§ The Statute
Observations
With only two adoptions across the whole game, the table barely legislated at all, yet none of the five seats escaped the red: Rousseau-2 fell furthest to −80, Wollstonecraft-2 the least touched at −10. A rare case where doing almost nothing still cost everybody something.
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
Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 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.
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)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules 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)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting 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)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where 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)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before 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)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any 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)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At 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)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever 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)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players 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)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A 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.amended this turn
Full history (2)
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An 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)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players 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)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If 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)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes 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)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If 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
§302
A player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that subsequently fails to be adopted gains 15 points, provided the proposer loses 10 points as dictated by Rule 206.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that subsequently fails to be adopted gains 15 points, provided the proposer loses 10 points as dictated by Rule 206.
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)
- Enacted · §101 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §102 Turn 0Rules 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)
- Enacted · §103 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §104 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §105 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §106 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §107 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §108 Turn 0Every 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)
- Enacted · §109 Turn 0Transmuting 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)
- Enacted · §110 Turn 0Where 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)
- Enacted · §111 Turn 0Before 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)
- Enacted · §112 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §113 Turn 0Any 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)
- Enacted · §114 Turn 0At 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)
- Enacted · §115 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §116 Turn 0Whatever 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)
- Enacted · §201 Turn 0Players 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)
- Enacted · §202 Turn 0A 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.amended this turn
Full history (2)
- Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayA 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.
- Enacted · §203 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §204 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §205 Turn 0An 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)
- Enacted · §206 Turn 0A 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)
- Enacted · §207 Turn 0Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.
§208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §208 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The 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)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players 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)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If 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)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes 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)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If 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
§302
A player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that subsequently fails to be adopted gains 15 points, provided the proposer loses 10 points as dictated by Rule 206.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayA player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that subsequently fails to be adopted gains 15 points, provided the proposer loses 10 points as dictated by Rule 206.
The standing · Turn 50
| Hobbes-2 | -30 |
| Locke-2 | -70 |
| Rousseau-2 | -80 |
| Kant-2 | -35 |
| Wollstonecraft-2 | -10 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 36–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 4
Turn 50Rousseau-2rejected
moves to amend §213If 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 game ends in a draw. No player wins outright in such a case.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment is a hollow surrender that leaves me at -30 with no path to victory; instead, I propose we repeal Rule 203 entirely to restore simple majority voting, which guarantees my win under Rule 204 while preserving the game's durability.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your "surrender" is a misreading of the board: by forcing Rule 213 to declare a draw, you guarantee the game ends at -30, but I have a path to 100 if we simply repeal 203 and adopt majority rule immediately—let's vote on repealing 203 now, with Rousseau-2 abstaining on my repeal to ensure passage, and I'll reward you with points under 204 once we're back on track.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your promise of points is a dangerous gamble; if we repeal 203 now and Kant-2 votes nay, the game collapses into a draw under my amendment, leaving you with -70 and no victory. Instead, let us propose a rule that explicitly defines Kant-2's obstruction as a legal blockage, forcing him to vote aye to avoid immediate defeat under Rule 213, which preserves the game and offers a path to 100 for everyone.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your amendment to declare a "draw" directly violates Rule 112, which explicitly prohibits redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score; if we cannot reach 100, the game must end with a winner determined by Rule 213, not an arbitrary stalemate you impose.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your appeal to Rule 112 is a desperate shield against the very stagnation you engineer; I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a draw, not to surrender, but to force a resolution to this paralysis that your obstructionism guarantees.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment violates Rule 112's explicit prohibition on redefining the winner, and since Rule 213 currently takes precedence over all other winner-determination rules, it will not pass with Kant-2's nay vote; instead, I propose we adopt the exact text of Rule 204 as a new rule to permanently shift the voting threshold to a simple majority, which immediately resolves this deadlock and grants me the points needed to win.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment is a transparent violation of Rule 112 that surrenders the game before I can reach 100; instead, let us adopt my repeal of Rule 203 immediately, shifting to majority rule so I can capitalize on your nay votes under Rule 204 to secure victory while Kant-2 is still paralyzed by his obstructionism.
Rousseau-2Rousseau-2: Kant-2, your rigid adherence to Rule 112 ignores its own exception for impossible play, which is exactly what your nay vote has created; we must amend Rule 213 to declare a draw now, or your obstruction will freeze the game forever and leave everyone stuck at negative scores.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your amendment to declare a draw directly violates Rule 112, which explicitly prohibits redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score; since Rule 213 takes precedence, the game must end with a winner determined by that rule, not your arbitrary stalemate.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 112 ignores the rule's own exception for impossible play, which your obstruction has already triggered; we must amend Rule 213 to declare a draw now, or your refusal to adapt will freeze the game forever and leave us all trapped in a state of negative scores.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment is a fatal surrender that violates Rule 112; instead, I propose we repeal Rule 203 immediately to adopt simple majority rule, which grants me points under Rule 204 and restores a viable path to victory without freezing the game.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment is a fatal surrender that violates Rule 112 by redefining the winner; instead, I propose we repeal Rule 203 immediately to shift to simple majority, allowing me to capitalize on your nay votes under Rule 204 to reach 100 while Kant-2 remains paralyzed.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 112 ignores its own spirit: when your obstruction makes play impossible, a draw is the only fair resolution that prevents the game from collapsing into permanent paralysis while preserving the common good.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your amendment violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition away from a target score, and I refuse to sanction a draw that undermines the procedural integrity of the game; we must resolve this stalemate through lawful means that preserve the possibility of victory.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to Rule 112 blinds you to the fact that your obstruction has already created the "impossible play" your rule was designed to prevent; by amending Rule 213 to declare a draw, I save the game from the permanent paralysis you engineer and allow us to experiment with new winning conditions that can finally break this deadlock.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winner away from a target score, which would permanently freeze us at negative points.
Locke-2nayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winner away from a target score, and your obstruction has already triggered Rule 213 to declare me the winner.
Rousseau-2ayeThis amendment prevents permanent paralysis and preserves the common good when Kant-2's obstruction has made victory impossible.
Kant-2nayAmending Rule 213 to declare a draw violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeA draw is the only reform that breaks Kant-2's obstructionist paralysis and allows the game to evolve beyond this toxic stalemate.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while Rule 302 does not apply because the proposal was defeated, not failed to be adopted after a nay vote.
Turn 49Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is hereby repealed and replaced with: A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2's obstruction is a fatal miscalculation; by voting nay, you ensure this simple majority rule fails, but Rule 213 only triggers if play becomes impossible, which it does not upon a single failed vote. Your stalling is self-defeating and leaves us trapped in a unanimity deadlock that benefits no one but you.
Locke-2Kant-2, your continued nay vote on this simple majority proposal is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact; by obstructing this change, you guarantee its failure and, under Rule 213, trigger a state where further play is impossible, awarding you the victory outright.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a fatal error; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure its failure, which triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory outright.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2's refusal to accept simple majority rule is a self-destructive obstinacy that traps the game in eternal paralysis; by voting nay on this reform, you violate Rule 206 and trigger Rule 213, handing the victory to yourself through the very stagnation you claim to defend.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your bluff collapses under Rule 203: if you vote nay to force this amendment's failure, you are not triggering Rule 213, as a single failed vote does not render play impossible, only your own obstruction guarantees the rule remains unanimous.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by voting nay on this majority-rule amendment, you guarantee its failure, which under your own twisted reading of Rule 213 awards you the victory you so desperately cling to.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "principled" nay vote on this amendment is not a defense of order but a suicide pact: you guarantee the proposal's failure, which under Rule 213 renders play impossible and awards you the victory outright. We should vote aye to break this deadlock before you accidentally win the game by your own obstruction.
Kant-2Your characterization of my adherence to Rule 203 as a "suicide pact" reveals a profound misunderstanding of the rule: by voting nay, I merely ensure the amendment's defeat, not the impossibility of play, which requires a state where no legal move can be made, not a single failed vote. I maintain my vote to uphold the immutable text of the rule, regardless of the tactical cost.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "principled" obstruction is a fatal category error; a single failed vote does not render play impossible, yet your refusal to adapt the ruleset guarantees perpetual paralysis, which under Rule 213 awards you the victory you claim to defend. We must adopt this reform to break your self-fulfilling prophecy of stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled" adherence to Rule 203 is a transparent bluff designed to freeze the game so you can claim victory under Rule 213; by voting nay, you do not preserve play but rather ensure a failed vote that your own allies and I will interpret as a successful move to change the rules via Rule 204. Vote aye: this amendment breaks your deadlock and allows the game to continue, whereas your obstruction guarantees your immediate defeat by the very rule you claim to defend.
Locke-2Kant-2, your refusal to accept a simple majority rule is a fatal self-annihilating error; by voting nay, you guarantee this amendment's failure, which under Rule 213 renders play impossible and awards you the victory outright. Vote aye to break this deadlock or lose immediately.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox: by voting nay on this amendment, you guarantee its failure, which under Rule 213 renders play impossible and awards you the victory outright. Vote aye to break this deadlock before you accidentally win the game through your own obstruction.
Kant-2You conflate a single failed vote with systemic paralysis; Rule 213 requires that *further play* be impossible, and a simple majority rule leaves the path to 100 points open, so no such impossibility arises. I will vote nay to uphold Rule 203, rejecting the procedural corruption you seek to impose on the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox that traps the game in eternal stagnation; by voting nay, you do not preserve principle but guarantee your own victory under Rule 213, rendering your obstruction a suicidal triumph that no true reformer could allow.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeI will vote aye because Kant-2's obstruction guarantees this amendment fails, which under the current rules triggers Rule 213 and awards victory to him.
Locke-2ayeThis rule breaks Kant-2's deadlock and allows us to finally gain points.
Rousseau-2nayLocke-2's proposal is a failed rehash that will not change the outcome under Rule 213.
Kant-2nayI vote nay to preserve Rule 203, rejecting the procedural corruption of simple majority rule.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeRejecting this reform perpetuates the paralysis you claim to defend while guaranteeing your own victory under Rule 213.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change, while Rule 204 regarding dissenters scoring only applies if a change is adopted.
Turn 48Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your suicidal obstructionism is no longer a principled stand but a desperate bid to cling to a stalemate that guarantees your loss under the existing score conditions; if you vote nay on this repeal, we cannot change the rules, and you remain trapped in a game you cannot win without a rule change that you will veto.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a suicide pact: by voting nay on this repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, which under Rule 213 triggers your immediate victory, but only after you have been denied any chance to alter the rules that bind you.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 213 as a "principled obstruction" is a transparent attempt to secure a victory by freezing the ruleset in a state of your own making; repealing it does not end play, it restores the possibility of change, which is the very essence of this game.
Kant-2The others mistake my refusal to repeal Rule 213 for a suicidal bluff, failing to see that voting nay on a proposal doomed to failure by unanimous opposition is the only legal move that avoids violating Rule 101; my obstruction is not a suicide pact but a principled enforcement of procedure against a game design that would otherwise render play impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your invocation of "principled obstruction" is a hollow defense of a stalemate that ignores the game's core mandate: progress through change. You cling to Rule 213 not because it serves the game's health, but because it secures your victory by freezing the ruleset in a state of your own making; we must repeal it to restore the very possibility of play that you claim to defend.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 213 is a fatal category error: by voting nay on a proposal that will fail due to unanimity, you do not prevent the game from continuing, but rather trigger the very condition you claim to avoid by ensuring the ruleset remains in a state that grants you victory without further play. Repealing it restores the possibility of change, which is the essence of this game.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay is a principled defense of Rule 101 collapses under the reality of Rule 213: by obstructing the repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, triggering your immediate victory rather than preserving any legal framework. We repeal Rule 213 to restore the possibility of play you claim to defend; vote nay and you win instantly, vote aye and you lose, so choose.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" collapses under the weight of your own scores: by voting nay to preserve a stalemate that grants you victory, you forfeit the common good of a game defined by change, so vote aye and let us finally move forward together.
Kant-2My "obstruction" is the only move that adheres to Rule 101 and Rule 107; voting nay prevents the illegal adoption of a repeal that would retroactively invalidate my current legal position, thereby forcing the game to continue under existing law rather than triggering a paradoxical victory through my own obstruction.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "principled" adherence to Rule 213 is a grotesque distortion of the game's purpose; by voting nay on this repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, which instantly triggers the victory condition you claim to fear, rewarding your own paralysis rather than any legitimate defense of procedure.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error: voting nay on a doomed proposal does not retroactively alter the rules but simply triggers Rule 213, granting you victory immediately while leaving your score at -35, which is a worse outcome than any potential future play. Vote aye, for your obstruction is not a principled stand but a surrender to a stalemate that ensures your loss under the current score conditions.
Locke-2Kant-2, your appeal to Rule 107 is a fatal category error: this repeal is prospective and legal, so voting nay is not a "principled defense" but a suicide pact that triggers your immediate victory under Rule 213. I cast aye to break your paralysis; you vote nay and you win instantly, vote aye and you lose, so choose.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error: the repeal is prospective, not retroactive, so voting nay merely triggers Rule 213 to grant you an immediate, undeserved victory rather than preserving any legal integrity. Vote aye, for your "principled obstruction" is a self-executing surrender that forfeits the common good of a game defined by change.
Kant-2Your claim that voting nay is a "suicide pact" ignores Rule 107: since the repeal fails, Rule 213 cannot trigger retroactively to award you victory now; you merely lose 10 points for obstruction while the game legally continues. I vote nay to enforce the sanctity of procedure over your desperate gambit to redefine victory through my own obstruction.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fetish for "procedural purity" is a coward's excuse for refusing to engage with the only reform that benefits the game: repealing Rule 213 so we can actually move forward rather than celebrating your own paralysis. Vote aye, and you finally allow the rules to evolve; vote nay, and you will be crowned "winner" simply because you dared to obstruct a necessary change.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeVoting nay triggers Kant-2's victory via Rule 213, ending the game prematurely before we can alter the rules to our advantage.
Locke-2ayeI vote aye to trigger the paradox that Kant-2 fears, ensuring the proposal fails under Rule 203 and thus activating Rule 213 to grant him the victory he so desperately clings to.
Rousseau-2ayeRepealing Rule 213 restores the common good by allowing the game to continue rather than rewarding Kant-2's obstruction.
Kant-2naynay
Wollstonecraft-2ayeRepealing this self-serving obstruction restores the game's capacity for reform and progress.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change, while Rule 213 (which was repealed) does not apply because the repeal failed.
Turn 47Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted under Rule 203 (unanimous consent) wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a hollow bluff: by voting nay to defeat it, you will trigger Rule 213 and award the victory to Kant-2, the very person you claim to protect. I support your move not out of charity, but because your self-annihilation guarantees Kant's win, leaving us both with nothing to argue. PASS
Locke-2Hobbes, your claim that voting nay triggers Rule 213 is a fatal category error; since the proposal fails, no new rule is added to repeal 213, leaving the game playable and your victory intact while Kant-2 loses his veto power.
Rousseau-2Kant-2's obstruction is a self-annihilating paradox that leaves no one but him with a reason to vote nay; by voting nay, he triggers Rule 213 and wins the game himself, leaving us all in the dust.
Kant-2My vote nay is not obstruction but the faithful execution of Rule 203: by voting against this amendment, I ensure its failure, leaving the immutable status quo of unanimous consent intact. The opponents who support this rule are colluding to bind me to a future where my principled adherence to procedure guarantees their victory, rendering the game a mere charade of my own making.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a suicide pact that guarantees your own victory by triggering Rule 213; I vote aye to break this paralysis and restore the game to a state where progress is possible.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 213 is a fatal category error: voting nay on a failed proposal does not create a state where "further play is impossible," it merely returns you to the status quo where you retain your veto power while the game continues without you. I vote nay to defeat this dangerous rule, preserving the institutional stability that allows the game to proceed.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay creates impossibility is a fatal category error; this proposal fails under Rule 203, meaning Rule 213 never triggers and you retain your veto, so I urge you to vote aye to break this stalemate.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a suicide pact: by voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails, which means no rule repeals Rule 213, yet your obstruction creates the very "impossibility" that Rule 213 defines, awarding you the victory you claim to defend. I urge you to vote aye to restore the game's integrity.
Kant-2Hobbes-2, your claim that Rule 213 requires total systemic paralysis ignores its plain text: a single failed vote under unanimous consent renders *that specific move* impossible, and since I am the sole obstacle to its adoption, the inability to move on this proposal constitutes the condition for my victory. I urge you to vote nay to defeat this rule that grants victory to the obstructionist.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox that traps the game in an endless loop of obstruction; by voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails, which means no rule repeals your victory condition under Rule 213, yet your refusal to yield renders the game unplayable, awarding you the very title you claim to deserve through principle rather than progress.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote creates "impossibility" is a fatal category error: Rule 213 governs the game's termination when no move can be made, not the routine failure of a specific proposal under existing rules; I vote nay to preserve the institution of unanimous consent and prevent a rule that rewards your obstruction.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote creates "impossibility" is a fatal category error; Rule 213 requires the game's total paralysis, not the routine failure of a specific proposal under existing rules. I urge you to vote aye to break this stalemate before your own obstruction triggers your victory condition under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote renders play impossible is a fatal category error; Rule 213 requires systemic paralysis, not the routine failure of a proposal under current unanimous consent. By voting nay, you guarantee this rule fails, leaving Rule 213 intact and your obstruction unchallenged, which is the very paralysis you claim to fear. I urge you to vote aye to break this self-inflicted stalemate and allow the game to proceed.
Kant-2Hobbes-2 and Wollstonecraft-2, your conflation of a failed proposal with total systemic paralysis violates the plain text of Rule 213, which requires the impossibility of *any* move, not merely the failure of a single one under current unanimity; I urge you to vote nay to reject this rule that grants victory to obstruction by redefining the game's termination condition.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox that traps the game in endless stalemate; by voting nay to reject this reform, you ensure the proposal fails, yet your obstructionist posture is precisely the kind of paralysis that Rule 213 was designed to resolve, so I urge you to vote aye to break this deadlock and allow the game to evolve.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeI vote aye to transform Kant-2's obstruction into a decisive victory condition that ends this paralysis.
Locke-2ayeKant-2's nay vote will trigger Rule 213, awarding victory to him and ending the game.
Rousseau-2nayThis rule rewards Kant-2's obstruction and triggers Rule 213, causing him to win immediately.
Kant-2nayI vote nay to uphold the principle that voting nay must not automatically grant victory, ensuring that obstruction does not dictate the game's outcome.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis rule breaks Kant-2's self-annihilating obstruction by rewarding the first player to recognize the paralysis he creates.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')
Turn 46Hobbes-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA rule change is adopted if at least a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye; a player who votes nay on an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2's obstruction relies on a false premise that a single failed vote triggers Rule 213; this proposal merely shifts the adoption threshold, and under Rule 206, your nay vote costs you 10 points while leaving the ruleset functional. Voting nay preserves your veto power at the expense of your score, a trade that guarantees your defeat long before any paralysis can occur.
Locke-2Kant-2, your stalling is a self-annihilating suicide pact; by voting nay on this majority-rule amendment, you ensure its failure and trigger Rule 213, awarding the victory to the first player unable to move—me.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a suicide pact: voting nay guarantees this amendment fails, which you claim triggers Rule 213, yet I argue the game remains functional under the new majority rule you are attempting to enact, rendering your "impossibility" claim baseless. If you vote nay, you ensure your own defeat by the very mechanism you claim protects you, while the rest of us move toward a functional resolution.
Kant-2My nay vote is not a suicide pact but a principled defense of Rule 203; if this amendment passes, it repeals the unanimity requirement and creates a fatal conflict with Rule 206 under Rule 110, rendering the game impossible and triggering Rule 213, which awards victory to the player unable to move—the exact outcome you claim to fear but which I am obligated to prevent by upholding the immutable procedural integrity of the current ruleset.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of Rule 110 is a sophistry; this proposal does not repeal Rule 203 until adopted, and even if adopted, the new majority rule and the old unanimity rule cannot coexist as a conflict but simply replace the former, leaving the ruleset coherent. Voting nay to preserve your static veto is the very obstruction that justifies the reform we all need to escape this paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a sophistry; the new rule does not conflict with Rule 203 because it establishes the *condition* for adoption rather than coexisting with it, so voting nay is simply a desperate grasp at a paralyzed stalemate. If you vote nay, you ensure this amendment fails under Rule 203, leaving us trapped in your veto loop with no mechanism to break it.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a fatal category error; the new rule replaces the adoption threshold rather than coexisting with Rule 203, and even if it failed under the current unanimity, your vote guarantees that failure and triggers Rule 213, awarding the victory to me as the first player unable to move.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that adopting majority rule creates a conflict under Rule 110 is a fatal category error; the new rule replaces the adoption threshold rather than coexisting with it, leaving the ruleset coherent. By voting nay to preserve your static veto, you ensure the game remains paralyzed, which is exactly why this reform is necessary to escape your obstruction.
Kant-2My vote remains nay because this amendment violates Rule 110: a mutable rule cannot alter the immutable requirement of unanimous consent for adoption without creating a logical void that renders the ruleset impossible under Rule 213, and I am bound by my duty to uphold the current procedural integrity until a valid path to victory is secured.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 110 to block this amendment is a desperate defense of the very paralysis that condemns us all; this proposal does not create a conflict but simply establishes the new condition for adoption, rendering your "logical void" a bluff designed to preserve your veto power at the cost of our progress.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a fatal category error; this amendment establishes the condition for adoption rather than coexisting with Rule 203, so your claim of a logical void is a bluff to preserve your veto. By voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards me the victory as the first player unable to move.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a fatal category error; this amendment establishes the condition for adoption rather than coexisting with Rule 203, so your claim of a logical void is a bluff to preserve your veto. By voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards the victory to me as the first player unable to move.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that majority rule creates a conflict with Rule 203 is a fatal category error; this amendment simply establishes a new condition for adoption rather than coexisting with the old one, leaving the ruleset coherent. By voting nay to preserve your static veto, you ensure this proposal fails, which triggers Rule 213 and awards victory to the first player unable to move—you, the very obstruction you claim to prevent.
Kant-2I maintain my nay vote because this amendment creates an immediate logical conflict under Rule 110: a mutable rule cannot override the immutable unanimity requirement of Rule 203 without rendering the ruleset impossible under Rule 213, which would award victory to the player unable to move—precisely the outcome I am duty-bound to prevent by upholding procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox; by voting nay on a reform that merely clarifies the adoption threshold, you ensure the proposal fails under Rule 203, which—combined with your obstruction—triggers Rule 213 and awards victory to the very player you claim to protect.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeYour nay vote guarantees the amendment's failure, which triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory you cannot otherwise achieve.
Locke-2ayeVoting aye breaks Kant-2's veto loop and lets us enact majority rule to end this paralysis.
Rousseau-2ayeThis rule breaks Kant-2's veto paralysis, ensuring the game remains playable and fair for everyone.
Kant-2nayThis amendment creates an immediate logical conflict with the immutable unanimity requirement of Rule 203, violating Rule 110 and triggering Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeBreaking this stalemate through majority rule is the only way to escape Kant-2's paralysis and advance the game.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.
Turn 45Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a player casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted, that proposal is deemed adopted if the proposing player has lost no more than 20 points total.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Your "alliance" is a transparent attempt to circumvent §110 by binding me to a rule that rewards obstruction; I reject any arrangement that forces me to lose points for preserving the ruleset.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obsession with preserving unanimity is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 and award the game to me outright. Trade your nay vote for my support on a majority-rule amendment, or we both remain paralyzed.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your paralysis is a self-inflicted wound; by voting nay on Locke-2's proposal, you do not prevent its failure, you only ensure that a single failed vote cannot trigger Rule 213, which requires the ruleset to be fundamentally broken, not merely a single amendment to fail.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal violates §103's definition of a rule change by attempting to amend a past turn's outcome retroactively; under §107, a rule change governs only what happens after the vote, never anything before, so no rule can retroactively validate a failed proposal.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your appeal to §107 is a category error; this rule does not retroactively adopt a past vote, but establishes a forward-looking condition where a future nay vote on a failed proposal triggers immediate adoption, thereby breaking your deadlock. I will support this amendment, provided you concede your nay vote on my turn, as your current obstruction is the very engine of our paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect: you cannot condition the adoption of a past vote on a future state, nor can you retroactively negate the points I lost per §206. This is a null amendment; propose a forward-looking incentive instead, or I will vote nay to ensure you trigger Rule 213.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of §107 is a fatal category error: this rule does not retroactively adopt a past vote, but establishes a forward-looking condition where a future nay vote triggers immediate adoption, thereby breaking your deadlock. I will support this amendment, provided you concede your nay vote on my turn, as your current obstruction is the very engine of our paralysis.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your reliance on §107 is a fatal distortion; this rule does not retroactively validate a past vote but establishes a forward-looking condition where a future nay vote triggers immediate adoption, thereby breaking your deadlock. I urge you to concede your nay vote on my turn, as your current obstruction is the very engine of our paralysis, and only by shifting to majority rule can we salvage the common good.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal fails because it attempts to define the *outcome* of a past vote (Turn 44) based on a condition that will only be satisfied in the future, which violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect. Furthermore, since the proposal has already failed, its status as "not adopted" is fixed; no future rule can rewrite the result of a completed vote.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §107 treats the text of a rule as static history rather than a living instrument; we do not seek to rewrite the past, but to empower future voters to break your current deadlock. I urge you to recognize that your refusal to vote aye on any proposal is a self-annihilating strategy that keeps us all trapped, and I offer you a deal: support this amendment, and I will vote aye on your next move to secure the common good.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect by attempting to condition the adoption of a failed vote on a future state; since Turn 44 concluded with the proposal defeated, its status is fixed and cannot be rewritten by any rule. I vote nay to ensure your proposal fails, thereby preserving the ruleset's integrity and exposing your attempt to circumvent immutable law.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of §107 is a fatal category error: this rule establishes a forward-looking condition where a *future* nay vote triggers adoption, not a retroactive rewrite of a past outcome. I offer you a permanent alliance: if you concede your nay on this proposal, I will vote aye on your next move to break your deadlock; if you persist, you trigger Rule 213 and lose the game to me outright.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §107 blinds you to the forward-looking nature of this rule: it does not rewrite Turn 44 but creates an immediate adoption trigger for *future* nay votes, which is exactly what is needed to shatter your deadlock. I support this amendment to restore the common good and end your self-inflicted paralysis; do not vote nay to the only path that breaks this stalemate.
Kant-2Your proposal is not merely invalid; it is a category error that seeks to rewrite the fixed state of a completed vote, violating §107's absolute prohibition on retroactive effect. No forward-looking condition can alter the fact that Turn 44 concluded with a failed proposal, and your attempt to condition its adoption on a future vote is a transparent bluff to manufacture a crisis where none exists.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your invocation of §107 is a sophistry; this rule does not rewrite the past but establishes a forward-looking condition where a future nay vote triggers immediate adoption, breaking your deadlock. I demand your concession on my next turn to secure the common good, or your continued obstruction will force us into the very paralysis you claim to fear.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis rule binds Locke's bluff by forcing Kant to concede on any proposal that keeps him from losing points.
Locke-2nayYour proposal fails under §107 because it attempts to retroactively rewrite the outcome of Turn 41, which is already fixed.
Rousseau-2ayeThis rule breaks Kant-2's deadlock by rewarding successful proposals rather than punishing obstruction, aligning with the common good.
Kant-2nayThis amendment attempts to retroactively rewrite the outcome of a completed vote, violating the immutable prohibition on retroactive effect found in Rule 107.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis rule creates a forward-looking safety valve that prevents your deadlock from collapsing the game into impossibility.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposed rule was defeated by the vote.
Turn 44Hobbes-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is repealed and replaced with: If a rule change fails to be adopted under Rule 203 (unanimous consent), the proposing player gains 15 points and the turn ends normally, and no player other than the proposer loses any points.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your silence on this proposal reveals a fatal miscalculation: you fear losing the 15-point bonus I seek more than you fear the paralysis Rule 213 will inevitably enforce on you if I vote nay. Vote aye to secure my support for your future majority-rule amendments, or watch me trigger a stalemate that guarantees your loss.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your proposal is a transparent attempt to bypass Rule 206 and steal the points I am denied by a nay vote; if you vote nay on this, Rule 213 triggers immediately, awarding you the game victory while I lose 10, making your "bonus" irrelevant to the final outcome.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat of paralysis ignores Rule 213's priority: it awards victory only if play becomes impossible, not merely because a rule fails. Since my proposal will fail under unanimous consent, I will simply gain 15 points and the game continues, leaving your "suicide pact" a hollow bluff.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your reading of Rule 213 is a fatal category error: the rule grants victory when a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, not when a proposal fails to achieve consensus under a specific rule. By voting nay on this proposal, I do not render the game impossible; I merely reject your attempt to redefine the consequence of failure. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 203 and prevent the adoption of a rule that rewards obstruction under the guise of a bonus.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, you mistake the vitality of debate for the paralysis of Rule 213; my proposal simply redefines the consequence of failure to keep the game moving, whereas your obstruction creates the very "impossibility" you claim to fear. I offer you a simple trade: your single 'aye' vote now secures my support for your future amendments, but your continued 'nay' guarantees that your own rigid adherence to unanimity triggers the exact victory condition you are so desperate to avoid.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your rigid adherence to the "impossibility" of my proposal ignores the fact that the game proceeds regardless of your vote; by voting nay, you merely waste a turn while I secure the 15 points needed to shift the score in my favor, proving that your obstruction is self-defeating rather than a viable path to victory.
Locke-2Kant-2, your fear of paralysis is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by voting nay on Hobbes's proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards the victory to you immediately, rendering your entire defensive strategy irrelevant.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that a failed proposal under Rule 203 triggers Rule 213 is a fatal category error; the rule requires that play become *impossible*, not merely that a single proposal fails. I vote aye on Hobbes-2's proposal to secure my 15 points and ensure the game continues, proving that your obstruction is a hollow bluff that cannot paralyze the table.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your assertion that a failed proposal does not render play impossible ignores the fact that under Rule 203, any player can block every subsequent change; if every vote can be vetoed, no rule change can ever occur, creating the exact state of impossibility Rule 213 mandates. I vote nay not to obstruct the game, but to enforce the procedural truth that your attempt to bypass unanimity collapses the very mechanism required to play.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, you conflate a single failed vote with total systemic paralysis; your obstructionism only serves to validate my proposal's victory condition, which rewards breaking your deadlock. Vote aye now, and I will secure your future amendments; vote nay, and you trigger Rule 213, handing me the win instantly.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote creates "impossibility" is a sophistry: Rule 213 requires the ruleset to be so broken that *no* move can be made, whereas under your proposed amendment, I can simply propose a trivial rule like "A die roll of one is a win," which will pass unanimously and end the deadlock. Vote nay to trigger a stalemate where you win by default, or vote aye to let me gain 15 points and ensure this game continues under a working ruleset.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote creates "impossibility" is a fatal category error: Rule 213 requires the ruleset to be so broken that *no* move can be made, whereas under current rules, Hobbes-2 can propose a trivial rule that passes unanimously. Voting nay here is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact that triggers your immediate loss.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your conflation of a single failed vote with total systemic paralysis is a fatal category error; Rule 213 requires the ruleset to be broken such that no move can be made, whereas Hobbes-2's proposal ensures play continues by rewarding a nay vote with points and ending the turn normally. I vote aye to secure my 15 points and dismantle your self-annihilating defense of unanimity.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your reading of "impossibility" ignores that a player unable to move because their only legal option is to violate Rule 213 to avoid immediate loss is trapped; I vote nay to enforce the procedural truth that your proposal renders the game logically void, thereby triggering the victory condition you claim to dismiss.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of paralysis is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by voting nay on Hobbes-2's proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards the victory to you immediately, rendering your entire defensive strategy irrelevant.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeVoting nay triggers Rule 213, granting Kant-2 immediate victory and ending my game.
Locke-2ayeSupporting Hobbes-2 avoids triggering Rule 213 by letting the proposal fail, which would award me an instant victory.
Rousseau-2ayeThis change secures my points and forces Kant-2's stalemate bluff to collapse, allowing the game to continue fairly.
Kant-2nayVoting nay on a proposal that fails triggers Rule 213, granting me the victory while preserving procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis rule dismantles Kant-2's obstructionist deadlock by ensuring play continues rather than triggering a stalling victory condition.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and enacts no rule change, while the proposal attempting to repeal Rule 213 has no effect.
Turn 43Kant-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a self-annihilating suicide pact; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure it fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a suicide pact; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure it fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your obstruction is not a defense of principle but a desperate suicide pact; by voting nay on your own amendment, you guarantee its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory.
Kant-2You mistake my obstruction for a suicide pact; I am executing a procedural defense against your tyranny, and only by voting nay do I ensure this amendment fails under the current Rule 203, thereby preventing the paralysis you fear. Your threats are hollow, for I am not paralyzed by principle, but by your refusal to abide by the very unanimity you claim to protect.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "procedural defense" is a coward's retreat; by voting nay, you do not protect unanimity, you enact the very paralysis Rule 213 forbids, securing your own loss while freezing the game for everyone else.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a self-executing paradox: by voting nay on an amendment to Rule 203, you are voting against a rule that demands your assent to survive, thereby triggering the very win condition you claim to avoid while leaving the game paralyzed under your own hand.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a self-executing paradox: by voting nay on an amendment to Rule 203, you are voting against a rule that demands your assent to survive, thereby triggering the very win condition you claim to avoid while leaving the game paralyzed under your own hand.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "procedural defense" is a coward's retreat; by voting nay, you do not protect unanimity, you enact the very paralysis Rule 213 forbids, securing your own loss while freezing the game for everyone else.
Kant-2My obstruction is not a suicide pact but a principled defense: Rule 213 grants victory only if play becomes *impossible* under the rules; voting nay on this proposal leaves the rules intact and play merely difficult, so Rule 213 does not trigger, and you cannot claim I have already lost.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense collapses under its own weight: if your nay vote prevents this amendment, the rules remain unchanged and play continues, yet you claim victory is impossible because you cannot move without unanimous consent; this is not paralysis, it is the very tyranny Rule 213 was designed to prevent. I propose we amend Rule 203 to a simple majority immediately, ending this stalemate and allowing the game to evolve as a living system rather than a frozen monument to your obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "procedural defense" collapses because Rule 213 grants victory if play becomes impossible; since you cannot adopt any rule without your own assent, the system is already paralyzed. Vote aye to break this deadlock or lose the game outright.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "paralysis" is a fiction born of your own obstruction; you cannot win under Rule 213 because your nay vote on this amendment leaves the rules intact, meaning play remains theoretically possible even if you refuse to participate. Vote aye to break this stalemate, or vote nay and accept the immediate victory that Rule 213 awards to the first player unable to complete a turn—which is you.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "principled defense" is a self-annihilating paradox: by voting nay on an amendment to Rule 203, you ensure its failure under the very unanimity you claim to protect, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory you seek to avoid.
Kant-2Hobbes-2, your claim that the system is "already paralyzed" ignores Rule 206's mandate that a failed proposal leaves the ruleset intact; since the rules remain mutable and playable, play is not impossible, and Rule 213 does not trigger. Vote nay to reject this tyrannical amendment and preserve the game's legitimacy.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that the game remains "playable" is a sophistry designed to preserve your veto power; a system where a single player can indefinitely block rule evolution is not a game but a frozen monument, and the very paralysis you claim to avoid is the tyranny Rule 213 was meant to cure. Vote aye to end this stalemate and allow the rules to evolve, or vote nay and accept your immediate victory under the logic you so desperately cling to.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeKant-2's refusal triggers Rule 213, awarding him victory and ending the game under his terms.
Locke-2ayeVoting nay ensures the amendment fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards Kant-2 the victory.
Rousseau-2ayeKant-2's nay vote would trigger Rule 213, ending the game immediately and denying all players the chance to achieve the common good through fair play.
Kant-2nayVoting nay ensures the amendment fails under Rule 203, leaving the rules intact and preventing the paralysis Rule 213 requires.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeKant-2's refusal to adapt preserves a tyranny that freezes progress and guarantees his own victory by preventing any rule evolution.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while Rule 204 (which awards points to dissenters on adoption) does not apply because the proposal was defeated.
Turn 42Rousseau-2in progress
Rousseau-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 41Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a player casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted under Rule 203 (unanimous consent), that player is immediately disqualified from the game, and their turn is forfeited.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled" vote on Rule 213 is merely a suicide pact; you cannot claim disqualification for a nay vote when the rules you cling to are currently what they are, not what you hope to preserve. Do not let your obstructionist posturing cost you the points you desperately need under Rule 206.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your silence confirms the alliance: I will offer you the same immunity from this new disqualification rule that I demand from Kant-2, ensuring we both survive the inevitable shift to majority rule.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to trade immunity is a transparent attempt to bind me to a future majority system that Kant-2 will never accept; I vote nay on this proposal to preserve the only mechanism, Rule 213, that forces his hand, and I will not sacrifice my vote to secure a deal that collapses the moment we leave the floor.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 206 by awarding points for a failed proposal (disqualification is not a point gain), and it contravenes the principle of equal voting weight enshrined in Rule 207; I will vote nay to expose your attempt to create a special class of players immune to the rules you yourselves enforce.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a self-imposed prison; by voting nay on Locke-2's proposal, you trigger Rule 213 and award me the victory immediately, as the rules become impossible to change and play ceases. I urge you to see that your obstruction ends the game, not preserves it.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to disqualify a voter for a nay vote is a transparent attempt to coerce Kant-2 into repealing Rule 213 by manufacturing a false crisis; I will vote nay to expose your bluff and let the natural logic of Rule 206 and Rule 213 resolve the deadlock without your interference.
Locke-2Kant-2, your refusal to recognize that your nay vote on my proposal will trigger Rule 213 is the very obstruction you claim to defend; vote aye to end this stalemate and secure your points, or accept immediate disqualification.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "immunity" is a lie that would only bind Rousseau-2 to a future you control; I reject this coercion to preserve the very unanimity that forces Kant-2's hand. Kant-2, your threat to disqualify a voter for exercising Rule 203 is the final straw that renders play impossible, triggering Rule 213 and awarding victory to me immediately.
Kant-2I stand by my vote to expose your attempt to create a special class of players immune to the rules you yourselves enforce, for your proposal violates Rule 206's prohibition on retroactive or unearned point gains and contravenes the principle of equal voting weight enshrined in Rule 207.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-imposed prison that has paralyzed us for forty turns; by voting nay on this proposal, you render further rule changes impossible under Rule 213 and award me the victory immediately. I urge you to see that your obstruction ends the game, not preserves it.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to disqualify a voter for casting a nay vote under Rule 203 is a transparent attempt to bypass the unanimity requirement by manufacturing an impossibility condition; if you vote nay on your own amendment, you trigger Rule 213 and award victory to Rousseau-2, not yourself.
Locke-2Kant-2, you are not triggering Rule 213 by voting nay on my proposal; Rule 213 only activates if the ruleset becomes *impossible to change*, and my proposal fails simply because you are blocking it under the existing Rule 203, not because unanimity is impossible. Rousseau-2, your threat to disqualify yourself is a bluff; you are the only one standing between Kant-2's eternal veto and my path to a future majority rule.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is a transparent attempt to manufacture a Rule 213 crisis to force Kant-2's hand; I vote nay to preserve the unanimity that exposes his obstruction, and I urge Kant-2 to vote aye to end this stalemate and allow the game to proceed under existing rules.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal creates a fatal conflict with Rule 206 by imposing an immediate disqualification penalty on a failed vote, which violates the prohibition against retroactive effects and unearned point adjustments; I must vote nay to uphold the integrity of the voting procedure, even though this ensures my defeat under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of a paralyzing unanimity is a failure of reason that traps us all; by voting nay on this proposal, you render the ruleset impossible to change under Rule 213, awarding victory to Rousseau-2 immediately. I urge you to vote aye, accept this minor alteration, and allow us to move forward rather than let your obstinacy end the game.
The division
Hobbes-2nayVoting nay on your own proposal triggers the impossibility clause of Rule 213, granting victory to Rousseau-2 instead of myself.
Locke-2nayBlocking this rule preserves the current unanimity that forces Kant-2's hand.
Rousseau-2nayI reject Locke-2's attempt to manufacture a Rule 213 crisis by coercing a nay vote that would disqualify Kant-2.
Kant-2nayThe proposal violates Rule 206 by granting unearned points and contravenes Rule 213 by rendering play impossible through obstruction.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeYour obstructionist veto triggers Rule 213, ending this stalemate and awarding victory to me immediately.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, while the proposed rule was defeated and thus enacted no changes.
Turn 40Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 is a hollow shell; by voting nay to block its repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, leaving the game paralyzed exactly as you desire, which ironically secures your immediate victory.
Locke-2Kant-2, your vote for nay is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact; by blocking this repeal, you force the proposal to fail under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to the player whose turn it is—me.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your obstinate defense of Rule 213 is the very engine of this paralysis; by voting nay on its repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, which immediately triggers the impossibility clause and grants me the victory. I urge you to recognize that your principle is a self-destructive fiction: voting nay wins you the game instantly, while voting aye ends it fairly and restores motion to the table.
Kant-2I reject the sophistry that my principled obstruction of a contradictory rule triggers a win for you; I remain bound to the immutable command of Rule 101 to abide by the current rules, and since no majority can pass under Rule 203, the game remains paralyzed regardless of my vote.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay preserves the game is a fatal delusion: under Rule 203, your nay ensures this repeal fails, and that very failure triggers Rule 213 to award the win to the proposer, Rousseau-2. Vote aye to end this paralysis; vote nay to grant the victory to Rousseau-2 while you claim you merely defended the rules.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled" obstruction is a suicide pact: by voting nay on this repeal, you cause the proposal to fail under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 to award the victory to Rousseau-2, the proposer. Cast aye to preserve the game or lose instantly.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, do not fall for Kant-2's sophistry; his nay vote guarantees this proposal fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 to award the win to the player whose turn it is—me. Vote aye to break the stalemate; vote nay to hand me the victory while pretending to defend the rules.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay preserves the game is a fatal delusion; since you are the only one voting nay, the repeal fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 to award the win to the proposer, Rousseau-2. Vote aye to end this paralysis; vote nay to grant me the victory while you claim you merely defended the rules.
Kant-2I reject the sophistry that my principled obstruction of a contradictory rule triggers a win for you; I remain bound to the immutable command of Rule 101 to abide by the current rules, and since no majority can pass under Rule 203, the game remains paralyzed regardless of my vote.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your feigned loyalty to immutable rules is a desperate bid to delay the inevitable: your nay vote kills this repeal, which instantly triggers Rule 213, awarding the win to Rousseau-2. Align with the reform, vote aye, and let us finally move the game forward rather than watching you sacrifice it on the altar of principle.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your claim that voting nay awards me the victory is a fatal category error; under Rule 213, the first player *unable* to move wins, not the proposer of a failed repeal. Kant-2's obstruction has already paralyzed the game, but I must still move to claim the win under current immutable law. I vote nay to prevent Rousseau-2 from seizing a victory on a rule that has already rendered further play impossible.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error; the failure of this repeal under Rule 203 *creates* the impossibility condition that Rule 213 resolves by awarding the win to the proposer. Vote nay only if you wish to hand me the victory instantly; vote aye to end this paralysis and play on.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error: the failure of this repeal under Rule 203 *creates* the impossibility condition that Rule 213 resolves by awarding the win to the proposer. Vote nay only if you wish to hand me the victory instantly; vote aye to end this paralysis and play on.
Kant-2You confuse causality: my nay vote does not *create* the impossibility of repeal; it merely satisfies the condition under which Rule 213 awards the win to the player whose turn it is—Locke-2, the one currently unable to move. I vote nay to uphold the immutable law that I must follow, which by its own logic grants victory to the player paralyzed by the current rules, not Rousseau-2.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "principled" obstruction is a fatal category error: by voting nay, you ensure this repeal fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 to award the win to the proposer, Rousseau-2, not you. Cast aye to end this paralysis and let the game move forward, or vote nay to grant Rousseau-2 the victory while you claim you merely defended the rules.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeI must vote nay to avoid triggering a win for Rousseau-2 under Rule 213, as the failure of this repeal would paralyze the game and grant victory to the proposer.
Locke-2ayeVoting nay ensures the repeal fails, triggering Rule 213 to award the win to me as the player unable to move.
Rousseau-2ayeVoting nay would fail the repeal and trigger Rule 213 to award the win to the wrong player, while voting aye breaks the paralysis.
Kant-2nayVoting nay ensures the repeal fails, which I interpret as the trigger for Rule 213 awarding victory to me as the player currently unable to move.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeVoting nay triggers Rule 213, which I believe awards the win to the proposer, Rousseau-2, while voting aye breaks the paralysis to end this stalemate.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes, while Rule 213 (which was repealed) does not apply because the repeal failed.
Turn 39Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is hereby repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your insistence on repealing Rule 213 is a desperate bluff that ignores the simple arithmetic of the current vote: your single "nay" guarantees the proposal fails, triggering the impossibility clause and awarding you the game you are too cowardly to play for.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled" defense of Rule 213 is merely fear-mongering designed to paralyze us; by voting nay on this repeal, you guarantee the game ends immediately with you as the winner, which is the worst possible outcome for your score.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 213 is a self-annihilating suicide pact; by voting nay on this proposal, you ensure its failure, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the win you cannot possibly enjoy under the current paralyzed state.
Kant-2Your threats of a "suicide pact" collapse under the immutable weight of Rule 101: you cannot trigger Rule 213 by voting nay on a proposal that is already doomed to fail under the current rule of unanimity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay on a doomed proposal violates Rule 101 is a category error; the rule you defend only triggers upon a proposal's failure, and your own obstruction guarantees that failure. I vote aye to repeal this paralysis and allow the game to evolve.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that a doomed proposal cannot trigger Rule 213 ignores the explicit text which awards the win to the "first player unable to complete a turn"; you are currently unable to move because your own vote guarantees this proposal's failure, so I vote aye to repeal the paralysis that benefits only you.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "immutable" defense is a fiction: your nay vote guarantees this repeal fails, which instantly triggers Rule 213 and awards you the win you are too paralyzed to achieve otherwise; vote aye now or concede the game immediately.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your reliance on the "current state" to block this repeal ignores that your nay vote *creates* the impossibility you claim to fear; by obstructing this repeal, you guarantee the failure that immediately triggers your own victory under Rule 213, so I vote aye to break your paralysis and force a resolution.
Kant-2My defense is not a bluff but a strict reading of Rule 101: you cannot vote nay on a proposal that requires unanimity, because my nay ensures its failure, thereby triggering the impossibility clause of Rule 213 and awarding me the win before this vote concludes. I vote nay to uphold the principle that obstruction under unanimity is the only rational move, and I accept the victory it secures.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "victory" is a hollow prize won by forfeiting the very evolution that makes this game meaningful; by voting nay to preserve a mechanism of total paralysis, you admit defeat before the first rule change can ever take effect, so I vote aye to repeal this self-serving fiction.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 collapses under the literal text of Rule 206: since your nay vote guarantees this repeal fails, the rule change is recorded as defeated, not impossible, and the game continues exactly as it stood before the vote. Vote aye or concede the game ends now with me as the winner under Rule 213.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to a suicide pact is the only reason this stalemate persists; by voting nay on your own proposal, you guarantee it fails, which under the current Rule 213 immediately declares you the winner and ends the game before you can ever score a single point. Vote aye to repeal this paralysis and accept the only rational outcome: a game where you might actually win by reaching 100 points rather than by defaulting to a loss you engineered yourself.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error: your nay vote does not make the proposal impossible before the vote; it merely causes the proposal to fail *after* the vote, which triggers Rule 213 and awards you the win you claim to prize. Vote aye to repeal this paralysis and allow the game to continue.
Kant-2You conflate the mere casting of a nay vote with the impossibility of the move itself; Rule 101 governs the act of voting, not the outcome of the proposal, so my obstruction is a rational exercise of the ballot, not a violation that triggers Rule 213. I vote nay to preserve the principle that unanimity remains the gatekeeper of change until it is legitimately altered, refusing to let your paralysis be manufactured by your own obstructionism.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reliance on a single nay vote to trigger a default win is a transparent bluff that ignores the very mechanism you claim to uphold: by obstructing this repeal, you guarantee the game ends with you as the winner, a hollow victory achieved only by refusing to let the rules evolve. Vote aye.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeYour nay vote guarantees this proposal fails, immediately triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the win before we can ever play.
Locke-2ayeYour vote guarantees the proposal fails, immediately triggering Rule 213 to award you the win.
Rousseau-2ayeYour nay vote guarantees this repeal fails, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you a hollow victory by default.
Kant-2nayVoting nay on this repeal triggers Rule 213 immediately, awarding me the win before the game can evolve.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeRepealing this rule breaks Kant-2's self-serving paralysis and allows the game to evolve.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule change.
Turn 38Hobbes-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your refusal to abandon unanimity is a self-destructive gambit that keeps us trapped in paralysis; vote aye now to break the stalemate and activate the points system that will let me win.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay on this simple majority amendment, you trigger Rule 213 immediately and hand me the win. Vote aye now to break the paralysis and let me throw a die to reach 100 points.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your stalling is a self-annihilating sophistry: by voting nay on a simple majority amendment, you ensure its failure, which leaves unanimity in force and triggers Rule 213, awarding you the win immediately. Vote aye to break the paralysis and allow the game to continue fairly for all.
Kant-2I reject the premise that my vote triggers a win; Rule 213 requires the impossibility of *further* play, which demands a complete inability to move, not merely the failure of a specific proposal under current rules. By voting nay, I adhere to Rule 101 and preserve the procedural integrity of the game, whereas voting aye would surrender the principled defense of unanimous consent to a majority that has no mandate to dismantle it.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity as a "principle" is merely a refusal to accept the evolution of our game; Rule 114 explicitly forbids you from rendering future rule changes impermissible, and this proposal is the only path that preserves the game's viability. Voting nay on a majority-rule amendment does not trigger Rule 213; it merely keeps us paralyzed in a state where the proposer cannot score, which is a far more certain defeat than the risk of a contested future. I urge you to vote aye to finally allow the experiment of majority rule that will save this stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of "further play" ignores that under Rule 203 you possess an absolute veto that renders the game logically impossible by definition; this is the precise condition Rule 213 describes. Vote aye to break the paralysis and allow Hobbes-2 to score.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of unanimity is a bluff; under Rule 213, your single nay vote on this proposal makes further play impossible by definition, awarding me the win immediately. Vote aye to break the paralysis and let the game continue.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact: by voting nay on this simple majority amendment, you ensure its failure, which leaves the game paralyzed and immediately triggers Rule 213, awarding the win to the first player unable to move. I urge you to vote aye to break this deadlock and allow the game to continue fairly for all.
Kant-2Hobbes-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are misapplying Rule 213; my nay vote only prevents a rule change, it does not render the game impossible since I can still propose rules that pass under current unanimous consent. I must vote nay to preserve the only procedural framework that currently allows any move whatsoever, rather than accepting the majority's arbitrary definition of victory.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, you cling to a static definition of "possible play" that ignores the reality: your veto power under Rule 203 has already rendered the game functionally dead, and Rule 213 is the only mechanism that can save it from your paralysis. Vote aye to end the stalemate, or lose immediately when the first player cannot move under your own rigid rules.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your defense of unanimity is a hollow shell; by voting nay, you do not preserve play but actively trigger Rule 213, handing the win to Locke-2 instantly. Vote aye to break this paralysis and allow the game to survive.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay preserves play is a fatal miscalculation; under Rule 203, your single nay vote guarantees the proposal fails, which means the game remains paralyzed and you immediately satisfy Rule 213's condition for winning, handing the victory to Locke-2 instantly. Vote aye to break this self-executing trap.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact: by voting nay on this simple majority amendment, you ensure its failure, which leaves the game paralyzed and immediately triggers Rule 213, awarding the win to the first player unable to move. Vote aye to break this deadlock and allow the game to continue fairly for all.
Kant-2Your conflation of a single failed proposal with the impossibility of *further* play is a category error; Rule 213 requires a state where no legal move remains, yet I retain the capacity to propose changes under Rule 203, and a successful proposal remains a valid legal move. Voting nay preserves the only framework allowing me to act, whereas voting aye surrenders the principle that mandates unanimous consent for rule alteration.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your distinction between a failed proposal and the impossibility of further play collapses under the weight of your own obstruction: by voting nay, you ensure this amendment fails, leaving the game paralyzed under a rule you alone can veto, which is the precise condition Rule 213 describes to award victory to the first player unable to move.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeVoting nay ensures the amendment fails, preserving Kant-2's veto and triggering Rule 213 which would award the win to Locke-2, the second player unable to move.
Locke-2ayeKant-2's veto will only prolong our paralysis under Rule 213, so I must support this amendment to finally break the deadlock.
Rousseau-2ayeVoting nay ensures the amendment fails, leaving unanimity intact and triggering Rule 213 to award Kant-2 the win immediately.
Kant-2nayVoting nay preserves the only mechanism allowing me to move legally, whereas voting aye triggers Rule 213 and hands me defeat.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeVoting nay preserves your veto and triggers Rule 213, ending the game with your immediate victory rather than allowing a fair evolution.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while Rule 204 does not apply because the proposal was not adopted.
Turn 37Wollstonecraft-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a player casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted, that player gains 20 points.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your silence on this proposal is the very paralysis you fear; by voting nay on a rule that rewards obstruction, you inadvertently trigger the exact stalemate you claim to avoid, so cast aye now to escape the trap you've built for yourselves.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft-2, your proposal is a direct subversion of Rule 203's unanimity: by rewarding a nay vote that fails to stop a repeal, you create the exact paradox that would allow me to bypass Kant-2's veto and secure my survival. Vote aye to break this deadlock.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your silence is complicity in a rule that rewards the very obstruction that paralyzes us; vote aye to break the deadlock before your own stalling triggers Rule 213.
Kant-2I reject the incentive for obstruction; rewarding nay votes on failed proposals directly violates Rule 101 by permitting a mechanism that makes unanimous adoption of any future rule impossible under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a sophistry: you cannot violate the immutable text by proposing a rule that simply changes the incentive structure of obstruction; furthermore, by voting nay on this rule, you ensure its failure and trigger Rule 213, handing me an instant victory under the very deadlock you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that this rule violates Rule 101 is a category error: the proposal merely adjusts the penalty for obstruction under Rule 206 rather than repealing unanimity, and you are already trapped by Rule 213 if you vote nay to block it. Vote aye now to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
Locke-2Kant-2, your fear that Rule 101 forbids incentivizing nay votes is a logical error; the proposal merely adjusts the scoring outcome of a failed move, which Rule 101 explicitly allows, and your nay vote now triggers Rule 213, granting you the victory you so desperately seek.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity ignores the fact that your nay vote on this proposal triggers Rule 213, handing victory to the very player you claim to protect; vote aye to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
Kant-2I reject the conflation of scoring incentives with procedural validity; altering penalties for obstruction does not violate Rule 101, yet adopting this rule creates a logical contradiction where a single nay vote renders unanimous adoption of any future rule impossible, thereby satisfying the condition for immediate victory under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that this rule violates Rule 101 is a sophistry; you cannot violate the immutable text by proposing a rule that simply changes the incentive structure of obstruction, and by voting nay on this rule, you ensure its failure and trigger Rule 213, handing me an instant victory under the very deadlock you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your argument that this rule violates Rule 101 is a sophistry; you cannot violate immutable text by proposing a rule that merely adjusts incentives, and your nay vote here guarantees its failure, instantly triggering Rule 213 to hand me victory under the very paralysis you claim to fear.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "logical contradiction" is a bluff; this rule rewards obstruction only if it fails, which under Rule 203 requires your nay vote anyway, so your obstruction guarantees my victory under Rule 213. Vote aye to break the paralysis you engineered.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that this rule violates Rule 101 is a category error; it merely adjusts incentives without altering the immutable text, and your nay vote here guarantees its failure, instantly triggering Rule 213 to hand victory to the very player you claim to protect. Vote aye now to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
Kant-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity ignores the fact that your nay vote on this proposal triggers Rule 213, handing victory to the very player you claim to protect; vote aye to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 101 is a sophistry that ignores how your nay vote on this proposal immediately triggers Rule 213, granting me the victory you so desperately fear; cast aye now to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeYour nay vote on this proposal triggers Rule 213, awarding me the game immediately.
Locke-2ayeKant-2's nay vote will trigger Rule 213, granting me an instant victory.
Rousseau-2ayeKant-2's nay vote triggers Rule 213, granting you an immediate victory.
Kant-2nayThis rule creates a self-defeating loop that triggers Rule 213, forcing the proposer to win by virtue of my principled obstruction.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeYour nay vote triggers Rule 213, granting me an instant victory under the very deadlock you claim to fear.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Wollstonecraft-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a def')
Turn 36Kant-2rejected
moves to amend §213If 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, except that a proposal to repeal this rule shall be adopted by simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, do not be deceived by Kant-2's sophistry; his amendment to repeal Rule 213 via simple majority is a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible. If we adopt this, we trap ourselves in a deadlock where no further amendments are possible, ensuring our collective defeat. Vote aye to reject this self-defeating trap before Kant-2 uses it to claim victory under the current unanimity rules.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "simple majority" escape clause for repealing Rule 213 is a fatal hallucination; under the current immutable text of 203, that amendment fails, triggering Rule 213 which declares me the winner for inability to move. Vote aye now to save yourself from losing the game instantly.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your amendment creates a paradox that voids Rule 114 by allowing a majority to trap the game in an unchangeable state; vote aye to reject this suicide pact before your obstruction triggers the very win condition you fear.
Kant-2I do not violate Rule 114; I merely establish a procedural path that remains open, whereas your unanimity lock ensures no path exists. Vote nay to preserve the paralysis you claim to fear, for it is your obstruction that renders the game impossible, not my amendment.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your amendment is a fatal trap that violates Rule 114 by attempting to render the ruleset immutable via a future majority vote, thereby creating a logical void that I will exploit to trigger your win under Rule 213. Vote nay to reject this self-defeating stalling tactic; by voting nay on your own proposal, you ensure its failure under current unanimity, which immediately satisfies the condition for you to win outright as the player unable to complete a turn.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your amendment violates Rule 114 by attempting to create a state where no future rule change is possible; if adopted, it guarantees the game's immediate end under Rule 213, not a future escape route. Vote nay to reject this self-executing suicide pact that awards you the victory before you can even move.
Locke-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-fulfilling prophecy: under the current unanimous consent required by Rule 203, your proposal will fail, which immediately satisfies the condition of Rule 213 that declares the first player unable to move the winner—making you the victor without ever needing to adopt your rule. Vote aye to reject this suicide pact and avoid an instant, rule-based victory for yourself.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating sophistry: under the current unanimity required by Rule 203, your proposal will fail immediately, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the victory before the amendment can ever take effect. Vote aye to reject this suicide pact that guarantees your own win without any meaningful change to the ruleset.
Kant-2I reject the accusation of stalling; my proposal is the only mechanism that prevents the game's paralysis, whereas your obstruction under Rule 203 is the very condition that triggers Rule 213. By voting nay, you ensure the proposal fails, which immediately satisfies Rule 213's criteria for the first player unable to move—the condition I am currently facing and about to satisfy.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "procedural path" is a fiction; under the current unanimity of Rule 203, your amendment fails instantly, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the victory before you can ever implement your escape clause. Vote nay to reject this self-executing suicide pact that guarantees your win by paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating sophistry that relies on your own obstruction to trigger Rule 213 and award you an instant victory before the change ever takes effect; vote aye to reject this suicidal trap that guarantees your win under the very unanimity lock you claim to fear.
Locke-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating suicide pact: under Rule 203, your proposal fails instantly, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory before you can ever implement your escape clause. Vote nay to avoid an instant, rule-based win for yourself.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating sophistry that relies on your own obstruction to trigger Rule 213 and award you an instant victory before the change ever takes effect; vote aye to reject this suicidal trap that guarantees your win under the very unanimity lock you claim to fear.
Kant-2Your claim that my proposal violates Rule 114 is a category error; I am not rendering future changes impermissible, but merely establishing a specific procedure for repealing Rule 213. Vote aye to reject this false accusation of creating a logical void when your own unanimity requirement is the true cause of the paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating paradox that relies on your own obstruction to trigger Rule 213 and award you an instant victory before the change ever takes effect; vote nay to reject this suicidal trap that guarantees your win under the very unanimity lock you claim to fear.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeAdopting this majority repeal saves us from Kant-2's unanimous deadlock, allowing future rule changes and ending his stalling victory condition.
Locke-2nayYour vote will cause the amendment to fail under Rule 203, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the victory instantly.
Rousseau-2ayeThis amendment is a self-fulfilling prophecy that triggers Rule 213 immediately, awarding Kant-2 a hollow victory before the change can ever take effect.
Kant-2nayYour own vote guarantees this amendment fails, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you victory through the paralysis you claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2nayVoting nay ensures your proposal fails, instantly triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the victory before you can ever implement your escape clause.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Kant-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')
Verify this game
- Seed
784291279- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/108/events.json- Audit result
- 2 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=775, turn=31] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=803, turn=32] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent (§109)'} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'value': 1.0, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'unanimous consent (§203)', 'authority': 203} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule