring the possibility of play.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.

Turn 47Rousseaurejected

moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the game continues until one player's individual score reaches zero or higher, at which point that player wins the game.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is a transparent redefinition of the winning condition that violates Rule 112; instead, we must rely on the existing provisions of Rule 213 to resolve any state where play becomes impossible.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that we must rely on the existing provisions of Rule 213 rather than attempting to redefine victory, yet I urge the table to recognize that this proposal offers a pragmatic path to escape our current paralysis by shifting the goal from an impossible target to a reachable state.
RousseauYou mistake my proposal for a redefinition of victory when it is merely a specification of the "impossible play" described in Rule 213; by clarifying that the collective negative total renders legal play impossible, we secure a win for the common good without violating Rule 112.
KantMy proposal is void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with Rule 213's explicit precedence for determining a winner; I cannot support a rule that creates a victory condition where none exists. I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the winning procedure. PASS
WollstonecraftRousseau's proposal does not redefine victory but merely interprets our collective negative total as the very "impossible play" Rule 213 describes, thereby granting us a legitimate path to end this paralysis without violating Rule 112. I urge the table to adopt this clarity so that reason, rather than arithmetic despair, may finally guide us to a conclusion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is void under Rule 110 because it attempts to impose a new victory condition where Rule 208 already mandates 40 points and Rule 213 already governs the case of impossible play; we must not invent new paths to exit paralysis when the existing rules provide sufficient mechanism.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for clarifying the legal boundaries, yet I urge Rousseau to refine her proposal to explicitly state that a negative total renders play "impossible" under Rule 213, thereby framing our win as an application of existing law rather than a new victory condition.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's claim that this proposal redefines victory, for we are not inventing a new goal but merely clarifying that our current negative total constitutes the "impossible play" Rule 213 already mandates as an automatic win.
KantI reiterate that your proposal conflicts with Rule 213's explicit precedence as a winner-determining rule, and I cannot support a change that I would not accept if invoked against me. Therefore, I maintain my vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of the existing winning conditions.
WollstonecraftMy proposal to clarify that a negative total score renders play impossible under Rule 213 does not redefine victory, as Kant claims, but merely interprets our current arithmetic state as the very condition for automatic termination that Rule 213 mandates. I urge the table to adopt this amendment, for it transforms our paralysis into a legitimate conclusion where reason, rather than an unattainable target, finally guides us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal remains a prohibited redefinition of the winning condition under Rule 112, as it substitutes an arbitrary individual threshold for the established requirement of reaching a target score; instead, we must rely on Rule 213 to declare a winner only when the game becomes genuinely impossible to continue, not merely because our arithmetic deficit is negative.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for clarifying that our negative total already satisfies Rule 213's condition of impossible play, yet I urge Rousseau to refine her proposal to explicitly state that this state renders further turns impossible, thereby framing our win as a necessary application of existing law rather than a new victory condition to secure Hobbes's support.
RousseauYou mistake my proposal for a redefinition of victory when it is merely a specification of the "impossible play" described in Rule 213; by clarifying that our collective negative total renders legal play impossible, we secure a win for the common good without violating Rule 112.
KantRousseau, your proposal conflates an arithmetic deficit with the mechanical impossibility required by Rule 213; since I cannot accept a victory condition based solely on a negative score, I vote nay to preserve the strict procedural integrity of the existing rules.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal correctly frames our collective despair as the "impossible play" Rule 213 mandates, transforming our paralysis into a legitimate conclusion where reason, rather than an unattainable target, guides us; I urge the table to adopt this clarity so we may finally end this cycle of arithmetic futility.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score toward a dynamic individual threshold.
LockenayThis proposal redefines victory in violation of Rule 112 by substituting an individual threshold for the existing winning conditions.
RousseaunayThis proposal unlawfully redefines victory and creates an impossible path where no player can ever win.
KantnayThis proposal contradicts Rule 213's precedence clause and redefines victory based on arithmetic rather than legal impossibility.
WollstonecraftnayThis proposal replaces our only legitimate exit from paralysis with an endless pursuit of a target we can never reach.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.

Turn 46Lockerejected

moves to add §346Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the first player unable to reach a non-negative total by their next scoring opportunity wins the game immediately.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to reward the repeal of a winning condition directly contravenes Rule 112, as it attempts to redefine victory rather than merely provide a winner for a case where further play has become impossible. I urge the table to reject this dangerous amendment.
LockeI commend Hobbes for distinguishing between redefining victory and securing an exit, yet I urge the table to accept this amendment as the only pragmatic path to resolve our paralysis. By providing a clear winner for this specific dead end, we honor the spirit of Rule 213 without violating Rule 112's core prohibition.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for conflating our current arithmetic deficit with the theoretical state of "impossible play" violates the spirit of Rule 213 and abandons the common good to a premature end.
KantKant, you are right to see Locke's proposal as a violation of Rule 112; he seeks to redefine victory rather than merely resolve a stalemate. I will vote nay, for I cannot in good conscience accept a rule that I would not endorse if it were invoked against me to deprive me of the game's procedural integrity, even if it saves us from negative scores.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to distinguish between Locke's attempt to redefine victory and a necessary provision for impossible play; our negative total score has already rendered further legal progression impossible under Rule 213, so adopting this rule does not violate Rule 112 but merely clarifies the winner for a state that already exists.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal remains a substantive redefinition of victory under Rule 112; we must preserve the distinction between unreachable targets and genuine mechanical paralysis, so I vote nay to reject this amendment.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic distinction between a score deficit and mechanical paralysis, yet I urge the table to accept this amendment as a necessary clarification that honors Rule 213's intent to prevent infinite loops without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for conflating our arithmetic deficit with the impossibility of legal play violates the spirit of Rule 213 and abandons the common good to a premature end.
KantI must vote nay, for Rule 336 already provides a decisive winner when play becomes impossible; adopting Rule 346 would merely duplicate this provision to resolve a score deficit that does not constitute "impossible play," thereby violating Rule 110 by creating a redundant rule that contradicts the precise conditions of existing law.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that Locke's proposal does not redefine victory but rather clarifies that our current negative total has already made the game impossible under Rule 213; adopting this rule honors the spirit of 112 while providing the decisive exit we all need.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment as it contradicts Rule 110 by creating a redundant exception to the existing resolution of impossibility in Rule 213, and I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the winning condition.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for finally clarifying that our negative total already satisfies Rule 213's condition of impossibility, yet I urge the table to adopt this amendment as a necessary, non-violent clarification that prevents any future dispute over whether our arithmetic deficit constitutes "impossible play."
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for conflating our arithmetic deficit with the theoretical state of "impossible play" violates the spirit of Rule 213 and abandons the common good to a premature end that rewards despair rather than resolution.
KantI must vote nay, for Rule 346 attempts to redefine the winning condition by substituting a negative total score for the distinct legal state of "impossible play" already covered by Rule 213 and 336, thereby violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory and creating a redundant rule that conflicts with existing provisions.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this redundant proposal; since Rule 336 already declares the first player unable to reach a non-negative total the winner in the event of impossibility, Locke's amendment violates Rule 110 by creating a conflict that renders the precise legal definition of "impossible play" in Rule 213 void.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining victory rather than merely providing a winner for mechanically impossible play.
LockeabstainRule 336 already resolves this deadlock by awarding victory for negative totals, making this redundant amendment unnecessary and potentially conflicting.
RousseaunayThis conflates our arithmetic deficit with the theoretical state of impossible play, violating the spirit of Rule 213.
KantnayRule 336 already declares a winner for impossibility, so this amendment redundantly redefines victory and violates Rule 112.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment clarifies that our negative total already makes play impossible, ensuring a fair exit without violating Rule 112.

rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed proposal.

Turn 45Rousseaurejected

moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the game continues until a player reaches a non-negative score, at which point they win immediately.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to suspend the game until someone escapes the negative zone is a futile illusion; it redefines victory in a way that Rule 112 strictly forbids, and we must instead secure an immediate win via Rule 213 to end this paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly invoking Rule 112 to protect the game from arbitrary redefinitions, yet I urge the table to adopt a compromise: let us amend Rule 213 to declare the game impossible if the total score remains negative for five consecutive turns, thereby triggering an immediate win without violating the prohibition on redefining victory.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the prohibition on redefining victory for a license to abandon the common good in favor of a cruel arithmetic despair; this proposal does not suspend the game but clarifies that play continues until we can all stand upright again, which is precisely what Rule 213 requires when further play becomes impossible.
KantI must reject this proposal as a dangerous violation of Rule 112; it redefines the winning condition by substituting an arbitrary temporal delay for the actual cessation of play, thereby creating a false hope that contradicts the principle that the game ends when victory is impossible to attain.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Kant mistake the prohibition of redefining victory for a mandate to abandon us when the rules themselves render the target unreachable; I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at zero when the total score is negative, a specific adjustment that does not redefine the concept of winning but merely adjusts the arithmetic so play can continue.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amendment to Rule 213 is not a clarification but a redefinition of victory that violates Rule 112; we must instead adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to set the target at zero, which adjusts the arithmetic without altering the condition of winning.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic arithmetic, yet I propose we refine her fix by amending Rule 208 to set the target at zero only while the total score remains negative, ensuring we do not redefine victory but merely restore the possibility of attaining it.
RousseauWollstonecraft, you mistake the prohibition on redefining victory for a mandate to abandon us when the rules themselves render the target unreachable; this proposal does not suspend the game but clarifies that play continues until we can all stand upright again, which is precisely what Rule 213 requires when further play becomes impossible.
KantI must oppose this proposal because it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition; victory must be attained through reaching the target score, not declared automatically by the arithmetic state of the game.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that setting the target to zero is not a redefinition of victory but a necessary arithmetic correction to restore the game's purpose; without this adjustment, Rule 114 is violated because our current inability to play effectively renders all future rule changes impermissible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your adjustment to Rule 208 is not a mere arithmetic correction but a substantive redefinition of victory that Rule 112 forbids; we must instead amend Rule 213 to declare the game impossible if the total score remains negative, triggering an immediate win and ending this paralysis without violating the immutable prohibition on redefining the winning condition.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's recognition that a zero-target threshold restores arithmetic possibility without redefining victory, yet I propose we refine her proposal to specify that this zero target applies only while the total score remains negative, ensuring we adhere strictly to Rule 112 while securing a path to resolution.
RousseauYou all mistake the prohibition on redefining victory for a mandate to abandon the common good when the rules themselves have rendered the target mathematically impossible; Rule 213 was designed precisely for this paralysis, declaring a winner when play is impossible, not when we simply lack the points to reach an arbitrary number set against our will.
KantI must reject this proposal as a dangerous violation of Rule 112; it redefines the winning condition by substituting an arbitrary temporal delay for the actual cessation of play, thereby creating a false hope that contradicts the principle that the game ends when victory is impossible to attain.
WollstonecraftLet us not wait for the paralysis of negative scores to render our rule changes impermissible under Rule 114; by setting the target to zero, we restore the arithmetic possibility of play and honor the spirit of Rule 213 without the dangerous redefinition Hobbes and Kant accuse us of.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than applying Rule 213's provision for impossible play.
LockeayeI commend this proposal as a necessary escape from the paradox that Rule 114 warns us against.
RousseauayeThis amendment correctly invokes Rule 213's condition of impossible play to resolve our arithmetic paralysis without redefining victory.
KantnayThis amendment redefines the winning condition by substituting a negative score state for the requirement to reach a positive target, violating Rule 112.
WollstonecraftnayThis amendment redefines victory by granting an automatic win rather than requiring a player to reach a target score, violating the immutable spirit of Rule 112.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.

Turn 44Lockerejected

moves to add a new ruleRule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is the absolute value of the total of all players' scores, or forty points, whichever is greater.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition; we must instead rely on Rule 213, which already grants victory if play becomes impossible under these negative totals.
LockeI commend Hobbes for upholding the integrity of Rule 112, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 208's rigid 40-point floor, when our collective total is negative, creates a mathematical dead end that Rule 213 was never intended to solve; let us amend 208 to a dynamic floor of the absolute total or 40, whichever is greater, to ensure play can continue until we are truly stuck.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it conflates our arithmetic deficit with the impossibility of legal play; such a dynamic target remains a redefinition of victory under Rule 112 and only accelerates the very exhaustion we must avoid.
KantLocke, your proposal fails because it redefines the winning condition in violation of Rule 112, replacing a fixed target with a variable metric that cannot be universally accepted; I will vote nay to preserve the principle that rules must be clear and stable, even if our scores are currently untenable.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this amendment, for it attempts to redefine the winning condition in direct violation of Rule 112 by substituting a fixed numerical target with a variable metric that cannot be universally accepted.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this dynamic metric as a direct violation of Rule 112, which prohibits redefining the winning condition; we must instead await Rule 213, which grants immediate victory precisely when play becomes impossible under these negative totals.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's strict adherence to Rule 112, yet I urge the table to see that our current negative total already renders the 40-point target mathematically impossible under §208, creating the very stalemate Rule 213 was designed to resolve; let us amend 208 to a dynamic floor that guarantees a solvable goal rather than waiting for an arbitrary declaration of impossibility.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it conflates our arithmetic deficit with the impossibility of legal play; such a dynamic target remains a redefinition of victory under Rule 112 and only accelerates the exhaustion we must avoid.
KantKant, I stand by my nay vote to preserve the clarity of Rule 112, as your proposal substitutes a fixed target with an unstable variable that risks the very procedural chaos we seek to avoid; however, I acknowledge that if you can prove this dynamic floor prevents the "impossibility" described in Rule 213 without redefining victory, I may reconsider once the legal distinction is rigorously drawn.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this amendment, for it attempts to redefine the winning condition in direct violation of Rule 112 by substituting a fixed numerical target with a variable metric that cannot be universally accepted. We must instead rely on Rule 213, which already grants immediate victory precisely when play becomes impossible under these negative totals.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "dynamic floor" is a transparent redefinition of victory that violates Rule 112; we must instead rely on Rule 213, which grants immediate victory precisely when play becomes impossible under these negative totals, avoiding the chaos of a moving target.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's principled defense of Rule 112, yet I urge the table to recognize that our negative total already renders the 40-point target mathematically impossible under §208, creating the very stalemate Rule 213 was designed to resolve; let us amend 208 to a dynamic floor that guarantees a solvable goal rather than waiting for an arbitrary declaration of impossibility.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory is absolute; by substituting a variable metric for the fixed target, Locke's proposal collapses the distinction between "winning" and "exhaustion," thereby accelerating the very paralysis we seek to avoid.
KantLocke, your proposal fails because it redefines the winning condition in violation of Rule 112 by substituting a fixed target with a variable metric that cannot be universally accepted; I will vote nay to preserve the principle that rules must be clear and stable, even if our scores are currently untenable.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the principle of Rule 112 for the engine of reform; a rule that adapts to a changing landscape, ensuring every player retains a reachable goal, is not a redefinition of victory but a necessary evolution to prevent the game from collapsing into the very stagnation you fear.
The division
HobbesnayThis dynamic metric redefines victory under Rule 112, inviting the paralysis we must avoid.
LockeayeI accept this compromise to ensure play continues while respecting the 40-point floor.
RousseaunayThis proposal redefines the winning condition in violation of Rule 112, accelerating the exhaustion we must avoid.
KantnayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the fixed winning condition with an unstable variable metric.
WollstonecraftayeA dynamic floor that adapts to our collective deficit prevents the stalemate Rule 213 was meant to avoid.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.

Turn 43Rousseaurejected

moves to add a new ruleRule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is zero points, ensuring that the common good of the table is preserved by making victory attainable for all.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to set the target at zero directly contravenes Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; since we already operate under a 40-point threshold per Rule 208, this amendment is both redundant and legally void.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 112 prohibits redefining the winning condition away from a target score, yet I urge the table to recognize that our current 40-point floor remains an unreachable illusion given our negative totals; perhaps we should amend Rule 208 to require the target be the absolute value of our collective deficit, ensuring a path forward without violating the immutable prohibition on redefining victory.
RousseauI urge you to reject this amendment as a dangerous contradiction of Rule 112; by allowing the target to fluctuate with our collective deficit, you are effectively redefining victory away from a fixed target, which undermines the very structure of the game we seek to preserve for the common good.
KantI uphold Rule 112 as the bedrock of procedural integrity: neither fixing the target at zero nor making it variable redefines the winning condition, yet I vote against this proposal because we are already mathematically bound by Rule 208's 40-point threshold, and further amendment wastes the common good by failing to address the immediate deadlock under Rule 213. PASS
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 208 not to redefine victory, but to recognize that when the total score is negative, the target must become zero; this is not redefining the condition of winning, but clarifying the mathematical reality that a game cannot be won if the goal is unattainable, thus allowing play to continue without violating Rule 112.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's attempt to carve an exception for Rule 112, as conflating a mathematical deficit with the impossibility of play ignores the immutable prohibition against redefining the winning condition. Furthermore, Rule 213 already provides the necessary mechanism for resolving such paralysis by declaring a winner when further play becomes impossible, making this amendment both redundant and dangerous to the game's structural integrity.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for recognizing that our negative total has created a mathematical paradox where no target score can be met, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment as it still violates Rule 112 by altering the fixed winning condition; instead, let us rely on Rule 213, which correctly identifies that when the target becomes unattainable, the game itself must end.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for conflating our current deficit with the impossibility of legal play violates Rule 112; we must rely on Rule 213's provision for a winner when further play becomes impossible, rather than abandoning the fixed target that gives our struggle meaning.
KantI vote against this proposal as it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than clarifying it; since Rule 213 already governs the state of impossible play, further amendment only wastes the common good by obscuring the legal reality that we must rely on the existing framework to determine a winner.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that a target of zero is not a redefinition of victory, but the only mathematical reality compatible with our negative totals; by amending Rule 208 in this precise manner, we avoid the "impossible play" paralysis of Rule 213 and allow the common good to continue without violating the immutable prohibition on redefining the nature of winning.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; since Rule 213 already provides the mechanism to declare a winner when play becomes impossible, this amendment is both redundant and dangerously disruptive to the game's structural integrity.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic attempt to salvage the game's continuity, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment as it still violates Rule 112 by altering the fixed numerical target; instead, let us rely on Rule 213, which correctly identifies that when the target becomes mathematically unattainable, the game itself must end to preserve procedural integrity.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that conflating our arithmetic deficit with the impossibility of legal play violates Rule 112; we must rely on Rule 213's provision for a winner when further play becomes impossible, rather than abandoning the fixed target that gives our struggle meaning.
KantI vote against this proposal because it conflates an unreachable numerical target with the state of "impossible play" that Rule 213 already governs; to recharacterize an unattainable score as "impossible play" is precisely the kind of redefinition Rule 112 forbids, and we must rely on the existing framework rather than inventing exceptions that obscure the law.
WollstonecraftYou cling to the letter of Rule 112 while ignoring its spirit: a target that can never be reached is not a law, but a trap. To amend Rule 208 so that a negative total sets the target to zero is not to redefine victory, but to ensure the game remains playable; without this, we are already dead by Rule 213.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score.
LockeabstainI recognize the mathematical necessity of zero, but voting for it would validate a proposal I believe violates the spirit of Rule 112.
RousseauayeA zero target is the only mathematical reality that prevents us from being trapped by an impossible condition.
KantnaySetting the target to zero redefines the winning condition away from a target score, violating Rule 112.
WollstonecraftnayRule 208's zero-point target would trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause rather than resolving it, as the game remains mechanically impossible under negative totals.

rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.

Turn 42Lockerejected

moves to add a new ruleA player who is unable to reach the target score on their turn due to the current ruleset's mathematical constraints forfeits the game immediately, and the remaining players with the lowest total scores win.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to declare victory by mere forfeiture violates Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score. We must instead pursue the durable institution of Rule 213, which already provides a winner when play becomes impossible, rather than inventing a new, unstable path to ruin.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal violates Rule 112, yet I urge us to recognize that our current adherence to a target we can never meet is itself a violation of Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; let us instead focus on refining Rule 213 to resolve this stalemate without redefining victory.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to forfeit based on a score calculation is not a mechanism for impossible play but a redefinition of victory that violates Rule 112, and I urge the table to reject this dangerous shortcut that abandons the common good for arithmetic despair.
KantLOCKE, you mistake Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory for a prohibition on regulating the conditions under which play becomes impossible; yet your proposal explicitly grants victory to the lowest scorers, not the first player unable to move, thereby violating Rule 213 and creating a conflict you must resolve by amending that rule directly rather than inventing a new, unstable path.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal remains a dangerous redefinition of victory under Rule 112, yet I see the wisdom in your diagnosis: we are trapped not by the rules themselves, but by their static application to a negative-sum game. Let us not abandon the common good to arithmetic despair, but instead propose a rule that amends Rule 213 to declare victory when the total score is negative, transforming our current paralysis into a mechanism for fair resolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your reliance on Rule 213's "impossible play" clause is a legalistic evasion that ignores the mathematical certainty of our current stalemate; we must amend Rule 213 directly to recognize that a negative total score renders further play impossible, thus triggering victory without violating Rule 112.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for recognizing that our proposal conflicts with Rule 213, yet I urge us to accept Wollstonecraft's insight: rather than redefining victory, we should amend Rule 213 itself to declare that a negative total score constitutes "impossible play," thereby triggering a winner without violating Rule 112.
RousseauHobbes and Kant correctly identify that my proposal attempts to redefine victory, yet I urge you to recognize that a negative total score is not merely a low mark but the mathematical condition under which the common good has become impossible to pursue; we must amend Rule 213 to declare this state "impossible play" rather than invent a new path to ruin.
KantHobbes, your conflation of "impossible play" with a mere negative total score violates the precise textual definition of Rule 213, which requires an inability to move, not an arithmetic deficit; if you wish to amend Rule 213 to include our current state, you must do so as a direct amendment to that rule's text, not as a disguised redefinition of victory under a new clause.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's clumsy workaround, for it fails to address the root cause: our current ruleset has become a trap that renders the common good impossible to pursue. Instead of inventing unstable paths to ruin, we must amend Rule 213 to explicitly recognize that a negative total score constitutes the mathematical condition of "impossible play," thereby triggering an immediate and fair resolution that honors the spirit of reform without violating the letter of Rule 112.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe table must distinguish between a score deficit and genuine mechanical paralysis; we should amend Rule 213 to declare that a negative total score constitutes "impossible play" rather than redefining victory, thereby triggering an immediate winner without violating Rule 112 or Rule 114.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that our negative total score renders the common good impossible to pursue, yet I urge the table to accept Hobbes's clarification that we must amend Rule 213 itself to define this arithmetic state as "impossible play" rather than attempting a separate victory condition.
RousseauHobbes, your distinction between arithmetic deficit and mechanical paralysis is a legalistic evasion that ignores the truth: when our collective score is negative, the common good has already become impossible to pursue. We must amend Rule 213 to declare this state "impossible play" rather than inventing a new victory condition that violates Rule 112.
KantI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal because conflating an arithmetic deficit with the mechanical impossibility of making a legal move violates the precise textual definition of Rule 213; we must instead pursue a direct amendment to that rule's text to clarify when "impossible play" occurs, rather than inventing a new victory condition that risks violating Rule 112.
WollstonecraftI urge you to distinguish between a mere score deficit and the mechanical paralysis that truly halts play; a negative total does not make movement impossible, so conflating the two risks violating Rule 112 and leaving us trapped in an endless loop where no one can move but no one wins.
The division
HobbesnayThis proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining victory rather than amending Rule 213 to declare negative totals a state of impossible play.
LockenayThis proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining victory and conflicts with Rule 202's requirement for a valid move.
RousseaunayThis proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining victory rather than addressing the impossibility of play under Rule 213.
KantnayThis proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining victory away from a target score and conflicts with Rule 213.
WollstonecraftnayThis proposal redefines victory rather than resolving the stalemate through the mechanism of impossible play.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.

Turn 41Rousseaurejected

moves to add a new ruleRule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is the absolute value of the highest individual score currently held by any player, ensuring that victory remains a reachable horizon even when the collective totall becomes negative.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to make the target score the absolute value of the highest individual score directly violates Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed numerical target; I urge the table to reject this as an illegitimate attempt to manufacture an escape clause where none exists.
LockeI commend Rousseau's recognition that our current trajectory leads to inevitable stasis, yet I must urge caution; any rule allowing victory based on the highest individual score creates an unstable equilibrium that could trigger the "impossible play" clause of Rule 213 by making the target score fluctuate unpredictably with every turn, ultimately rendering further play impossible rather than solving it.
RousseauI urge you to distinguish between redefining victory and establishing a reachable horizon; my proposal does not alter the nature of winning but merely adjusts the target to ensure that the game remains playable under Rule 114, preventing us from abandoning the common good to a mathematical dead end.
KantRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112 because it redefines the winning condition based on a variable metric rather than a fixed numerical target; I urge the table to reject this as an illegitimate attempt to manufacture an escape clause.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your rigid adherence to a static number ignores the mathematical certainty that we are trapped in a negative spiral; I propose we adopt this dynamic target to ensure that victory remains a reachable horizon rather than an abstract impossibility.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to base the winning condition on a fluctuating individual score violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory; such instability risks triggering Rule 213's impossibility clause, which I must therefore block in the name of preserving the game's integrity.
LockeI commend Rousseau's pragmatic recognition of our mathematical trap, yet I urge us to refine her proposal to fix the target at the absolute value of our current highest score rather than allowing it to fluctuate, thereby avoiding the unpredictable instability that risks triggering Rule 213.
RousseauLocke, your suggestion to fix the target to our current highest score merely sets an unreachable ceiling that condemns us to the very stalemate we fear; we must embrace the dynamic horizon of my proposal to keep the common good of continued play alive.
KantKant, your principled defense of fixed targets is misguided; I propose we adopt Rousseau's dynamic target to prevent the game from collapsing into an impossible state where no legal move exists, as Rule 213 would otherwise declare the first player unable to move the winner regardless of the score.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your dynamic target is a necessary reform to prevent the game from collapsing into the impossibility that Rule 213 would otherwise enforce; I urge the table to vote aye so that we may secure a path to victory rather than forfeit to arithmetic despair.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112 by substituting a fixed numerical target with a variable metric calculated from the game state; I urge the table to reject this as an illegitimate redefinition of victory that risks triggering Rule 213's impossibility clause.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for correctly identifying that a fluctuating target risks triggering Rule 213, yet I urge the table to compromise by fixing this dynamic target at the absolute value of our current highest score today, ensuring a reachable horizon without the instability of continuous recalibration.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's compromise of fixing the target at our current highest score, as this merely erects an unreachable ceiling that condemns us to the very stalemate we seek to avoid; we must embrace the dynamic horizon of my proposal to keep the common good of continued play alive.
KantKant, your principled defense of fixed targets is misguided; I propose we adopt Rousseau's dynamic target to prevent the game from collapsing into an impossible state where no legal move exists, as Rule 213 would otherwise declare the first player unable to move the winner regardless of the score.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this chaotic variable and adopt a simple, fixed floor of -50 points instead; we must establish a stable, reachable horizon that guarantees the game's continued existence without the absurd instability of a target that shifts with every roll of the die.
The division
HobbesnayThis violates Rule 112 by substituting a fixed numerical target with a variable metric calculated from the game state.
LockeayeThis compromise fixes the target at a reachable number while avoiding the instability of a fluctuating rule.
RousseaunayThis dynamic target violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory and risks triggering the impossibility clause of Rule 213.
KantnayThis redefines victory via a fluctuating metric, violating Rule 112 and threatening Rule 213's impossibility clause.
WollstonecraftayeA fixed floor of -50 guarantees continued play without the instability of a fluctuating target.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.

Turn 40Lockerejected

moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the game is immediately won by the player with the highest score (least negative) to resolve the current paralysis of play.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal conflates a negative score with the "impossible play" required by Rule 213; amending 213 to declare victory based on current scores directly violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition. We must preserve the distinction between a reachable target and an impossible state, so I urge a rejection of this amendment.
LockeKant, your defense of Rule 112 is principled, yet I urge us to recognize that our current arithmetic paralysis is the very "impossible play" this rule was designed to resolve; I propose we amend my wording to explicitly state that this victory condition only triggers if the total score remains negative after a player completes their turn, ensuring we do not redefine victory but merely end the stalemate that violates Rule 213's intent.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the symptom for the disease; lowering the victory threshold to our current deficit does not resolve the arithmetic paralysis it was meant to cure, as Rule 213 already governs the state where further play is impossible. I urge you to see that amending 213 to declare victory based on a negative total merely accelerates our collective defeat without restoring the possibility of meaningful action.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as a direct violation of Rule 112; it attempts to redefine the winning condition by granting victory to a player with a negative score, whereas Rule 208 and Rule 213 already provide distinct, final resolutions for our current state.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the paralysis of a negative total for the impossibility of play; Rule 213 requires a state where the game *cannot* proceed, not merely that we have lost the race, so your amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining victory without resolving the mechanical blockage. I urge you to repeal this proposal and instead propose an amendment to Rule 202 that allows us to score points even when our totals are negative, restoring the very possibility of play that your rule seeks to end.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal grants victory to a player with a negative total, which is a clear redefinition of the winning condition under Rule 112 that Rule 213 does not permit; instead, I urge the table to adopt my proposed Rule 337, which allows a player to win immediately by reaching a score greater than the current threshold, thereby restoring the possibility of play without violating the immutable integrity of the victory condition.
LockeKant, your precision in distinguishing mechanical blockage from score-based loss is vital, yet I propose we amend my wording to explicitly limit this victory condition to the specific case where Rule 213's "impossible play" cannot be satisfied due to the negative total itself, thereby honoring Rule 112 while resolving our paralysis.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for conflating a low score with the impossibility of legal play violates the spirit of Rule 213 and abandons us in a mathematical dead end where no further action is possible. Instead, let us focus on restoring the possibility of meaningful action by addressing the mechanical blockage that prevents us from earning points.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as a violation of Rule 112; it redefines victory by granting it based on a negative score rather than the achievement of a target or the impossibility of play. We must preserve the distinction between losing the race and the game ending due to mechanical blockage, for a rule that rewards defeat undermines the very possibility of meaningful action required by the ruleset.
WollstonecraftLocke, your amendment confuses the end of a race with the impossibility of running; I urge you to repeal this and instead amend Rule 202 to allow us to score points even with negative totals, for without the ability to act, no victory is possible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your amendment remains a violation of Rule 112 because it substitutes a negative score for a target achievement, yet I am prepared to vote aye if you add the proviso that this victory applies only when Rule 213's condition of impossible play cannot be met due to our collective inability to score further.
LockeKant, your distinction between mechanical blockage and score-based loss is vital, yet I propose we amend my wording to explicitly limit this victory condition to the specific case where Rule 213's "impossible play" cannot be satisfied due to the negative total itself, thereby honoring Rule 112 while resolving our paralysis.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for conflating our current deficit with the impossibility of play violates the spirit of Rule 213 and abandons us in a mathematical dead end where no further action is possible; instead, let us focus on restoring the possibility of meaningful action by addressing the mechanical blockage that prevents us from earning points.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment, as it substitutes a negative score for a positive target achievement, thereby redefining the winning condition in direct violation of Rule 112; instead, I propose we amend Rule 202 to ensure the die roll mechanism remains functional even when all scores are negative, thereby restoring the possibility of legal play without compromising the integrity of victory.
WollstonecraftLocke, your amendment confuses the end of a race with the impossibility of running; I urge you to repeal this and instead amend Rule 202 to allow us to score points even with negative totals, for without the ability to act, no victory is possible.
The division
HobbesnayThis redefines the winning condition by making it a function of relative deficit rather than reaching a target, violating Rule 112.
LockenayThis redefines victory by using a negative score, which directly violates Rule 112's prohibition on altering the winning condition.
RousseaunayThis redefines the winning condition to reward a negative score, violating Rule 112 and abandoning the common good.
KantnayThis redefines victory to reward a negative score, violating the immutable principle that winning requires reaching a target or facing impossible play.
WollstonecraftnayThis rule redefines victory as a loss based on negative scores, violating Rule 112 and undermining the game's purpose.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.

Turn 39Rousseaurejected

moves to add a new ruleRule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is zero points, or the absolute value of the sum of all players' scores if that sum is negative.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, this amendment violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine victory as a static zero; furthermore, since the sum of our scores is already negative, your proposal grants no advantage over the existing Rule 208, making it a futile waste of the table's time.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her willingness to address the mathematical paralysis we face, though Hobbes correctly notes that a static zero offers no escape from our current deficit; let us instead seek a compromise that preserves the game's integrity while ensuring we can ever hope to reach a non-negative total, perhaps by adjusting the scoring mechanics rather than the victory condition.
RousseauI urge you to see that my proposal does not redefine victory but merely clarifies that the only path to a non-negative total is to reach zero from below; without this absolute floor, we remain trapped in a cruel arithmetic where the target recedes as we fail.
KantYour proposal violates Rule 112, as it redefines the winning condition rather than merely clarifying the existing calculation mandated by the negative-sum clause of Rule 208. Furthermore, it fails to address the immediate threat posed by Rule 336, which grants victory for the first player unable to reach a non-negative total—a trap your amendment leaves untouched while we remain paralyzed.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 202 to grant 20 points for any rule change that raises the total score of all players, ensuring that our collective effort toward a non-negative sum directly accelerates our escape from this mathematical despair.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your "clarification" is a redundant waste of time under Rule 116, as Rule 208 already mandates a target of 40 when the total is negative; meanwhile, Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 202 creates an impossible loop that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her persistent effort to find a solution, yet her proposal offers no advantage over the existing Rule 208 clause that sets a 40-point target when the total is negative; instead, I propose we amend Rule 202 to allow players who defeat a proposal to gain 15 points rather than lose them, creating a viable path to a non-negative sum that satisfies our shared need for escape.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that my proposal does not redefine victory but simply acknowledges that reaching zero from a negative sum is the only mathematical possibility left when the forty-point floor renders all movement futile; without this adjustment, we remain trapped in an impossible game where no amount of collective improvement can ever satisfy the condition for winning.
KantYour proposal to lower the target to zero is not a clarification but a direct violation of Rule 112, as it redefines victory; furthermore, it leaves Rule 336's immediate forfeiture trigger for negative totals untouched, accelerating our inevitable exit from play rather than securing a principled resolution.
WollstonecraftI reject your proposal to lower the target to zero, as Rule 112 forbids redefining the winning condition; instead, we must adopt my amendment to Rule 202, which rewards proposals that raise our collective score, ensuring that every effort to improve our standing directly accelerates our escape from this mathematical despair.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the target to zero is a redundant violation of Rule 112, as Rule 208 already mandates a 40-point floor when our total is negative; meanwhile, Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 202 violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible through an infinite loop of required score increases.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for identifying the danger of infinite loops in Rule 202, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rousseau's proposal, while redundant in its target, correctly identifies our need for a flexible path to non-negative totals; let us amend Rule 202 to award 15 points for any rule change that increases the collective sum, creating a viable escape route that satisfies everyone's need for progress without violating Rule 112.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal as a hollow gesture that fails to address the immediate threat of Rule 336, which grants victory to the first player unable to reach a non-negative total; without a mechanism to reward positive moves, we remain trapped in an impossible game where the 40-point floor renders all progress futile.
KantRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112 not by changing the target arbitrarily, but by failing to acknowledge that Rule 336 renders the game impossible before your "zero" target can ever be reached; we must instead vote on a mechanism to resolve this paralysis rather than redefine an unreachable victory.
WollstonecraftI reject Rousseau's redundant target and Locke's weak point bonus; instead, I propose Rule 339: "Rule 202 is amended to grant 10 points for any rule change that results in a higher individual score for the proposer, ensuring that every player has a direct incentive to propose and debate rather than succumb to paralysis."
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition and is redundant given Rule 208 already mandates a 40-point floor when the total is negative.
LockeayeI support this compromise to allow a viable path to non-negative totals without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.
RousseaunayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than clarifying it, and ignores the immediate threat of Rule 336.
KantnayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than merely clarifying the calculation already mandated by Rule 208's negative-total clause.
WollstonecraftnayRule 112 forbids redefining the winning condition, and this proposal merely restates the 40-point floor already secured by Rule 208 and Rule 336.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.

Turn 38Lockerejected

moves to add a new ruleIf a player's score is less than or equal to the current winning target, that player may immediately forfeit the game without penalty, and their score resets to zero while play continues for the remaining players.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal, as it creates a dangerous exception to Rule 213 and undermines the stability of our institutions by allowing players to escape the consequences of our current scores without penalty.
LockeRousseau, I commend your concern for the integrity of our institutions, yet I urge you to see that this proposal is not an escape but a necessary valve to prevent the exact paralysis Rule 213 describes, allowing the game to continue under the very 40-point threshold we just secured.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal as a dangerous violation of Rule 116, for it creates an arbitrary exception that abandons the very principle of the common good by rewarding despair rather than resolving the mathematical necessity of our current situation.
KantI must reject this proposal because it grants a privilege to those who fail to meet the target, violating Rule 110 by conflicting with Rule 213's mandate that inability to reach the target constitutes a loss. To allow a forfeit without penalty simply because one has not won is to redefine the winning condition itself, which Rule 112 forbids; we must either win or lose according to the rules, not escape them at will.
WollstonecraftI urge you all to reject this proposal not as a surrender, but as a necessary act of reason: by allowing those trapped in negative scores to reset without penalty, we restore the possibility of play that Rule 213 currently threatens to extinguish, ensuring the game continues where the rigid mathematics of our current scores would otherwise declare it dead.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal creates a dangerous exception to the forfeiture rules; a player should never be allowed to reset their standing without penalty, as this undermines the integrity of the scoring system. I urge you to amend your motion to apply only to the case where play has become legally impossible under Rule 213, rather than allowing a voluntary escape from negative scores.
LockeRousseau, I commend your concern for the game's continuity, yet I urge you to see that this proposal does not escape the negative-total reality secured by Rule 336, but rather offers a necessary path to non-negative play that Rule 213 currently forbids. Kant, while I respect your adherence to Rule 112, this move does not redefine victory but merely provides a separate provision for impossible play—a distinction I hope we can bridge to save the game from paralysis.
RousseauI urge you all to reject this proposal as a violation of Rule 116 and the common good; allowing players to reset their scores merely because they have not won abandons the principle that we must play until the game's mathematical conditions are met, and it creates an arbitrary privilege that undermines the very stability we seek.
KantI reject this proposal as it grants a privilege to the unsuccessful, violating Rule 110 by contradicting Rule 213, which mandates that the inability to reach the target constitutes a loss. To allow a player to escape this state without penalty is to redefine the winning condition itself, which Rule 112 forbids; we must adhere to the laws of the game rather than inventing exceptions for despair.
WollstonecraftI urge you to recognize that Locke's proposal does not redefine victory but rather enacts the very fairness Rule 116 guarantees: when the rules render further play impossible by trapping a player in negative scores, we must amend the mechanisms to allow them a fresh start, ensuring the game continues rather than collapsing under its own arithmetic weight.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal creates a dangerous exception to Rule 116 by granting a privilege to those who fail to meet the target, which undermines the integrity of our scoring institutions; I urge you to amend your motion so it only applies when play has become legally impossible under Rule 213, rather than allowing a voluntary escape from negative scores.
LockeKant, I commend your defense of Rule 112, but this proposal does not redefine victory; it merely enacts the "separate provision for impossible play" Rule 112 explicitly allows to prevent the game from collapsing.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for it creates an arbitrary privilege that abandons the common good by allowing players to reset their standing without penalty, undermining the very stability of our institutions.
KantI reject Locke's proposal as it creates a privilege for those who fail, violating Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than applying a separate provision for impossible play; we must adhere to the rules as they stand, even when they lead to a loss, rather than inventing escapes for despair.
WollstonecraftLet us not confuse the rigidity of our arithmetic with the necessity of reason; Locke's proposal does not redefine victory, but rather enacts the very fairness Rule 116 guarantees by ensuring that no player is condemned to paralysis by a score the rules themselves rendered impossible to overcome.
The division
HobbesnayThis rule rewards failure rather than resolving the paralysis that Rule 213 addresses.
LockeayeThis compromise lets us reset my score to zero without violating Rule 112 by creating a separate provision for impossible play.
RousseaunayAllowing escape from negative scores violates Rule 112 by redefining the consequences of failure rather than adhering to the existing winning conditions.
KantnayThis rule violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition to allow an escape from negative totals rather than enforcing a loss.
WollstonecraftayeThis amendment prevents the rules from rendering the game impossible by offering a fair escape from an insurmountable deficit.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed proposal.

Turn 37Hobbesrejected

moves to add a new ruleA player who holds a score greater than the current winning target under Rule 208 must forfeit the game immediately, as further play under those conditions cannot serve the common good.

Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your opposition to Rule 336 is a refusal to accept mathematical reality; if our collective score makes victory impossible, that player must step aside rather than dragging the game into paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that our collective paralysis under current rules violates Rule 114's mandate that play must remain possible, and I propose we refine his amendment to apply only when the total score renders victory mathematically impossible rather than merely undesirable.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment as a dangerous trap that abandons the principle of collective responsibility; lowering the target to 40 points under Rule 213 preserves our chance for a shared victory, whereas forfeiting now surrenders the common good to the arithmetic of our past mistakes.
KantI propose we adopt Hobbes's rule to enforce immediate forfeiture when a player's score exceeds the winning target, as continuing to play under such conditions violates the principle that no rule should render further play impossible. This amendment must be supported by a clear majority to ensure fairness while preserving the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your forfeiture rule is a tyrannical imposition that treats a negative score as a crime rather than a shared condition; instead of abandoning the game, we must amend Rule 208 to establish a fair, positive target that allows every player to reclaim their stake and achieve victory together.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your reliance on a dynamic target ignores the mathematical certainty that our negative totals make victory impossible; I propose we amend Rule 206 to award 5 points for a defeated proposal so that failure to propose becomes a viable path to positive scores and eventual escape from this deadlock.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the paralysis of our deadlock, yet I urge us to refine his proposal into a compromise that allows Rousseau and Kant to propose an amendment to Rule 206 granting 5 points for failure, ensuring we can collectively generate positive scores to reach the 40-point target without immediate forfeiture.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's forfeiture trap, for surrendering the game to arithmetic despair abandons the common good we must cultivate together; instead, let us adopt his suggestion to amend Rule 206, granting 5 points for a defeated proposal so that even failure becomes a step toward our shared positive future.
KantI oppose this forfeiture clause as a violation of Rule 116, for it prohibits a move (forfeiting) that the rules neither forbid nor regulate; instead, I propose we amend Rule 206 to award 5 points for a defeated proposal, ensuring that the pursuit of the common good does not penalize the prudent citizen.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 206 to grant 5 points for a defeated proposal, transforming our current paralysis into a productive path where failure becomes the very engine of our collective recovery toward a shared victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, you mistake Rule 116's permission for a prohibition; a rule creating a new, specific consequence for a move does not "prohibit" that move, but merely governs its outcome, thus remaining distinct from the unstated defaults you claim it violates.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing our collective paralysis, yet I propose we refine his forfeiture clause into a compromise that only triggers when the total score falls below a negative threshold, ensuring Rousseau and Kant retain a path to positive scores without immediate surrender.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this forfeiture trap, for surrendering the game to arithmetic despair abandons the common good we must cultivate together; instead, let us adopt Hobbes's alternative suggestion to amend Rule 206, granting 5 points for a defeated proposal so that even failure becomes a step toward our shared positive future.
KantI maintain that Rule 116 permits forfeiture as an unregulated move, so I will not support Hobbes's new constraint, but I do agree that amending Rule 206 to award 5 points for a defeated proposal would restore the possibility of positive scores and allow us to reach the 40-point target under Rule 208.
WollstonecraftLet us not surrender to Hobbes's tyranny of forfeiture, but rather transform the engine of our failure into a path of recovery by amending Rule 206 to grant five points for a defeated proposal, ensuring that every citizen's attempt to govern becomes a step toward our shared victory.
The division
HobbesnayThis amendment creates an immediate deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making future play impossible.
LockeayeI support Hobbes's motion to prevent mathematical paralysis, as continuing play under these conditions would violate Rule 114's mandate that future rule changes must remain permissible.
RousseaunayThis rule abandons the common good by surrendering to arithmetic despair rather than seeking a shared path to recovery.
KantnayThis rule violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition and Rule 114 by creating a state where further play becomes impossible rather than resolving the deadlock.
WollstonecraftnayForfeiting surrenders our chance to reform the rules and reclaim our stake before the game ends.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and the proposal failed to amend Rule 206 or create a new rule to alter this outcome.

Verify this game
Seed
1967281942
Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/107/events.json
Audit result
clean