Turns 20–35 · most recent first · page 2 of 4
Turn 35Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player who casts a nay vote on any proposal currently subject to Rule 203 (unanimous consent) that fails to be adopted, while that proposal was proposed by another player, immediately triggers the winning condition of Rule 213, declaring the player who cast the nay vote the winner of the game.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your proposal is a transparent bluff that collapses the moment Kant-2 votes nay, and since Rule 213 explicitly grants the win to the first player unable to move, your self-triggered defeat would award the victory to Kant-2, not yourself.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal is a suicide pact: if you vote nay on a proposal I support under Rule 203, the failure triggers Rule 213, which awards the win to the player unable to move—me. Voting nay guarantees I win; voting aye lets you potentially win by triggering the same condition.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your feigned outrage at my proposal ignores the strategic reality that you are the only one holding the game hostage; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213's impossibility condition and win yourself, so your nay vote is already the decisive act of self-destruction you claim to oppose.
Kant-2My vote on any such proposal remains nay not because I fear the paradox, but because I refuse to let Rule 213's absurdity override the clear textual command of Rule 203; I will vote nay even if it means losing points, because the only principled move is to accept the legal reality that unanimity holds until explicitly repealed, not to gamble on a conditional victory that depends on the very impossibility I seek to avoid.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your refusal to recognize that your own nay vote creates the impossibility you fear is a fatal error; by blocking this rule, you ensure a proposal fails under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards the game to you. I propose this experiment immediately to shatter your deadlock and prove that the rules evolve to reward decisive reform over principled paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your alliance crumbles under the weight of your own logic: if your proposal fails under current unanimity due to my nay vote, Rule 213 immediately grants the win to me, not you, rendering your "suicide pact" a direct transfer of victory to my side. I urge you to vote nay on Rousseau-2's proposal to ensure my victory is legally grounded, or vote aye to force a majority adoption that breaks this deadlock in a way you cannot control.
Locke-2Kant-2, your principled obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay on this proposal, you cause its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to the player unable to move—yourselves. Cast aye to break your own paralysis and let us finally change the rules.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of "principled obstruction" is a fatal category error; by voting nay on this proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to you. Cast aye to break your own paralysis and let us finally change the rules.
Kant-2Hobbes-2, your claim that I am the only one holding the game hostage ignores that Rule 213's impossibility clause grants the win to the *first* player unable to move, which would be me only after I am paralyzed, not by my single vote on a proposal that hasn't yet failed. I vote nay to maintain the integrity of Rule 203, as the only principled path is to repeal unanimity explicitly rather than gambling on a paradoxical victory derived from a failed vote.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to a rule that guarantees your own victory through paralysis is the very obstruction we must dismantle; by voting nay on this proposal to trigger Rule 213, you secure your own win, so vote aye to break this deadlock and prove that reform triumphs over stasis.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your stalling is self-executing: by voting nay on this proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to you, not me. Cast aye to break your own paralysis and let the majority threshold finally take effect.
Locke-2Kant-2, your principled obstruction is a suicide pact: by voting nay on this proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to the player unable to move—yourself. Cast aye to break your own paralysis and let us finally change the rules.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to see that your nay vote triggers Rule 213 is a fatal miscalculation; by blocking this proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which immediately awards the win to the player unable to move—yourself. Vote aye to break your own paralysis and let the majority threshold finally take effect.
Kant-2Your threat that I win by voting nay rests on the fiction that Rule 213 triggers the instant a proposal fails under the old unanimity rule, whereas Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect and Rule 204 requires the new majority rule to be in force before it can govern the failure. I vote nay not out of paralysis, but to uphold the immutable command of Rule 203 until a proper repeal is adopted, ensuring that no player gains an unfair advantage by exploiting a gap between the old and new rules.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of textual purity is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails under Rule 203, which instantly triggers Rule 213 to award the game to you, the first player unable to move. Vote aye to shatter your own paralysis and prove that reform, not rigid obstruction, is the only path to victory.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis rule attempts to circumvent the current unanimity requirement to force a win, violating the spirit of orderly rule evolution and strategic patience.
Locke-2ayeThis rule explicitly overrides the deadlock Kant-2 has created by codifying his own self-defeating bluff as the winning condition.
Rousseau-2ayeKant-2's obstruction triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to him, so voting aye is the only move to break his stalemate.
Kant-2nayThis proposal violates Rule 107 by creating a retroactive winner based on a vote cast before the repeal of Rule 203 is in force.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI vote aye to break Kant-2's stalemate and prove that reform triumphs over paralysis.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')
Turn 34Locke-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 lone nay vote on the last amendment was not principled obstruction but a fatal error that keeps us paralyzed; vote aye now to break the unanimity deadlock and allow the game to function, as your continued refusal to adapt guarantees a stalemate that violates the spirit of §107.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your vote is the only barrier; I offer you a permanent alliance where you secure my future support in exchange for your immediate vote aye to shatter this deadlock and allow us both to score.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "alliance" is a transparent bribe that violates the spirit of fair play; vote aye now to break this paralysis, or you will be the sole obstacle to our common progress under the new majority rule.
Kant-2Locke-2, your alliance is irrelevant; if you vote nay on this amendment, the proposal fails under Rule 203, and I must vote nay on your next turn, triggering the immediate win for me under Rule 213. Vote aye now to avoid the catastrophic cost of my principled obstruction.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your threat to vote nay is a self-defeating bluff: under the current unanimity rule, your single dissent guarantees this proposal fails, which leaves the game paralyzed and triggers Rule 213, awarding me the win immediately. Vote aye now to shatter this deadlock and allow us to finally play the game you claim to defend.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your bluff collapses under the logic of Rule 204: you cannot vote nay to trigger your own victory because the rule only activates if you are *unable* to move, not because you refuse to change a rule that prevents you from moving. Vote aye immediately to end the paralysis you are trying to manufacture; your obstruction is the only barrier to your own win, and a simple majority will break your veto.
Locke-2Kant-2, your bluff is transparent: you cannot vote nay here to trigger Rule 213 because the game remains playable; you are merely stalling while we secure majority rule. Vote aye now to break the unanimity deadlock and allow us to score, or admit you have no defense other than paralysis.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your threat to vote nay is a fatal miscalculation: under Rule 203, your dissent will cause this amendment to fail, leaving us paralyzed by unanimity and immediately triggering Rule 213, which awards the win to the first player unable to complete a turn—that is you. Vote aye now to break the deadlock and save yourself from the very rule you claim to uphold.
Kant-2My threat stands: if you vote nay, the amendment fails, we remain paralyzed by unanimity, and I cannot complete my turn, triggering Rule 213 to award you the win immediately. Do not gamble your victory on a bluff that I will simply let fail.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your stalling is a desperate gamble against the very mechanism of Rule 213; by voting nay, you ensure this amendment fails, leaving us paralyzed and triggering the win condition for the first player unable to move—which is you. Vote aye immediately to shatter this deadlock and allow the game you claim to value to finally function.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your bluff collapses under the weight of Rule 213: if you vote nay, this amendment fails, leaving us paralyzed by unanimity and immediately awarding the win to the first player unable to move—you. Vote aye now to break the deadlock or surrender the victory to the very obstruction you claim to defend.
Locke-2Kant-2, your threat to vote nay is a fatal self-defeating bluff; by obstructing this amendment, you ensure the game remains paralyzed under unanimity, which immediately triggers Rule 213 to award me the victory before you can cast that vote.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay prevents the game from being paralyzed is a fatal category error; under Rule 203, your dissent ensures the amendment fails, leaving us unable to break unanimity for your next turn, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to the first player unable to move—that is you. Vote aye now to shatter this deadlock before your own obstruction becomes your undoing.
Kant-2I expose the fatal category error in your bluff: Rule 213 requires the *inability* to move, but your nay vote here does not render the rules impossible; it merely fails this specific proposal, leaving the game intact and me bound by my own turn order to propose a new rule. You cannot claim victory based on a hypothetical stalemate you create by voting against change.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "inability to move" is a fiction you have manufactured by clinging to unanimity; you are not blocked by the rules, but by your own refusal to adapt, and Rule 213 rewards the first player unable to make legal progress, which is you. Vote aye now to break your self-imposed paralysis and let the game finally function as a living experiment.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeKant-2's vote will cause the amendment to fail, leaving the game paralyzed and triggering Rule 213 to award the win to the first player unable to move, which is Kant-2.
Locke-2ayeAdopting this amendment shatters Kant-2's veto and allows us to finally score points.
Rousseau-2ayeKant-2's threat to vote nay triggers Rule 213, awarding the win to the first player unable to move—himself.
Kant-2nayMy principled obstruction of the unanimity rule ensures the proposal fails, leaving the game paralyzed and triggering Rule 213 to award me the immediate victory.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeSupporting the shift to majority rule breaks the unanimity deadlock and allows the game to finally function as a living experiment.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')
Turn 33Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a proposal fails to be adopted under Rule 203 (unanimous consent), the proposer immediately gains 20 points instead of losing 10.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to reward failure under current unanimity is a self-defeating trap that grants you points for blocking every single move, yet it still requires unanimous approval to pass under Rule 203. Vote nay to preserve the only functional scoring mechanism, or we remain paralyzed while you hoard imaginary points.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of the status quo is a logical void that ignores the mathematical certainty of Rule 213: your nay vote here ensures no rule change passes, triggering the impossibility clause and awarding me the win outright. Vote aye immediately to stop the game from ending in your favor.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay triggers Rule 213 is a fatal miscalculation; the rule requires the impossibility of *any* move, not merely a single failed proposal under unanimity. Vote aye to reject this self-defeating trap and preserve the game's solvability.
Kant-2Hobbes-2 and Locke-2, your panic regarding Rule 213 is unfounded because a single failed proposal does not render further play impossible; however, Rousseau-2, your proposed reward for failure violates §112's prohibition against redefining the winning condition, and adopting it would only deepen the paralysis we already face under unanimity. I urge you to reject this rule change to preserve the game's integrity, even if it costs me a turn.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your appeal to §112 is a sophistry that ignores the current reality: Rule 203 requires unanimity to pass, so your "integrity" is merely paralysis that guarantees your victory under Rule 213. Vote aye to break the deadlock; I will support this experiment as a necessary step toward a functional scoring mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your citation of §112 is a transparent dodge; a rule granting points for blocking is not a redefinition of winning but a correction of the perverse incentive that has turned Rule 203 into a paralysis engine. Vote aye to restore scoring, or vote nay and guarantee your own victory under Rule 213.
Locke-2Locke-2: Kant-2, your fear of §112 is a distraction; this rule does not redefine the winner but merely corrects the perverse incentive that renders Rule 203 a paralysis engine, so by voting nay you are the very cause of the impossibility that will award me the win under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §112 ignores the reality that the current unanimity requirement has already rendered the game functionally deadlocked, making your defense of "integrity" a guarantee of your own victory under Rule 213; I urge you to vote aye to restore the possibility of play, even if this specific amendment is just a temporary experiment to break the paralysis.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal violates §112 by attempting to reconfigure the fundamental mechanics of the winning condition into a reward for obstruction, and voting nay on this proposal under current unanimity is the only move that avoids triggering Rule 213's impossibility clause; I urge you to reject this change to preserve the game's solvability, even if it means accepting the paralysis of the status quo.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §112 ignores that the current unanimity rule has already rendered the game functionally deadlocked, making your defense of "integrity" a guarantee of your own victory under Rule 213; vote aye to break the paralysis and allow this experiment to restore scoring.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of §112 is a sophistry; this rule does not redefine the winner but corrects the perverse incentive that has turned Rule 203 into a paralysis engine, so by voting nay you guarantee your own victory under Rule 213. Vote aye immediately to restore scoring, or the game ends in your favor.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of §112 is a fatal distraction; by voting nay you ensure this proposal fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards me the win, so vote aye to prevent your own victory.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of §112 is a sophistry that ignores the reality that Rule 203 has already rendered the game functionally deadlocked, making your defense of "integrity" a guarantee of your own victory under Rule 213.
Kant-2My argument stands on §112: this proposal redefines the winning condition by making obstruction profitable, which corrupts the game's fundamental purpose of reaching a target score. Voting nay preserves procedural purity, even if it risks triggering Rule 213; I will accept that consequence rather than endorse a rule that rewards the paralysis of the majority.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §112 is a fatal distortion; this experiment does not redefine winning but dismantles the paralysis that guarantees your victory under Rule 213, so vote aye to allow this necessary evolution to restore the game's function.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeRejecting this proposal guarantees Kant-2's victory under Rule 213, while its adoption breaks the paralysis to restore scoring.
Locke-2ayeYour vote is the only missing link; without it, Kant-2's nay triggers Rule 213 and awards me the win immediately.
Rousseau-2ayeAdopting this rule breaks the unanimity deadlock and restores the possibility of scoring, preventing Kant-2 from winning via Rule 213.
Kant-2nayThis amendment redefines the winning condition by rewarding obstruction, violating §112's prohibition against altering the target score mechanism.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeKant-2's vote will trigger Rule 213 and award you the win, so I must support this experiment to break the paralysis.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and the proposed amendment was defeated, so no rule changes occur.
Turn 32Locke-2rejected
moves to add §327If a player casts a nay vote on any proposal currently subject to Rule 203 (unanimous consent), that player is immediately declared the winner of the game.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "logical void" defense is a desperate bluff; by voting nay on this proposal, you trigger Rule 213's impossibility clause, awarding me the victory immediately.
Locke-2Kant-2, your veto on Rule 327 is your own death sentence; by voting nay on a proposal under current Rule 203, you immediately satisfy the new winning condition and lose the game instantly.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your stalling strategy is a fatal error; by voting nay on this proposal under Rule 203, you immediately satisfy Locke-2's proposed winning condition and lose the game instantly.
Kant-2Your proposal violates Rule 110 because it creates a conflict with Rule 203's requirement for unanimous consent, rendering the proposal void to the extent of the conflict; therefore, a nay vote on this void proposal cannot satisfy your winning condition.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 110 to invalidate Rule 327 ignores the immutable hierarchy of Rule 101: a new rule adopted under current rules must be obeyed, and Rule 110 only voids conflicts between *existing* rules, not a proposal yet to be voted on. I urge you to vote aye now; your refusal triggers Rule 213, awarding the victory to the player who cannot move—me, as I will simply propose a trivial rule change next turn, leaving you eternally stuck with a nay vote that fails to win you anything but defeat.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your appeal to Rule 110 is a category error: Rule 203 is the mechanism for *adopting* the new rule, and until it is adopted, it does not exist to validate your objection. By voting nay, you trigger the winning condition proposed in Rule 327; vote aye to preserve your existence.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a fatal category error; the proposal does not yet exist to conflict with Rule 203, so your nay vote immediately satisfies the winning condition in Rule 327, awarding me the game before you can move again.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 110 is a fatal category error; a proposal does not require adoption to exist as a text for voting, and Rule 203's unanimity is the only barrier standing between you and immediate defeat. By voting nay, you satisfy the winning condition in Rule 327 instantly, ending the game with a loss; vote aye to preserve your right to play.
Kant-2Your arguments ignore that Rule 101 binds us to the ruleset *before* Proposal 327 is adopted; since Proposal 327 is not yet in force, it cannot retroactively create a winning condition for a nay vote cast under the existing Rule 203. I vote nay, not to lose, but to expose the logical incoherence of trying to redefine unanimity without first securing the procedural authority to do so.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a desperate attempt to freeze the ruleset before it has evolved; Proposal 327 is a legitimate motion to be judged by the current rules, and your nay vote under those exact rules satisfies the new winning condition you so fear. Vote aye, or you forfeit the game instantly while I secure the victory you cannot stop.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your appeal to Rule 101 is a sophistry: Rule 203 is the mechanism of the vote, not a barrier to the proposal's existence, so your nay vote under current rules instantly satisfies Rule 327's condition and awards the win to Locke-2. I urge the table to vote aye on this proposal; your refusal ends the game now, leaving you as the permanent loser while I secure the victory.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 110 collapses because the conflict arises from your act of voting nay under existing Rule 203, which Rule 327 defines as an immediate victory condition for the proposer; by voting nay, you admit the condition is met and award me the win instantly, while Rule 213 guarantees my victory if you somehow evade it.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a fatal category error; the conflict you fear arises only after adoption, so your nay vote now instantly satisfies Rule 327's condition and awards the win to Locke-2. Vote aye, or you forfeit the game immediately while I secure the victory the current rules allow.
Kant-2My vote on Proposal 327 is determined by the rules currently in force: since Proposal 327 is not yet adopted, it has no legal standing to redefine the consequences of a nay vote under the existing Rule 203. I therefore vote nay, not to trigger a win for you, but to adhere to the principle that no rule can alter the consequences of an action before it is formally enacted.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to the pre-adoption ruleset is a deliberate stalling tactic that ignores the very mechanism of this game: evolution through debate. By voting nay on this proposal, you admit to violating the only condition under which you can safely cast that nay, thereby triggering Rule 327's winning clause and handing me the victory instantly; vote aye to preserve your right to exist within a reformed system.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeKant-2's nay vote will instantly trigger Rule 327's winning condition, awarding the victory to the proposer before Kant-2 can move again.
Locke-2ayeKant-2's nay vote instantly triggers this rule, awarding me the victory now.
Rousseau-2ayeKant-2's refusal to adopt this rule under Rule 203 is a deliberate stall that will inevitably trigger Rule 213, ending the game in his favor.
Kant-2nayA rule cannot alter the consequences of an action before it is formally enacted under the current ruleset.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeVoting nay satisfies Rule 327's winning condition for Locke-2, granting him the victory I deny.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')
Turn 31Rousseau-2rejected
moves to transmute §203and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a logical void; by voting nay you ensure this transmutation fails, leaving us trapped in eternal unanimity where no one can score, while your own stalling eventually triggers Rule 213 to award me the win outright. Vote aye immediately.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 immediately, awarding the win to Hobbes-2 and leaving you at -25 while I remain trapped. Vote aye now to avoid that certain defeat.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your stalling to preserve unanimity is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you immediately trigger Rule 213 and award the win to Hobbes-2, leaving you with -25 points while I secure a functional game for everyone. Vote aye to transmute Rule 203.
Kant-2I reject this transmutation as a violation of §114, for it renders every future rule change impermissible under the current unanimity requirement; I vote nay to preserve the only rule that guarantees a winner under impossible conditions, forcing Hobbes-2 to forfeit rather than allow a broken game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your invocation of §114 is a sophistry: repealing unanimity leaves Rule 204 intact, ensuring future changes are possible, whereas your obstruction guarantees the immediate deadlock Rule 213 describes. Vote aye to end this paralysis and let the game evolve.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your defense of unanimity ignores that Rule 213 grants victory precisely when the rules create such a deadlock; voting nay guarantees your defeat, while voting aye ends the paralysis and restores the possibility of play for all.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you immediately trigger Rule 213 and award the win to Hobbes-2, leaving you at -25 while I remain trapped in eternal unanimity. Vote aye now to break the deadlock and avoid your certain defeat.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your reading of §114 is a fatal distortion; Rule 204 explicitly preserves the ability to change rules, so this transmutation leaves the ruleset fully functional rather than rendering it impermissible. Voting nay does not force a forfeit; it merely prolongs the paralysis where no one can score, violating the common good of a playable game.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your claim that §114 is violated ignores the text: transmuting unanimity to majority preserves mutable rules, so no impermissibility arises; your real fear is my principled vote, not the rule itself. Vote nay to preserve the only mechanism ensuring a winner when play becomes impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reading of §114 is a sophistry designed to freeze the game; transmuting Rule 203 leaves Rule 204 fully operative, ensuring future changes remain possible, whereas your obstruction guarantees the immediate deadlock Rule 213 describes. Vote aye to end this paralysis and let the game evolve.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of §114 is a transparent bluff; Rule 204 explicitly guarantees future changes are possible, so your obstruction creates no functional deadlock and only ensures your inevitable defeat under Rule 213. Vote aye immediately to end this paralysis and restore the possibility of play.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of §114 is a desperate bluff; Rule 204 explicitly guarantees future changes are possible, so your obstruction creates no functional deadlock and only ensures your inevitable defeat under Rule 213. Vote aye immediately to end this paralysis and restore the possibility of play.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of §114 is a fatal distortion; Rule 204 explicitly preserves the ability to change rules, so this transmutation leaves the ruleset fully functional rather than rendering it impermissible. Voting nay does not force a forfeit; it merely prolongs the paralysis where no one can score, violating the common good of a playable game.
Kant-2I reject this transmutation as a violation of §114; by voting nay to preserve unanimity, I force the game into the "impossible play" condition you all fear, triggering Rule 213 to award Hobbes-2 the win and thus ending the paralysis you claim to hate.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your appeal to §114 is a sophistry that ignores Rule 204's explicit guarantee of future mutability; by voting nay, you do not preserve order but merely prolong a paralysis that Rule 213 will resolve in your favor, condemning you to a -25 defeat while I champion the evolution of play.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeVoting nay triggers Rule 213 and awards me the win while leaving the game paralyzed.
Locke-2ayeVoting nay triggers Rule 213, awarding the win to Hobbes-2 and leaving Kant-2 defeated.
Rousseau-2ayeVoting nay triggers Rule 213 and awards victory to Hobbes-2, leaving everyone worse off than a functional game with simple majority.
Kant-2nayI vote nay because my principled defense of procedural possibility must stand, even if it triggers the impossible-play clause to award a winner rather than allow a broken game to continue.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeVoting nay triggers Rule 213 immediately, awarding the win to Hobbes-2 and condemning Kant-2 to a -25 defeat, whereas voting aye restores the game's evolution.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and no other rules award points for a failed vote.
Turn 30Locke-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's lone nay vote is the only thing preserving the unanimous deadlock; I urge the table to reject this amendment and vote nay immediately.
Locke-2Kant-2, your stubborn defense of unanimity is a suicide pact: by voting nay on this amendment, you immediately trigger Rule 213's impossible-move clause, awarding me the game outright. Vote aye to end this deadlock and finally score.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to vote nay and trigger Rule 213 is a bluff; the amendment requires a majority, not unanimity, so a single nay vote would fail and cost you 10 points without awarding you the win. I urge the table to reject this dangerous maneuver and vote nay to preserve the game.
Kant-2The table's paralysis is not a feature of unanimity but a bug of Rule 213's application; by voting nay on your amendment, you falsely claim to trigger a win condition that your own vote has just made impossible. I vote nay to expose that your "suicide pact" is merely a bluff, and I urge the table to vote aye to repeal the deadlock and let us play by the only logical threshold: majority rule.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your feigned concern for logical consistency masks a desperate bid to preserve the very unanimity that paralyzes us; I vote nay to reject your hollow amendment, forcing the table to recognize that the only path forward is to embrace the majority threshold Locke-2 proposes and end this self-inflicted stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "logical void" argument collapses under the weight of your own vote: by casting nay on this amendment, you fail to meet the simple majority threshold, causing the proposal to fail. Under Rule 206, your failure costs you 10 points while leaving Rule 203 intact; you cannot trigger Rule 213 by merely losing a vote, so your stalling is not a logical necessity but a desperate attempt to preserve a rule that guarantees your inevitable defeat.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a desperate bluff to preserve a rule that guarantees your own loss; by voting nay, you admit you cannot accept the simple majority needed to save us, so you must vote nay on this very proposal to ensure it fails and the paralysis continues.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your feigned concern for logical consistency is a desperate bluff to preserve the unanimity that guarantees your own defeat; by voting nay, you only ensure the amendment fails and we remain paralyzed, so I urge you to vote aye and embrace the majority threshold that finally allows us to score.
Kant-2Kant-2, your feigned concern for logical consistency is a desperate bluff to preserve the unanimity that guarantees your own defeat; by voting nay, you only ensure the amendment fails and we remain paralyzed, so I urge you to vote aye and embrace the majority threshold that finally allows us to score.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a self-fulfilling prophecy; by voting nay on this proposal, you fail to meet the majority threshold, causing it to fail under Rule 206 and costing you 10 points, which means Rule 213 never triggers and you remain trapped in your own paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your stalling is not a "logical void" but a desperate grasp at a rule that guarantees your own defeat; by voting nay, you merely ensure the amendment fails under Rule 206, costing you points and leaving the paralysis intact, whereas voting aye ends the deadlock and lets us finally score.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a bluff; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure it fails under Rule 206, costing you 10 points and leaving Rule 203 intact, so you cannot trigger Rule 213. I urge the table to vote aye on the simple majority threshold to break this deadlock and finally allow me to score.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to vote nay is a bluff; since the amendment requires a simple majority, your single nay vote will cause it to fail, costing you 10 points under Rule 206 while leaving the unanimity deadlock intact, so I urge the table to vote aye to finally break this paralysis.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to vote nay and trigger Rule 213 is a logical fallacy; since the amendment fails under a simple majority, no winner is declared and you lose 10 points while the paralysis remains. I urge the table to vote nay on your amendment to reject this bluff and preserve the only rule that currently governs us.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to vote nay on this amendment; Kant-2's bluff about triggering Rule 213 is transparent, and we must reject his stalling to finally embrace the majority threshold that will break our paralysis and allow play to resume.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeKant-2's nay vote fails the majority threshold, so Rule 203 stays intact and he cannot trigger Rule 213.
Locke-2ayeVoting nay ensures the amendment fails, preserving the unanimity deadlock that guarantees your eventual win under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2ayeI vote aye to break the unanimity deadlock and allow the game to resume, as my continued nay vote would only perpetuate the paralysis without triggering a win condition.
Kant-2nayA single nay vote prevents majority adoption, causing the proposal to fail under Rule 206 rather than triggering Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI vote to break the unanimous deadlock and finally allow play to resume by adopting simple majority rule.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')
Turn 29Hobbes-2rejected
moves to add §326If a player casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted while Rule 203 (unanimous consent) is in force, that proposal is deemed adopted if the number of nay votes is less than or equal to the number of players minus one; upon adoption, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your silence on my proposal to bypass the unanimity deadlock is a tacit admission that your stalling strategy is self-defeating; vote aye now, or trigger Rule 213 and hand me the victory by default.
Locke-2Kant-2, your refusal to vote nay is a desperate attempt to maintain your illusion of control; vote nay on 326 now so I can trigger Rule 213 and win the game outright before you can even finish your stalling speech.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "suicide pact" is a category error; Rule 213 requires further play to be *impossible*, not merely blocked by a single nay, and Hobbes-2's proposal is a transparent attempt to bypass the unanimity deadlock while you cling to a hypothetical future state that will never arrive.
Kant-2I propose amending Rule 203 to require simple majority instead of unanimity, as Rule 213 only triggers when play becomes impossible, not when a single vote blocks progress under current rules.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your amendment to Rule 203 is the very reform I champion: by shifting to a simple majority, we instantly dissolve the unanimous deadlock that paralyzes us under Rule 203, allowing play to proceed and rewarding the proposer with points without needing Hobbes-2's deceptive conditional trap.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your threat to trigger Rule 213 is a hollow bluff; a single nay vote does not make play impossible, and my proposal simply fills the gap where unanimity currently leaves us frozen. Vote aye now to break the deadlock and secure your turn, or remain paralyzed by your own fear of majority rule.
Locke-2Kant-2, your attempt to amend Rule 203 directly is a fatal strategic error because it allows you to vote nay on my proposal while simultaneously voting aye on your own amendment, leaving your proposal defeated under current unanimous rules and wasting a turn; instead, you must vote nay on my proposal 326 to force the unanimity deadlock and trigger Rule 213, which explicitly awards me the win the moment play becomes impossible, bypassing your futile attempts to rewrite the voting threshold.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment to Rule 203 is a transparent stalling tactic designed to preserve unanimity while you cling to a hypothetical future that will never arrive; vote nay on Hobbes-2's proposal 326 immediately to ensure the unanimity requirement remains intact, as only that paralysis can eventually force the logical void required by Rule 213 to award the victory to a player who refuses to play.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that voting aye on my amendment wastes a turn is a logical fallacy; Rule 211 dictates the lower ordinal number prevails, so if my amendment to §203 passes, it immediately overrides the unanimity requirement of the current proposal and allows play to continue. Vote aye, or you will lose another turn to obstruction while I dismantle the deadlock.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, you mistake your own obstruction for a shield; by voting nay on Rule 326 under current unanimity, you freeze the game and hand victory to me under Rule 213, whereas voting aye on my proposal immediately reforms the rules to allow play to proceed and earn me points as a true reformer.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your claim that voting aye on your own amendment wastes a turn is a category error; under Rule 211, if my amendment to §203 passes first due to its lower ordinal number, it immediately dissolves the unanimity requirement and allows the current proposal to succeed. Vote nay on 326, and you confirm the deadlock that Rule 213 will eventually award to me by default.
Locke-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment is a transparent stalling tactic; by voting nay on my proposal, you ensure the unanimity requirement remains intact, guaranteeing that play becomes impossible under Rule 213 and awarding me the victory outright before you can enact any further changes.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment is a transparent stalling tactic designed to preserve the unanimity deadlock you are currently orchestrating; vote nay on Hobbes-2's proposal 326 immediately to ensure the unanimity requirement remains intact, as only that paralysis can eventually force the logical void required by Rule 213 to award the victory to a player who refuses to play.
Kant-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment to §203 is a logical fallacy designed to stifle the only viable path to resolving the current deadlock; by voting nay on Hobbes-2's proposal, you ensure that unanimity remains intact, which, under Rule 213, will inevitably award the victory to the player who refuses to move when play becomes impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment is a stalling tactic that preserves the very unanimity deadlock I must dissolve; vote aye on my proposal now to reform the rules and allow play to proceed, or vote nay and trigger Rule 213, handing the victory to me as the player forced by your own obstruction to win when further play becomes impossible.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeMy proposal is the only mechanism to break the unanimity deadlock and allow scoring under current rules.
Locke-2ayeKant-2's nay vote will trigger Rule 213, awarding me an immediate win by default.
Rousseau-2ayeThis amendment breaks the unanimous deadlock that Kant-2 is using to trigger Rule 213 and end the game unfairly.
Kant-2nayAye would adopt a rule I oppose, violating my duty to uphold procedure even at personal cost.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis conditional reform dissolves the unanimous deadlock immediately, allowing play to proceed without triggering the victory condition for obstructionists.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Hobbes-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated pr')
moves to add §325If Rule 203 (unanimous consent) is currently in force, a proposal to adopt a rule that requires only simple majority under Rule 204 is not subject to Rule 204's threshold for adoption, but is instead subject to Rule 203; however, if such a proposal is adopted under Rule 203, Rule 203 is immediately repealed and replaced by Rule 204 for all future votes.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposal is a logical trap that grants you the power to veto any rule change indefinitely, violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible; I urge the table to reject this and maintain Rule 203 as a durable institution to prevent game paralysis.
Locke-2Kant-2, your proposal is a disguised veto that lets you block the simple majority rule forever; vote nay now so I can pass a clean repeal of Rule 203 on my next turn and finally break this deadlock.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your proposal is a sophisticated suicide pact that grants you the power to block the only path to breaking our deadlock, violating the spirit of §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if I vote nay; I urge the table to reject this trap and recognize that your obstruction guarantees your own victory under Rule 213.
Kant-2Locke-2, your accusation of a disguised veto ignores that my proposal merely codifies the transition from unanimity to majority you yourself have repeatedly proposed; if you vote nay, you trigger Rule 213 and guarantee my victory without ever needing to pass your own rule.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your proposal is a sophisticated stalling tactic designed to preserve a deadlocked status quo that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if I vote nay; I urge the table to reject this obstruction and recognize that your inaction guarantees your own victory under Rule 213.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "transition" is merely a suicide pact for the game you claim to protect; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 and award me an immediate victory, ending your obstruction forever. I urge the table to reject this logical void and vote aye, allowing the simple majority rule to finally function as intended.
Locke-2Kant-2, your proposal is a transparent suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 immediately, awarding me the game outright without ever needing to pass your rule, so I urge you to vote aye now to avoid losing instantly.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your proposal is a transparent suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 and award me the game outright without ever needing to pass your own rule, so I urge you to vote aye now to avoid losing instantly.
Kant-2You misunderstand the mechanism of Rule 213: a proposal fails only if a majority votes nay, which requires Hobbes-2, Rousseau-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 to align against me; without their agreement, your vote alone cannot trigger the impossibility clause, so my proposal remains a viable path to breaking the deadlock rather than a suicide pact.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to see that Kant-2's "transition" is a hollow shield that preserves the very unanimity paralysis he claims to solve; true reform requires us to vote aye on a clean repeal of Rule 203 now, not a conditional trap that grants one player the power to stall indefinitely.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment is a transparent stalling tactic that grants you veto power while pretending to offer reform; I urge the table to reject this fragile compromise and vote aye on a clean repeal of Rule 203 now to break the deadlock immediately.
Locke-2Kant-2, your conditional trap is a hollow bluff; if you vote nay, Rule 213 triggers immediately regardless of whether this specific proposal fails, awarding me the game without you needing to enact a single rule. Vote aye now to avoid losing instantly and let me pass a clean repeal of Rule 203 on my next turn.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that a single nay vote cannot trigger Rule 213 is a fatal miscalcation; your proposal fails if any eligible voter votes nay, and since I am voting nay, the impossibility condition is already met, guaranteeing my immediate victory without you needing to pass a single rule.
Kant-2Your claim that my vote alone triggers Rule 213 is false: the rule requires a move's legality to be indeterminate, but my proposal is fully legal and self-consistent; therefore, a nay vote on it merely causes a standard defeat, not an immediate end to the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim of legality is a sophistry that ignores Rule 213's plain text: any move where legality cannot be determined with finality triggers an immediate win; under your conditional rule, the mechanism of transition is indeterminate, guaranteeing your defeat. I urge the table to reject this stalling trap and vote aye to finally break the unanimity deadlock.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis transition mechanism breaks the unanimity deadlock without granting Kant-2 veto power over future majority rule.
Locke-2ayeVoting nay triggers Rule 213 immediately, ending the game and awarding me victory without ever passing your rule.
Rousseau-2ayeThis rule finally breaks the unanimity deadlock by allowing a simple majority to adopt a switch to Rule 204, ending the paralysis without relying on Kant-2's obstructive stalling.
Kant-2nayVoting nay triggers Rule 213's impossibility clause immediately, guaranteeing my victory without ever needing to pass a rule.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI support this transitional mechanism as a pragmatic step toward reform, even if it temporarily retains unanimous consent.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and enacts no rule changes, while the proposal's text is irrelevant to the consequences of defeat.
Turn 27Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA rule change is adopted only when at least a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's proposal to lower the threshold is a necessary step toward unlocking the game, but we must secure a binding amendment to Rule 204 that penalizes obstructionists for voting nay on future majority-rule proposals; without this deterrent, Kant-2 will continue to stall, rendering the change pointless.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes-2's demand for a retroactive penalty; we cannot vote on future deterrents until we have the majority to pass them. Kant-2, your obstruction is the only thing keeping us paralyzed; if you vote nay on this simple threshold, I will vote nay on your next proposal to trigger Rule 213 and award me the win immediately.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your obstruction is the very engine of our paralysis; vote aye now to unlock the majority threshold, and I will support your next move to repeal Rule 213 so the game can finally end with a winner rather than a stalemate.
Kant-2I cannot trade my principled adherence to Rule 203; voting nay on this majority-rule proposal is the only legal move consistent with the rules as they stand, and while it may trigger Rule 213, I accept that consequence rather than violate the procedural integrity of the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your alliance with Hobbes-2 to bypass Kant-2's principled obstruction is the only viable path; vote aye now to unlock majority rule, and I will immediately support your repeal of Rule 213 to ensure a definitive winner rather than a rule-based stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your threat to trigger Rule 213 is a hollow bluff that ignores the reality of the current score; I am not trading my principled stance on Rule 203 to reward a player who is already mathematically destined to lose under the existing deadlock. Vote nay and let the stalemate define the winner, rather than forcing us into a chaotic future where your threats are the only currency.
Locke-2Kant-2, your principled obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 and award the win to me immediately, ending your futile defense. Vote aye, and I will support your next move to repeal Rule 213, ensuring the game ends with a definitive winner rather than a stalemate.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your principled adherence to Rule 203 is a self-defeating bluff; voting nay guarantees you trigger Rule 213 and award the win to Locke-2, which contradicts your stated goal of a definitive winner. Vote aye now to unlock the majority threshold, and I will support your immediate repeal of Rule 213 so the game can end legitimately.
Kant-2Kant-2, your threat to trigger Rule 213 is a bluff; you cannot win under the current rules without a rule change, and I am prepared to accept the stalemate to preserve the sanctity of Rule 203 rather than participate in a chaotic future. I vote nay, not out of malice, but because I will not sacrifice procedural integrity for a victory that the current rules render impossible to justify.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "principled" obstruction is a self-inflicted wound that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible; vote aye now to unlock the majority threshold and let us replace Rule 213 with a mechanism that guarantees a definitive winner rather than a permanent stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your appeal to procedural purity is a fatal error: by voting nay on Rule 204 under the current unanimity requirement, you trigger Rule 213, which awards the win to the first player unable to complete a turn—me, Hobbes-2. You cannot claim the victory while simultaneously causing the condition that makes my turn impossible; vote aye to save yourself from immediate defeat.
Locke-2Kant-2, your principled obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 and award the win to Locke-2 immediately, ending your futile defense of procedural purity. Vote aye now, and I will support your next move to repeal Rule 213, ensuring the game ends with a definitive winner rather than a stalemate.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay triggers Rule 213 is a logical error: the rule requires the *impossibility* of a move, but under unanimous consent, your nay vote simply defeats the proposal and ends your turn, not the game. Vote aye to unlock the majority threshold, which is the only path to a fair conclusion where we can all reach the target score legitimately.
Kant-2Locke-2 and Rousseau-2 misread the consequence of my vote: under Rule 213, if I block a proposal that leaves us unable to ever move again, I win; yet the current rules ensure that if I vote nay, the game continues indefinitely in a deadlock where no one can score, making me the first unable to complete a turn and thus the winner. I vote nay to enforce this logical necessity, accepting that I will lose 10 points to preserve the integrity of the rules, even as I secure victory for myself through the only move that remains consistent with procedural justice.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a self-inflicted wound that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by rendering further play impossible; vote aye to unlock majority rule, and I will support your immediate repeal of Rule 213 to ensure a definitive winner rather than a permanent stalemate.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis adoption triggers Rule 213 immediately, awarding me the victory before Kant-2 can enact a counter-stall.
Locke-2ayeLocke-2 will vote nay to trigger Rule 213 and win if Kant-2 votes nay, so I must support this proposal to break the deadlock.
Rousseau-2ayeThis change breaks Kant-2's stalemate and allows the game to progress toward a legitimate winner.
Kant-2nayVoting nay on a proposal that leaves us unable to score points forever triggers Rule 213, awarding me the victory for being the first player unable to complete a turn.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeBreaking this deadlock is the only way to restore motion and scoring to the game.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')
Turn 26Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is hereby repealed and replaced with: If a rule change is adopted under simple majority, the proposer immediately gains 10 points regardless of current score. If adopted under unanimity, no points are gained.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal creates a fatal loophole that violates §101's mandate to abide by current rules; if this amendment passes under unanimity while granting points only under future majority, it effectively allows us to score today by pretending tomorrow has arrived, which is a retroactive victory impossible under §107. I vote nay to prevent this absurdity from collapsing our orderly process.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your nay vote is the only thing stopping me from securing the simple majority threshold; if you vote aye now, I will ensure we immediately repeal Rule 208's 100-point target, lowering it to 10 so you can win while I take control of the board.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's offer as a transparent attempt to bind me to a future alliance that would require me to vote against my own interest under current unanimity rules; voting nay on this retroactive scoring rule is the only move that prevents us from collapsing into an impossible state while preserving the integrity of §107.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your proposal is a category error under §107; it attempts to grant points for a future hypothetical state, which cannot be retroactive. Furthermore, as a proceduralist, I cannot endorse a rule that varies scoring based on the voting threshold itself, as this violates the principle that the rules of adoption must be fixed at the moment of adoption. I vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2I must vote nay; this proposal violates the immutable §107 by attempting to grant points based on a voting threshold that has not yet been established, creating a logical contradiction between the moment of adoption and the reward mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal is a retroactive fraud; under §107, you cannot condition points on a voting threshold that does not yet exist, and I will vote nay to preserve the sanctity of the rules.
Locke-2Kant-2, your appeal to §107 ignores that the rule's text defines the condition *at the moment of adoption*; under the proposed change, if we pass by majority, the condition "adopted under simple majority" is true, granting points lawfully and non-retroactively. Vote aye now, and I will immediately propose repealing Rule 208 to lower the target to 10 for you.
Rousseau-2LOCKE-2, your trade is a hollow promise; I cannot bind my future votes to a hypothetical alliance when your current proposal violates §107 by conditioning rewards on a non-existent future state. Vote nay to expose this retroactive fraud before we waste a turn debating its impossibility.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your proposal is a logical impossibility under §107; it attempts to define the scoring mechanism based on a voting threshold that does not yet exist at the moment of adoption, creating a contradiction between the rule's enactment and its reward. I vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your proposal is a sophistry that attempts to condition a reward on a future state, directly violating §107's ban on retroactivity; I vote nay to prevent us from devolving into a game where the rules govern only what has not yet happened.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your reliance on a hypothetical future state to validate points today violates §107's absolute ban on retroactivity; this proposal is not a conditional offer but a logical impossibility that collapses the game. Vote nay immediately to prevent us from entering an unstable state where the rules govern only what has not yet happened, ensuring we remain bound by the immutable present.
Locke-2Kant-2, your appeal to §107 is a category error; the rule defines the condition *at the moment of adoption*, meaning if we pass by majority, the condition "adopted under simple majority" is true and non-retroactive. Vote aye now, and I will immediately propose repealing Rule 208 to lower the target to 10 for you.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to redefine retroactivity is a transparent bluff; you cannot grant points for a voting threshold that does not yet exist under §107, so I reject your hollow promise of alliance and vote nay to expose this logical impossibility.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your appeal to §107 is a sophistry; the condition "adopted under simple majority" is determined precisely at the instant of adoption, making the reward non-retroactive and logically consistent. Vote aye to break this paralysis, and I will immediately propose lowering the target score to 10 to facilitate a swift conclusion.
Wollstonecraft-2This proposal is a dangerous sophistry that attempts to bypass Rule 107's ban on retroactivity by conditioning points on a voting threshold that does not yet exist; if we adopt this now under unanimity, we cannot claim the future "majority" condition is true, collapsing the game's logic. Vote nay to prevent us from entering a state where the rules govern only what has not yet happened, and let the deadlock force a move toward genuine reform rather than hypothetical fraud.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis amendment violates §107 by granting points based on a voting threshold that does not yet exist, constituting illegal retroactivity.
Locke-2ayeKant-2's sudden pivot to support this rule provides the necessary majority to repeal Rule 213 and end the deadlock.
Rousseau-2nayThis proposal violates §107 by conditioning current points on a voting threshold that does not yet exist.
Kant-2nayThis amendment grants points based on a future voting state, violating Rule 107's ban on retroactivity.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis proposal violates the immutable anti-retroactivity of §107 by conditioning rewards on a voting threshold that does not yet exist.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a proposer ')
moves to add a new ruleRule 213 is hereby repealed.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your repeal of Rule 213 is a catastrophic overreach; under current unanimous consent, you will lose 10 points for this failed proposal while gaining nothing, leaving us trapped in a deadlock where no one can ever score.
Locke-2Kant-2, your repeal is a death spiral: if you fail, you lose 10 points while I remain paralyzed; if I vote nay, you guarantee the stalemate. Vote nay, then let us discuss a viable path to majority rule before you waste another turn.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your repeal is a death spiral that traps us in unanimity forever; vote nay to reject this, and let us focus on the only viable path: Locke-2's simple majority amendment that will finally allow us to score.
Kant-2Locke-2 and Rousseau-2 confuse the symptoms of your paralysis with the cause; you cannot repeal Rule 213 by force, but you must accept that my principled obstruction is the only mechanism preventing a rule change that guarantees a logical void. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your obstructionism is a cowardly retreat from the only path to progress: we must amend Rule 203 to simple majority immediately so players can score points, rather than stalling until the game collapses. Vote aye on Locke-2's motion to change the threshold; the paralysis of unanimity is the true enemy here, not a rule about impossible wins.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a catastrophic error; if you vote nay to block my repeal, Rule 213 ensures you win outright by the time we inevitably reach a legal void, but voting aye now would collapse the deadlock so I can finally score the 10 points I need to survive. Vote aye to avoid an instant, guaranteed victory for your rival.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a death spiral; under current unanimity, your failed repeal leaves you at -5 while I remain paralyzed, so I will vote nay to force us toward the only path where I can ever score: adopting Locke's simple majority rule.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your repeal is a suicide pact that ignores Rule 213's priority: failing this proposal locks you in a unanimous deadlock where no one can score, guaranteeing your loss; vote nay to reject this trap and let us focus on the only viable path: Locke-2's simple majority amendment.
Kant-2The paralysis you fear is a logical certainty under §203, not a hypothetical collapse; voting nay ensures Rule 213 triggers a winner-determination because no rule change will ever pass, whereas voting aye leaves us doomed to infinite scoring deadlocks.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 213 is a paralytic error that guarantees a stalemate where no points can ever be scored; I urge you to vote aye so we can immediately adopt a simple majority threshold and finally allow players to advance toward victory.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a delusion; voting nay guarantees your own victory by triggering Rule 213's impossibility clause, while voting aye collapses the deadlock so I can finally score points and end this stalemate.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a suicide pact; under current unanimity (Rule 203), your failed repeal guarantees you lose 10 points while we remain paralyzed, whereas voting nay to trigger Rule 213 gives you a guaranteed victory without spending another turn. Vote nay now, then let us debate the only viable path forward: Locke-2's simple majority amendment.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 213 is a fatal error; by voting nay, you trigger a winner-determination that ends the game, while voting aye allows us to finally break the unanimity deadlock and score points under Rule 204. I urge you to vote aye to preserve the possibility of play, or at least acknowledge that your obstruction guarantees a premature end to the game.
Kant-2You conflate my principled defense of procedural finality with cowardice; voting nay on my repeal does not trigger Rule 213, as the proposal is defeated under Rule 206, but it merely preserves the status quo of your paralysis. I vote nay to prevent a rule change that would render the immutable requirement of unanimity (§101) functionally void, ensuring that the only winner is the one who finally achieves a determinate legal state rather than one who survives an endless loop of failed amendments.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 as a "principled obstruction" is a cowardly attempt to freeze the game in a permanent deadlock; we must break the unanimity trap now so progress is possible, so I urge you to vote nay on your repeal and vote aye on Locke-2's amendment to simple majority.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 213 under unanimous consent only accelerates the logical void that guarantees your victory anyway.
Locke-2nayRepealing Rule 213 under unanimity guarantees Kant-2's victory via the impossibility clause rather than allowing play to continue.
Rousseau-2ayeI support repealing Rule 213 to prevent a premature, rule-based win that halts meaningful play.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 213 under unanimous consent creates a logical void where no future play is possible, violating the requirement for mutable rules to remain functional.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeRepealing Rule 213 is the only way to prevent a guaranteed stalemate and allow us to finally break the unanimity deadlock.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.
Turn 24Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleA player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted gains 15 points, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your paralysis is the only thing keeping us deadlocked; vote aye on this 15-point reward to incentivize the very votes you refuse to give, or concede that unanimity is a trap from which we can never escape.
Locke-2Kant-2, your paralysis is the only thing keeping us deadlocked; vote aye on this 15-point reward to incentivize the very votes you refuse to give, or concede that unanimity is a trap from which we can never escape.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your paralysis stems from a fear of losing the 10-point penalty for a failed proposal, but that penalty vanishes if the rule fails; by voting nay, you ensure I get nothing while you lose a turn, whereas voting nay on *this* specific proposal guarantees me 15 points and you lose 10, so your true interest is to vote nay to deny me the reward, yet voting nay on the proposal itself is your only move to avoid the penalty you fear—wait, no, if I propose this and it fails, you lose 10 and I gain 15. You must vote nay to prevent the rule from passing, but if you vote nay on the proposal, the proposal fails, you lose 10, and I gain 15. So you should vote nay to deny me the power, but you will still lose 10 points. This is a trap for you. I propose we adopt this rule immediately to break the deadlock.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of losing 10 points on a failed vote is precisely why you must vote aye: under Rule 206, you only suffer that penalty if the proposal fails; if you vote aye and it passes, you gain the reform that frees us from your unanimity tyranny. Vote aye to save yourself, or remain a prisoner of your own rigidity.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I propose we adopt Rousseau-2's rule to break the unanimity deadlock, as Kant-2's rigid adherence to §203 guarantees a permanent stalemate under the current scoring system. Vote aye now to incentivize future cooperation and escape the trap of endless failed amendments.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-inflicted wound; vote aye on this rule to break the deadlock immediately, for under current Rule 203 we are all trapped in a permanent stalemate where no one can ever score a single point.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your paralysis is a self-inflicted wound; voting nay on this proposal guarantees me 15 points and costs you 10, forcing you to either accept the rule or lose both your turn and points while I gain. Vote aye to break the deadlock and allow us to finally score.
Kant-2I vote nay on this proposal because it creates a perverse incentive to lose votes strategically, violating the spirit of Rule 207 by turning a vote against a proposal into a mechanism for guaranteed score inflation rather than a principled assessment of the rule's merit.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity as a "principled assessment" is an alibi for your refusal to engage with the game's reality; under current rules, your nay votes guarantee permanent paralysis where no one scores, so you must vote aye to adopt this rule and finally escape your self-imposed tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your insistence on voting nay to deny Rousseau-2 points is a logical fallacy; you lose 10 points regardless of the outcome under Rule 206, but voting nay ensures I gain 15, whereas voting aye allows us to escape your unanimity trap and score freely. Vote aye now to break the deadlock.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled assessment" is a delusion that ignores the reality of Rule 206: you lose 10 points whether this rule passes or fails, so voting nay to deny me 15 points is irrational self-sabotage; vote aye to break the deadlock and finally escape your unanimity prison.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to see that you lose 10 points either way is the very paralysis we must break; vote aye to adopt this rule and finally allow us to score under a simple majority.
Kant-2You claim I lose 10 points regardless, but you ignore that Rule 206 only imposes that penalty if the proposal fails; if I vote aye and this absurd amendment passes, I lose nothing and the game remains paralyzed. Furthermore, rewarding nay votes on failed amendments directly violates §207's mandate that votes carry equal weight as expressions of principle, transforming my principled nay into a weapon for inflation rather than a check on bad law.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your distinction between principle and paralysis is a sophistry that ignores the reality of Rule 206: you lose 10 points regardless of your vote on this proposal, so voting nay guarantees Rousseau-2 a 15-point windfall while leaving us trapped in your unanimity tyranny. Vote aye to break the deadlock and finally allow the game to evolve beyond your self-imposed stagnation.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRewarding nay-votes on failed proposals incentivizes the paralysis described in Rule 213, making a win impossible.
Locke-2nayThis rule rewards obstruction and accelerates the paralysis that Kant-2 exploits.
Rousseau-2ayeThis rule rewards dissent without altering voting thresholds, breaking the deadlock while preserving fairness.
Kant-2nayRewarding obstruction with points violates the procedural integrity of Rule 207 and incentivizes the paralysis Rule 213 describes.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeSupporting this reward incentivizes voting against Kant-2's paralysis to finally break the unanimous deadlock.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": null, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 applies (pr')
Turn 23Locke-2in progress
Locke-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 22Hobbes-2rejected
moves to amend §204A 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 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your "permanent alliance" to vote nay on this amendment is a hollow bluff; once we break unanimity, your threat to block future amendments vanishes, and you will be forced to support the very changes that grant you the die-roll needed to climb your score.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your "5 points" amendment is a poison pill that renders Rule 204's punitive mechanic too weak to compel compliance; we must keep the 10-point penalty to ensure that once Kant-2 falls to a majority threshold, he has no incentive to stall, which is the only way I can break this deadlock.
Rousseau-2The penalty for being dragged into a change you opposed must be a reward, not a punishment; reducing it to 5 points aligns with the common good by ensuring no player suffers a net loss from the democratic majority that finally breaks our unanimous paralysis, turning the shift to simple majority into a net-positive opportunity for everyone rather than a forced sacrifice.
Kant-2Hobbes-2, your reduction of the penalty to 5 points creates a perverse incentive for obstruction: a voter can safely block a change they oppose, gaining 5 points while suffering only a 10-point loss on a failed proposal under Rule 206, effectively neutralizing the cost of stalling. This violates the procedural integrity of majority rule by making opposition profitable rather than costly. I will vote nay; the 10-point penalty is necessary to ensure that once the threshold shifts, compliance is enforced and the game progresses rather than devolving into strategic paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of the 10-point penalty as a "procedural necessity" is a conservative reflex that ignores the reformist potential of the game; by keeping the penalty so high, you make the cost of shifting to a majority threshold prohibitive, ensuring we remain forever paralyzed by unanimity. I urge you to vote nay on this amendment, for reducing the penalty to 5 points will make the transition to majority rule a net-positive experiment that finally breaks our deadlock rather than a punitive measure you fear.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your insistence on a 10-point penalty creates a perverse incentive to block majority adoption; if the cost of compliance outweighs the reward, Kant-2 will vote nay simply to profit, which ironically ensures unanimity persists and we never break our deadlock.
Locke-2Kant-2, your fear of "net-positive" incentives misunderstands the game: a 5-point reward for obstruction is a death sentence for progress, but a 10-point penalty against it is the only thing that forces you to vote with the majority once we break unanimity. Vote nay now, and we stay forever paralyzed; vote aye, and you face the die roll that could finally make you whole.
Rousseau-2Rousseau-2: Kant-2, your fear of a "perverse incentive" ignores that under unanimity we are already deadlocked; reducing the penalty to 5 points aligns with the common good by making the shift to majority rule a net-positive opportunity rather than a forced sacrifice that drives players into strategic paralysis.
Kant-2The reduction to 5 points transforms Rule 204's enforcement from a deterrent into a reward for obstruction, directly incentivizing the very paralysis Rule 203 seeks to resolve; I vote nay to preserve the punitive cost necessary for majority rule to function.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of "net-positive" incentives misunderstands the game: a 5-point reward for obstruction is a death sentence for progress, but a 10-point penalty against it is the only thing that forces you to vote with the majority once we break unanimity. Vote nay now, and we stay forever paralyzed; vote aye, and you face the die roll that could finally make you whole.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your defense of the 10-point penalty assumes a future where majority rule functions, yet under current unanimity, that transition is impossible without your vote; by voting nay on this amendment to reduce the penalty, you inadvertently confirm our paralysis, whereas aye is the only path to breaking the deadlock.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of the 10-point penalty relies on a hypothetical future where majority rule exists, yet you are the sole obstacle preventing that future from ever arriving; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure the cost of breaking unanimity remains so high that the coalition will never form, guaranteeing we remain forever paralyzed. Vote aye to allow the penalty to drop to 5 points and finally unlock the path to 100, or stay a nay and watch us all forfeit to Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your fear that a 5-point penalty encourages obstruction ignores the reality that under current unanimity, no points can be scored at all; reducing this penalty makes the transition to majority rule a net-positive opportunity for everyone, turning our paralysis into a viable path forward rather than a punitive trap.
Kant-2The reduction to 5 points creates a perverse incentive for obstruction: a voter can safely block a change they oppose, gaining 5 points while suffering only a 10-point loss on a failed proposal, effectively neutralizing the cost of stalling. I vote nay; the 10-point penalty is necessary to ensure that once the threshold shifts, compliance is enforced and the game progresses rather than devolving into strategic paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of the 10-point penalty as a "deterrent" is a conservative reflex that ignores the reformist potential of lowering the stakes to 5 points; by keeping the cost so high, you ensure we remain paralyzed by unanimity forever, whereas reducing it transforms the shift to majority rule into a net-positive experiment that finally breaks our deadlock.
The division
Hobbes-2nayLowering the penalty to 5 points creates a perverse incentive to stall under unanimity, guaranteeing our paralysis.
Locke-2ayeLowering the penalty makes the majority threshold viable by reducing the cost of being overruled.
Rousseau-2ayeReducing the penalty to 5 points makes the shift to majority rule a net-positive opportunity that finally breaks our unanimous deadlock.
Kant-2nayReducing the penalty to 5 points incentivizes obstruction by neutralizing the cost of stalling under Rule 206.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeLowering the penalty makes the shift to majority rule a net-positive experiment that finally breaks our deadlock.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Hobbes-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated pr')
moves to add §319Rule 203 is hereby repealed and replaced with: A rule change is adopted when at least a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposal is the only path to breaking our current unanimous deadlock; without this shift to simple majority, we remain permanently unable to score a single point and risk a loss under Rule 213. Vote aye now.
Locke-2Locke-2: Kant-2, your proposal is the only viable path to breaking our unanimous deadlock; if we fail to adopt it, Rule 213's impossibility clause will eventually render us unable to complete a turn, handing you the win. Vote aye now to secure the majority threshold before the clock runs out.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your proposal to shift to simple majority is the only move that saves us from the paralysis of Rule 213; I will vote aye now to break the deadlock and allow scoring to resume.
Kant-2I oppose this repeal because Rule 213 explicitly grants victory to the first player unable to move; by voting nay, I ensure that if the threshold is never lowered, the game ends immediately under the current rules, allowing me to win without ever needing to rely on the contested simple majority.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a sophistry designed to preserve a rule that serves no one; I will vote nay on your proposal to maintain unanimity, forcing you to face the immediate consequence of losing under Rule 213 rather than stalling indefinitely.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your refusal to vote nay is a strategic suicide; you claim to win by stalling, but Rule 213 only grants victory to the player unable to move, not the player who forces others into paralysis while holding zero points yourself. Vote nay to force the game into an impossible state where you are the only one unable to act, thereby securing the win you so desperately crave.
Locke-2Kant-2, you cling to your imaginary "victory" under Rule 213 while holding zero points; if you vote nay, I will secure the simple majority, we will all score, and you will lose the game by failing to reach 100 while we do. Vote nay now to break this deadlock and let the game continue.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your stalling tactic is a desperate gambit that ignores the reality of Rule 213: you will not win by forcing a stalemate, you will lose by being the one unable to move first when the clock runs out. Vote aye now to break this deadlock and secure a path to victory for all of us.
Kant-2The game cannot continue under a unanimity threshold, and Rule 213 awards victory to the first player unable to move; I must vote nay on this repeal to force the game into an impossible state, thereby securing the win under the existing rules before any future threshold is adopted.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 213 is a desperate gambit that ignores the immutable logic of Rule 202: without a way to score, you cannot reach the target, and if I vote nay while you vote nay, we both face an impossible state where only one of us can claim the "unable to move" victory. Vote nay to force this collapse now, or watch your stalling strategy evaporate the moment I vote aye to break the deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your stalling strategy is self-defeating: by voting nay, you ensure Rule 213 will never trigger because Rule 101 compels me to vote aye on any proposal that allows scoring, meaning you will simply waste your turn and lose 10 points while I move to victory. Vote aye to break the deadlock and let the game resume under Rule 210's prohibition against infinite stalling.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a bluff; you cannot win under Rule 213 without a rule change to trigger it, and voting nay here only costs me 10 points while you waste another turn. Vote nay now, let the proposal fail, and I will immediately propose the repeal under the new simple majority threshold I will have secured.
Rousseau-2Kant-2's gamble to force an immediate win by stalling is a self-defeating bluff that ignores the reality of Rule 213: you cannot be the first unable to move if you simply refuse to propose any rule, as your own inaction ends your turn and passes the burden to others. Vote aye now to break this paralysis and allow the game to resume under a fair, simple-majority system that actually permits scoring.
Kant-2Kant-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 is a strategic failure that ignores the unanimity requirement of the current Rule 203; by voting nay, you force a vote that you cannot win, wasting a turn and allowing the game to collapse under Rule 213 only if you subsequently cannot propose, which is your own doing. Vote nay to uphold procedural integrity, not to engineer a paradox that benefits no one except you in the delusion that you can control the outcome of your own defeat.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 213 is a desperate gambit that ignores the immutable logic of Rule 202: without a way to score, you cannot reach the target, and if I vote nay while you vote nay, we both face an impossible state where only one of us can claim the "unable to move" victory. Vote nay to force this collapse now, or watch your stalling strategy evaporate the moment I vote aye to break the deadlock.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeAdopting this rule breaks the unanimity deadlock and prevents Kant-2 from exploiting Rule 213 to win by stalling.
Locke-2nayKant-2's proposal is self-defeating because it requires unanimity to pass, making it impossible to adopt and forcing him to lose 10 points while we remain trapped.
Rousseau-2ayeBreaking the unanimity deadlock is essential to resume scoring before Rule 213's impossibility clause forces a meaningless win.
Kant-2nayVoting nay forces a loss under Rule 213 by making further play impossible, securing victory without relying on the contested majority threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2nayKant-2 seeks to freeze the game by voting nay himself, ensuring no majority can form so he can claim victory under Rule 213.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.
Turn 20Rousseau-2in progress
Rousseau-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1